Should there be special rules for subduing dragons?

[Rune]

In days of yore, there was a way to capture dragons by subduing them. Should the new edition follow suit?

 

[El Mahdi]

Sure. How about a 1d100 roll. On a 1-100 you automatically die, on any other result you succeed...

*(just joking)


How did it work in past games? Do you have a sample of the old mechanics?

 

[Rune]

How did it work in past games? Do you have a sample of the old mechanics?

In AD&D, you declared that you were going to do it before beginning combat, and then attacked as normal, with some weapons being better at it than others. Hit point damage was converted to a ratio, which then was converted to a percentage chance that the dragon would surrender and allow itself to be captured.

I don't remember how it was done in Basic D&D, but it was probably less complex.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't remember how it was done in Basic D&D, but it was probably less complex.

You declared you were striking to subdue. There might have been a penalty on the attack rolls, I don't recall. Anyway, once you'd dealt enough "subdual damage" that the dragon would have been dead if you were striking to kill, the dragon recognized your superior prowess and surrendered.

I always thought it was a dumb rule. Morale should cover it.

 

[Li Shenron]

In days of yore, there was a way to capture dragons by subduing them. Should the new edition follow suit?

If you mean that the PCs should be able to choose whether they want to subdue or capture a dragon (or any other monster) rather than killing them, of course yes... how can you disallow that? They can do what they want!

If you mean whether there should be additional rules for that, no. I think this can be handled without additional rules, but if you want some rules to make the option widely available, I think a small rule would be enough, e.g. making it so that the PCs can declare they are trying not to kill the monster but rather subdue it (in 3ed you could have used subdual damage, in 5ed playtest rules it is enough that the last blow(s) before the monster drops below 0 are declared non-lethal). Of course the DM may still overrule that some monsters or NPCs simply refuse to surrender...

 

[Mattachine]

Until I was about 15 or so, I thought it was cool. Then, I thought, if dragons are intelligent, often spellcasters, sometimes geniuses, why would they be subdued? Also, why couldn't other creatures be subdued? Why do dragons have this vulnerability, but not other creatures? Why would the dragon then be your willing servant?

Dragons-as-treasure was just silly, perhaps an outgrowth from some old miniatures rule.

 

[Mattachine]

If you mean that the PCs should be able to choose whether they want to subdue or capture a dragon (or any other monster) rather than killing them, of course yes... how can you disallow that? They can do what they want!

In the old rules, the dragon didn't just surrender, it became your henchman, essentially.

 

[the Jester]

No, not like you are referring to.

Dragons shouldn't fold like a kitten because you smack them a few times. If anything, you should be able to knock one out by dealing nonlethal damage- just like any other monster. But NO WAY should dragons be easier to subdue than other monsters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rather than a rule about turning damage into a "contest of strength," I'd like rules for any monster on how to recruit them/cow them/make them surrender without knocking them out. Sounds like fun. I wanna lead a kobold army.

 

[Scribble]

Stuff like this demonstrates that the 1e rules seem to be built based on:

Gary's group decides to Do X... Gary comes up with some rules to do X (maybe on the fly).

Later when it's all collected into the 1e books it becomes "official" by virtue of being in a book.

I think that's kind of something I liked about the earlier editions... They were just cobbled together rules that people found fun for doing X...