| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1evilkobraFeb 18, 2009 9:06:50 | Unsatisfied with the "choose when the target reaches 0hp" rule, here is the variant our group will be using from now on: --- A player may choose to make non-lethal attacks to subdue a target. The following restrictions apply:
The creature becomes unconscious when it reaches 0hp. Its physical condition depends on the kind of damage that first Bloodied it and that left it Unconscious. BLOODIED/UNCONSCIOUS Subdual/Subdual --------> Unharmed Lethal/Subdual --------> Wounded but stable Subdual/Lethal --------> Wounded and dying Lethal/Lethal --------> Dead |
| #2masteraaronFeb 18, 2009 9:24:56 | If you want to run it this way, I suggest (for the sake of your players' RP desires to take prisoners) giving NPCs that they try to knock unconscious the same death threshold that PCs get. As in, doesn't automatically die until it reaches negative bloodied value, three death saves, all that jazz. The assumption behind "dead at zero hp" is that there isn't anything around to treat a dead monster's wounds, and that any regeneration abilities it possesses are suppressed due to massive trauma. If the players actively try to save an enemy's life with first aid and healing, those assumptions are no longer operative and that enemy should have as much chance of survival as a character. Also, Psychic damage should probably be able to knock a target unconscious, while ongoing damage of any type should always be Lethal. |
| #3evilkobraFeb 18, 2009 11:04:40 | If you want to run it this way, I suggest (for the sake of your players' RP desires to take prisoners) giving NPCs that they try to knock unconscious the same death threshold that PCs get. As in, doesn't automatically die until it reaches negative bloodied value, three death saves, all that jazz. The assumption behind "dead at zero hp" is that there isn't anything around to treat a dead monster's wounds, and that any regeneration abilities it possesses are suppressed due to massive trauma. If the players actively try to save an enemy's life with first aid and healing, those assumptions are no longer operative and that enemy should have as much chance of survival as a character. One problem with that is that monster HP and character HP are not really comparable. At any given level, an NPC/creature has many, many more HP than a PC - thus the "death by excess damage" would be extremely rare, and altogether impossible for elites and solos. On the other hand, that approach is effectively "fireball first, cure serious wounds later". It might be OK when they simply want one enemy alive for questioning, but it's wholly inappropriate for handling civilians or any other creature whom you don't wish to harm at all if possible. Also, Psychic damage should probably be able to knock a target unconscious, while ongoing damage of any type should always be Lethal. Agreed. An oversight on my part. Thanks for pointing it out - I have now revised the OP accordingly. |
| #4masteraaronFeb 18, 2009 11:30:38 | On the other hand, that approach is effectively "fireball first, cure serious wounds later". It might be OK when they simply want one enemy alive for questioning, but it's wholly inappropriate for handling civilians or any other creature whom you don't wish to harm at all if possible. Hmm, I see your point. Why not just keep the zero hp rule, and add a clarification that Area and Close effects do not apply? That would address the problem of dropping fireballs into a crowd while simultaneously letting your players take prisoners effectively. |
| #51shmaelFeb 18, 2009 11:38:08 | Looks good. This is far better than what I was trying to develop. The use of the Bloodied status as a primary threshold is perfect. I personally would increase the penalty to -4, with the additional -1 per square distance to the target. I would further render your semantics consistant, eliminating the use of "subdual" and using instead "non-lethal". I would make the Lethal/Non-lethal damage combination also produce a wounded and dying enemy. Lastly, any player who makes a non-lethal attack grants combat advantage to the target. The attack roll penalty and status is really about how hard you want it to be to use non-lethal damage. The Combat Advantage penalty, however, really does reflect the primary disadvantage of non-lethal force: It isn't as effective at discouraging attacks (non-lethal attacks lack "stoppng power"). [INDENT] Non-Lethal Attack Variant
