Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[IceFractal]

One thing I've noticed in 4E so far - there are precious few ways to nonviolently subdue someone, no matter how much lower level they are. The innkeeper gets possessed and attacks you? Guess you're going to have to kill him, or else run away.


What I'm talking about specifically:
1) Trip is now a per-encounter power for only specific classes. Disarm may be as well, and is certainly not a general option. You could easily have a party with no access to these.

2) Grapple only stops someone from moving, not from attacking. Pinning, if it even exists, is presumably a martial class power. So no matter if you're Hercules wrestling a goblin, you can't pin it.

3) Spells all seem to do damage along with their effects - even spells like Sleep! It's to the extent where I bet a Charm Person spell, if it existed, would do something like: "2d10+4 damage, and target is charmed, save ends."

4) Which brings me to another point: spells have very short durations. Even the world's greatest archmage only has at most a 43% chance to put someone to sleep, and any charm, mind-control, or petrifying spells probably last only until save ends (so 1-2 rounds, maybe 3).

5) In general, the design attitude seems to be "anything except whittling through the opponent's full HP is unfun", and any abilties that can bypass this are avoided.


Now against equal or higher level foes, I can understand this. It's pretty anti-climactic if the Pit Fiend gets unlucky in round 2, gets petrified, and now the battle is over. Or if the Mummy King keeps getting tripped and can't reach anyone.

But against significantly lower-level foes, or at great risk when you have no choice, it should be possible to incapacitate someone without killing them. This could be easily accomplished by simply having options like Trip and Disarm be present for all (but risky and not usually effective without a power), and by having some spells that flat-out immobilize foes who are weak enough.

But no, apparently 4E combat is always in normal circumstances against evenly-matched foes who don't want anything to interrupt their thrilling grinding away at each-other's HP.


And now the point of nonlethal damage - I don't think it's a good solution. First off, there's no reason to assume spells can even do nonlethal damage - they couldn't in previous editions, and nothing has been said to the contrary. Secondly, nonlethal damage is not really a nonviolent solution. If the mayor is possessed and your solution is to beat the crap out of him, expect the city guard to have a problem with that.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I take it you have seen the complete playtest rules?

Seriously, why are you making assumptions that no other options exist because we haven't seen them yet?

 

[Asmor]

You could make killing optional. For example, whenever a PC deals the "killing blow," the PC can choose to leave the mook mortally wounded or just unconscious and able to be saved.

 

[BricWuzzy]

3) Spells all seem to do damage along with their effects - even spells like Sleep! It's to the extent where I bet a Charm Person spell, if it existed, would do something like: "2d10+4 damage, and target is charmed, save ends."

Sleep
Attack +5 vs Will
Hit: The target is slowed(save ends). If the target fails its first saving throw against this power, the target becomes unconcious( save ends)
Miss: The target is slowed

No where does it say sleep does any damage along with its effects.

 

[Jdvn1]

4E takes no prisoners.

 

[DandD]

I'd say we wait for finding out how the non-lethal damage game mechanics work in D&D 4th edition, before we complain that it's impossible to do so.

 

[Insight]

I'm getting "I haven't seen the full rules yet I want to complain" fatigue.

Basing anything on the previews and the dungeon delves is more than a little foolhardy. We won't have solid answers until the PHB hits the shelves. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

All we have right now are hints and clues about what 4E will be like. That's all. Throwing up one's hands and crying foul makes people look a little childish at this point.

 

[fafhrd]

In some thread somewhere, it was said that you could make any attack non-lethal.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm getting "I haven't seen the full rules yet I want to complain" fatigue.

Basing anything on the previews and the dungeon delves is more than a little foolhardy. We won't have solid answers until the PHB hits the shelves. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

All we have right now are hints and clues about what 4E will be like. That's all. Throwing up one's hands and crying foul makes people look a little childish at this point.

I have a question why is it wrong to have questions and concerns about 4E based on the fact that we don't have all the answers but it is okay ot be totally thrilled with the new rule set when we don't have all the answers?

I have had people say how can you make a decsion not to switch if you have not read the PHB and I have to wonder how can you say you will be switching if you have not read the PHB.

Voicing ones concerns about how a rule works ia not childish. The way you sound why are we even bothering discussing anything about 4E because we don't have the entire rule set in front of us.

To the OP after reading a lot of the reviews and looking at what we do know I have had some of the same concerns as you on this subject.

I was wondering how the rules was going to handle this. I suppose you can do non lethal damage but that requires beating on someone until they drop and as you pointed out and that is not always the way you want go.

If it turns out that only some classes can disarm you could house rule it that anyone can try it is just harder for them because they are not trained in disarming.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Having to knock someone unconscious via hp attrition seems a heckuva lot fairer than using an instant shutdown power.