Should there be special rules for subduing dragons?

[slobo777]

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?

It was a bizarre rule specific to dragons, you had to declare at the start that your intent was to subdue the dragon, and your chances of success increased as you did more subdual damage. I never saw it in action.

Old school dragons also had unique progression (amonst monsters) - they had fixed hit dice, but hatchlings got assigned 1 hit point per die, and ancient dragons got the full 8 points.

Dragon subdual is an example of the bolt-on minigame with its own separate rules, typical of 1e and 2e games. To answer the OP, I'd say a clear "no" to having this in published rules. The few gamers who remember it fondly, and who also for some reason have upgraded to 5E rather than have a retro night with their original books and almost-spherical-with-use D20s - well, they can just go ahead and add it back in at the table. Everyone else can happily use whatever generic subdual opttions come with the core game.

Perhaps there's an argument for a "retro-" module with all the old school minigame goodies bundled up for an evening of nostalgia?

 

[Stormonu]

It was a bizarre rule specific to dragons, you had to declare at the start that your intent was to subdue the dragon, and your chances of success increased as you did more subdual damage. I never saw it in action.

I did, I was part of a group playing in Keep on the Borderlands where we subdued a black dragon (we caught it while asleep) [There is no dragon in KotB, the DM added this as an encounter]. I think we were 1st level, couldn't have been more experienced than 3rd.

I've always thought it was stupid that 1) It was limited to dragons and 2) If successful, you had a loyal dragon by beating the thing into submission.

I think there should be ways of dealing non-lethal damage, but the "strike to enslave" rules don't need to come back.

 

[Ellington]

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

Yes, but only for a Pokémon module.

 

[Agamon]

This ranks up there with the gender ability score mod rules as something from 1e that needs to be left dead. There should be no rules that make dragons become cowed to adventurers' whims.

From the poll results, I don't think some people quite understand what the OP meant.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You needed an option stronger than "No".

No special mechanics for how to handle highly esoteric cases. Just Say No!

Now, having general rules that will be applicable in a lot of special situations? Sure. The playtest is already halfway there with its rule on allowing a creature to choose to do non-lethal hit point damage (largely lifted from 4E). All you need on top of that is some general rules about how a creature might react if you knock it silly and take it prisoner when you could have killed it. Morale could certainly be a part of that.

If dragons have anything specific, it shouldn't be in the rules themselves, but features in their listing that controls how they react to those more general rules. Perhaps dragons are mostly smart but not wise, and this affects their reaction to being "captured." Or maybe they are wise, and this has a different effect. Or they have some kind of trait or other feature that makes them emulate the effect that the AD&D rules were aiming for, which was near as I could tell, dragons are hard to capture, but honor-bound to accept the results for awhile if you pull it off. That's all fine.

 

[BobTheNob]

Rules existed for mechanical definition of how to subdue a dragon? Ewww. Im glad I never saw them.

If you want to subdue a dragon, come up with a plan thats out of the box and play it out e.g. "(simple) one person lure him down a corridor where his neck will be exposed then put a weapon to the exposed bit and tell him to surrender!". Probably a good way to get yourself killed, but as a DM I would allow them to give it a shot.

But having some mechanical pattern built into the rules which the player just follow and arbitrarily sais at some point "the dragon is subdued". Seriously, a bit of vomit came into my mouth.

For my part, I will graciously decline this, and if it shows up in core rules, I will rip it out and offer it up in a burning ceromony to appease the gods of good game design.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Heck yes. In fact, the original rules worked pretty well ...

 

[pemerton]

No special mechanics for how to handle highly esoteric cases. Just Say No!

Now, having general rules that will be applicable in a lot of special situations? Sure.

<snip>

If dragons have anything specific, it shouldn't be in the rules themselves, but features in their listing that controls how they react to those more general rules.

<snip>

dragons are hard to capture, but honor-bound to accept the results for awhile if you pull it off. That's all fine.

Good post. And I think your interpretation of the intent of the subdual rules is correct.

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D needs better rules for subdual period. A battle to the death is not the only kind of battle.

 

[gloomhound]

Perhaps there's an argument for a "retro-" module with all the old school minigame goodies bundled up for an evening of nostalgia?

Oh hell yeah! I am so down with that!