When you use a non-lethal variant of any attack, you grant combat advantage to the target.[/INDENT] [INDENT] Knocking Creatures Unconscious When a creature is reduced to 0hp, its physical condition depends on the kind of damage that reduced it to 0hp and the kind of damage that first left it Bloodied. BLOODIED/ZERO HIT POINTS OR LESS Non-Lethal/Non-Lethal --------> Unconscious and Unharmed Lethal/Non-Lethal --------> Wounded and dying Non-Lethal/Lethal --------> Wounded and dying Lethal/Lethal --------> Dead Unless otherwise specified, a dying enemy dies after three rounds if not stabalized.[/INDENT] Now of course, if the opponent is non-hostile, the DM ought to Role Play the possiiblity that a defender realizes its enemies intend no harm, if the attacks are consistently non-lethal. Is a rule required for this? Something about an Insight Check when combatants are neutral, good or lawful good? Or do we just wing it? |
| #6evilkobraFeb 18, 2009 12:05:50 | I personally would increase the penalty to -4, with the additional -1 per square distance to the target. This is probably more realistic, but I don't think my players would agree, and would discourage and frustrate them: a very large proportion of supposedly non-lethal attacks will either miss or do lethal damage... I would further render your semantics consistant, eliminating the use of "subdual" and using instead "non-lethal". Ah yes, that's just an artifact of these boards. In my original version (in internal office e-mail) I use Non-Lethal, and my table is properly tabulated and so on. When copying to the forums, the tabulation was lost and I thought using the word Subdual made it look clearer and less messy. So we agree on this ;) I would make the Lethal/Non-lethal damage combination also produce a wounded and dying enemy. Hmmm I don't know, I liked the distinction between stable and dying. You could've broken someone's legs, cut off his hand, or otherwise dealt long-lasting, but not life-threatening, damage. Lastly, any player who makes a non-lethal attack grants combat advantage to the target. Eeeep, that's a big one. The reasoning is not without merit, but I know my players would not accept it. I suppose you could say "take an extra -2 OR grant CA", depending on how careful they want to be... but that would be stepping on some feats' and powers' toes.
Good point! Agreed. It will typically be decided once at the beginning of combat anyway ("we absolutely want the prince unharmed, so we'll take the careful option whenever we attack him - but not for his guards"), so it shouldn't be a big deal. Unless otherwise specified, a dying enemy dies after three rounds if not stabalized. Aye. I didn't explicitly mention it because the "dying" condition is already well-defined in the PHB. Now of course, if the opponent is non-hostile, the DM ought to Role Play the possiiblity that a defender realizes its enemies intend no harm, if the attacks are consistently non-lethal. Is a rule required for this? Something about an Insight Check when combatants are neutral, good or lawful good? Or do we just wing it? I'd wing it, just like e.g. fleeing. It doesn't depend on aligment as much as effective intelligence and assessment of the situation... a harmless civilian who goes into a panic or is frenzied by drugs/spells/etc will defend himself fiercely regardless of alignment, methinks. |
| #71shmaelFeb 18, 2009 12:50:58 | Hmmm I don't know, I liked the distinction between stable and dying. You could've broken someone's legs, cut off his hand, or otherwise dealt long-lasting, but not life-threatening, damage. I just really want to make certain that lethal damage isn't taken lightly by the players. They can't assume they can cut-up Maid Marion until she's bloodied, knowing they can just heal her wounds later. If she's wounded, she may die. Simple as that. Remember. Your system doesn't mean lethal attacks can't be made. Your system requires that players be very cautious about making them. They want to avoid having their targets cross one of the two HP thresholds by virtue of a lethal attack. This is the beauty of your system! I suppose you could say "take an extra -2 OR grant CA", depending on how careful they want to be... How about this then:
That will really encourage them to err on the side of lethality, without forcing players to grant combat advantage everytime they attempt to take a prisoner. If they really want to be carful, they will have to fight at a disadvantage. On the other hand, they can be less careful and keep themselves relatively safe. BTW - Love the fact that full damage is always lethal, as well as critical hits. Really underlies the fact that even tasers sometimes kill people. There's no such way as to "safely" hit someone with a stick. Aye. I didn't explicitly mention it because the "dying" condition is already well-defined in the PHB. It's more complicated in the PHB though, isn't it? Three failed saving throws, etc. I've suggested simplifying the "dying" condition for monsters. I'd wing it, just like e.g. fleeing. Then remember to add in some bonuses to the check if the players are being extra-extra carful. :-) |
| #81shmaelFeb 21, 2009 21:59:38 | Here is the write-up of the rule proposed by EvilKobra, in the form in which I plan to incorporate it into my game. Death and Dying Modified - Knocking Creatures Unconscious |