Non-lethal damage

[Herschel]

Who says that every hit was a solid hit, slicing the victim?

Considering how healing surges work, I see HP more as a sort of "it's just a scratch" pool. For me, the first solid hit drawing blood is the hit that knocks the target to bloodied, and the second really connecting hit is the one bringing you below 0 hp - and that's either a deathblow or a thump on the head, depending what the PC wants.

But then, I lean to see HP as sort of "plot protection".

Cheers, LT.

HP has always been partially physical damage though. Basically, the way I was taught and interpreted it was your starting HP are most of the physical damage you can take. The gain in HP with levels wasn't that you could take "more" damage really, but that you were able to anticipate and roll with the punches so each hit did less overall physical damage and this was easier than fractions.

Smaller slices, but still slices. The final hit is the final hit. The new mechanic doesn't make a lot of logical sense, it appears to be a simplified game mechanic. In old school, you announced you were swinging with the flat of your sword to do subdual damage for example. If you are trying to subdue someone/thing, you generally don't want it bleeding to death and THEN you try to staunch the bleeding. But, it also doesn't make sense to have the DM say "you have him at x HP" and then you change your damage or attack type either.

Again, not logical, but how in-depth do we really want to make subdual damage? I'm guessing a number of games almost never see a situation where you need to subdue. I think the old way made more logical sense and was extremely simple, but you also have a situation where a new version wants as many changes and streamlining as possible.

 

[mattdm]

When this came up in my game, the players didn't like it because they were fighting foes that they wanted the possibility of being on good terms with after the initial, uh, misunderstanding that led to conflict. The complaint was "hey, this dumbed-down edition sucks because there's no way to represent what I want to do: beat them up without hurting them".

But, of course, the old non-lethal/subdual system was kind of weird. I know that I personally in real life do not have a separate measure for real hurts and hurts which are going to somehow safely knock me out — and it particularly goes against the hp-as-more-than-damage, as has been nicely explained by like fifteen people in this thread.

So, the important thing is: we're not playing a computer game with a pre-programmed set of actions. You want to fight, uh, "gently" with the aim of not causing permanent harm, you tell me! I'm the one making up the monster/NPC reactions, and I'll take how you describe your actions into consideration.

 

[Herschel]

You want to fight, uh, "gently" with the aim of not causing permanent harm, you tell me! I'm the one making up the monster/NPC reactions, and I'll take how you describe your actions into consideration.

This is the way I feel it should work also. Still simple, more logical and still fits the parameters. There's so much cool stuff in 4e that I really like, (I bought ZERO 3.5 books, instead running and playing 1e and 2e games) but there's some stuff that just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is the way I feel it should work also.

If I understand mattdm correctly, he's saying that he runs the 4E mechanics as written.

I say "I club him over the back of the head with the pommel of my longsword" or "I hack at his chest with my longsword"; either way, I deal 1d8+Str damage. But when I shout "Stop! We don't want to kill you!", the DM may decide they're more likely to believe me if I described the hit that dealt 7 damage as clubbing with the pommel rather than hacking with the blade.

-Hyp.

 

[Herschel]

If I understand mattdm correctly, he's saying that he runs the 4E mechanics as written.

I say "I club him over the back of the head with the pommel of my longsword" or "I hack at his chest with my longsword"; either way, I deal 1d8+Str damage. But when I shout "Stop! We don't want to kill you!", the DM may decide they're more likely to believe me if I described the hit that dealt 7 damage as clubbing with the pommel rather than hacking with the blade.

-Hyp.

But different than how some others above are using it because of WHEN the declaration of subdual happens. Sanzuo states the literal writing. Lord Tirian, Dream Chaser and Cube Knight are trying to expand the definition of Hit Points without addressing the core issue: You attack differently to subdue than to kill. In game terms this means telling the DM your intent to subdue PRIOR to getting the opponent to 0 HP, not afterwards. This also gives the "bad guy" more impetus to surrender when he wouldn't think you are flat-out trying to kill him.

