Non lethal/Subdual Damage

[Markn]

I'm sure I read a reference to non lethal/subdual damage somewhere in the core books but for the life of me I can't find it. Can anybody point me to the reference?

Thanks.

 

[lukelightning]

There is no subdual/non-lethal damage in 4e. Instead, when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP you have the option of saying they are knocked-out instead of dead.

 

[TerraDave]

I find that to be a very ackward rule.

Basically it puts you in a position of deciding (at least implicitly) to kill something when you don't have to.

It would be better if there was someway to put a gloss on it...like there is somekind of extra effort...but not really sure what that gloss would be.

 

[Nytmare]

Basically it puts you in a position of deciding (at least implicitly) to kill something when you don't have to.

Whowhat?

The first step to implicitly not killing things is to implicitly not stick your sword into it.

 

[lukelightning]

I don't see it as the character deciding to kill someone or spare them, but rather the player having some control of the destiny/story of the game, deciding that the "killing blow" only knocked out the villain. So when you are looting the bodies you notice that Evilor the Evil is still breathing weakly, and you can drag him back to the Order of Goodiness to face Justice.

But if you are not interested in capturing him, you just decide that the last blow killed him instead.

 

[TerraDave]

Whowhat?

The first step to implicitly not killing things is to implicitly not stick your sword into it.

Thats just the rule! Its like the A-team, just becuase you are shooting automatic weapons does not mean someone has to get hurt...

 

[Nytmare]

Thats just the rule! Its like the A-team, just becuase you are shooting automatic weapons does not mean someone has to get hurt...

But how exactly is that rule implicitly forcing you to kill things?

 

[DracoSuave]

But how exactly is that rule implicitly forcing you to kill things?

Apparently giving someone the option to do something is like taking away the option to do that thing to some mindsets.

In otherwords, he's come to a conclusion that is completely opposite to the reality, i.e., that you can explicitly kill or not kill when you defeat a foe.

It's certainly more elegant than the old subdual/nonlethal rule of 3e which, ironicly enough, only cared about subdual damage at the end of the fight anyways. The new rule accomplishes the exact same result but allows it to occur with any attack, including eldritch blasts, etc.

 

[leifthelucky]

My houserule to make it take a little more effort to subdue/knockout a foe instead of killing them is this: when the PC hits for enough damage to kill a foe, they can either take the kill, or roll a second attack vs the target's Fortitude defense. If this attack succeeds as well, the target is KO'd; if not, he suffers no damage (or half, or whatever, so long as he still as a positive HP total, he can still fight). This way, it's a gamble the PC may not wish to take, and it represents how much harder it is to subdue physically tough foes (instead of, say, low-fort casters). Is this what you were looking for?

 

[DracoSuave]

However, it's realisticly easier to knock someone out than it is to kill them. People go unconscious from mortal wounds before they die from them, generally.