Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[Betote]

Am I the only one who thinks that, being healing treated the way it is in 4E, the concept of "subdual" or "non-lethal" damage would be pointless?

Ir you can heal almost fully between encounters via healing surges, separating damage that wears off after an enconter from another damage that would heal even faster seems silly.

I sincerely hope that the only mention to non-lethal damage in 4E will be something similar to "when you drop an enemy's hp below 0, you choose if you kill him or render him unconscious".

 

[Elf Witch]

My guess is that you can describe it as the ability to vary the heat level of the fireball (making it very hot but not burning, so enough to make someone pass out), or even allowing the effect of sucking all the air out of an area from the fire without any heat effect from the fire (which would also make someone pass out).

This is one of those things that because of my real life experiance as a nurse and dating a firefigter at one time blows my ability to suspend by disbelief. Anything hot enough to make you pass out is going to do some lung damage.

This would be one of those roll my eyes moments.

But it is an easy fix house rule it so it can't do non lethal damage or house rule it so that magical healing is needed to fully recover from it or it takes more time to recover and until you do there is some kind of penalty.

 

[rkanodia]

When I played the preview events at DDXP, my DM said that any attack could be declared as non-lethal with no penalty (even spells, which seems silly...). Also, apparently it's the final attack that determines whether an opponent is killed or merely knocked unconscious.

Sounds good to me. I liked the 3E system of nonlethal damage at first, but the way that healing 'double-dipped' on healing nonlethal and lethal damage produced weird side effects. For instance, if someone punches you for 10 points of damage, then punches you for 5 more points of damage, and then you get healed for 10, you are sitting with 5 points of nonlethal damage. However, if someone punches you for 10 points of damage, then stabs you for 5 more points of damage, and then you get healed for 10, you are completely uninjured. I dunno about anyone else, but a system which could encourage people to PREFER taking lethal over nonlethal damage seems pretty weird to me

I guess what it boils down to is that the increased level of bookkeeping didn't really provide extra verisimilitude for me.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

What in the world do you possibly base this on?

I have a feeling you need to read that a little more carefully:

It is more reasonable to say "I like what I've seen so far" than to say "I don't like what I haven't seen so far."

Emphasis mine.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Against an equal or higher level foe, sure. But the OP explicitly addressed that. There's no particular need to be "fair" with how you deal with someone that the PCs could kill outright but don't want to. Fair in that case is having options.

The increased focus on "abstract" hp and conviction of many that in 4e you won't injure someone until you kill them also adds a wrinkle - what is non lethal damage in a system where you supposedly aren't taking damage to begin with?

I thought this would be obvious, actually. All damage is nonlethal, right up until the point at which you deliver the final blow (which you choose to be either lethal or nonlethal). IOW, what MeepoTheMighty's DDXP DM did.

 

[maggot]

Instead, we got another "4e hates roleplaying" rant.

Where exactly is this rant?

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Also, apparently it's the final attack that determines whether an opponent is killed or merely knocked unconscious.

Meh. Still has the problem of "Okay team, let's murder his face off!"

...And then after you've impaled him 4 times, you slap him across the face once, and it's prisoner taken, mission accomplished.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Or not. Did you skip the point at which it was suggested that 4e is making it explicit that all damage delivered right up to the killing blow is effectively just "wearing the enemy down," not actually inflicting permanent physical damage?

So it's not stabbing the enemy four times and then slapping him across the face; it's hacking away at the enemy until he's wearied and his defenses are down, and then either delivering a killing blow or knocking him out. Much more "simulative" of D&D's genre inspirations than the other way.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I thought this would be obvious, actually. All damage is nonlethal, right up until the point at which you deliver the final blow (which you choose to be either lethal or nonlethal). IOW, what MeepoTheMighty's DDXP DM did.

This would be one way of doing it, and if 4e takes the abstractness seriously and builds from it, it is what they might do. But if they have (for instance) whips which can only do non lethal damage at any point in the fight (as opposed to being unable to deliver a killing blow and even that I'm sketchy on) as in 3e, there is a disconnect.

While it's more bookkeeping, I prefer a system where you can accidentally kill someone you are trying to subdue, or have someone you meant to kill be only unconsious (and not dying by default).

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Or not. Did you skip the point at which it was suggested that 4e is making it explicit that all damage delivered right up to the killing blow is effectively just "wearing the enemy down," not actually inflicting permanent physical damage?

It doesn't seem to make the claim, unless "Bloodied" means "Not actually bloodied."