It's a little wonky because characters do have the negative HP buffer where bad guys generally don't (and PCs didn't originally either). That buffer has been expanding greatly in 4e (in many ways). I can see giving enemies somewhat "equal footing", but again, it doesn't change the fundamental difference of actually attempting to knock someone out or cutting them up and THEN trying to stop the bleeding.

 

[Danceofmasks]

If it's such an issue for you, turn the mechanics upside down.

Default is nonlethal. Everyone you defeat is just unconscious.
If you want to kill, you have to say so.
Then you can describe the killing blow.

 

[CubeKnight]

But different than how some others above are using it because of WHEN the declaration of subdual happens. Sanzuo states the literal writing. Lord Tirian, Dream Chaser and Cube Knight are trying to expand the definition of Hit Points without addressing the core issue: You attack differently to subdue than to kill. In game terms this means telling the DM your intent to subdue PRIOR to getting the opponent to 0 HP, not afterwards. This also gives the "bad guy" more impetus to surrender when he wouldn't think you are flat-out trying to kill him.

It's a little wonky because characters do have the negative HP buffer where bad guys generally don't (and PCs didn't originally either). That buffer has been expanding greatly in 4e (in many ways). I can see giving enemies somewhat "equal footing", but again, it doesn't change the fundamental difference of actually attempting to knock someone out or cutting them up and THEN trying to stop the bleeding.

We're not actually expanding the definition of HP. HP has never been just physical resistance. It's just that 4E makes it more obvius than older editions.

 

[DracoSuave]

Given the probable lack of expertise involving how to use weapons in this thread, I'll point out that fighting to subdue someone and fighting for a killing blow start out exactly the same, as you try to strip them of their defenses, until you get to that decisive blow.

If you think the new system ain't more 'realistic' you need to bother to pick up a sword some time in your life.

 

[DreamChaser]

It's a little wonky because characters do have the negative HP buffer where bad guys generally don't (and PCs didn't originally either). That buffer has been expanding greatly in 4e (in many ways). I can see giving enemies somewhat "equal footing", but again, it doesn't change the fundamental difference of actually attempting to knock someone out or cutting them up and THEN trying to stop the bleeding.

Honestly this I feel that this conversation may be pointless if any party is committed to this concept: that every strike before the last is a blood-drenched, kill-driven blow. There is nothing in the rules to support this and much to discount it. The cinematic aspects to D&D combat work more like Die Hard or Rocky than Friday the Thirteenth.

You and your enemies are slashing, dodging, parrying, and wearing each other down (sometimes enjoying a sudden burst "comeback" of energy in the form of a Second Wind). At some point, you'll have landed a strong or accurate blow and drawn blood from your opponent. You can see that the end is in sight. Then, finally, you see your opening: you can end this battle. You can: knock the enemy out with the pommel of your sword, wing them with an arrow, or launch a magic missile right at their face to destroy their head.

NOW, one somewhat dissonant part of several parts of 4e is that in some cases, the rules allow for the players to account for their players actions or opportunities after they have occurred. They essentially assume that are characters are better at combat that we are and they allow for cinematic opportunities that are technically "metagamed" in.

I like this because, well I"m not a trained fighter with a multicass in wizard. I like that the rules allow me to anticipate myself and don't penalize me for not killing.

DC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Given the probable lack of expertise involving how to use weapons in this thread, I'll point out that fighting to subdue someone and fighting for a killing blow start out exactly the same, as you try to strip them of their defenses, until you get to that decisive blow.

If you think the new system ain't more 'realistic' you need to bother to pick up a sword some time in your life.

I will assume that you are an expert swordsman and not debate the finer points of pulling punches in a life or death struggle but what about spells?

I cast fireball into that cluster of wounded orcs. Umm........kill orcs #1-3 and knock out #'s 4-6 so we can question them.