You make some excellent arguments, and then ignore them all to "do what seems right for the good of the story." That gets the full thumbs up from me! :)
You make some excellent arguments, and then ignore them all to "do what seems right for the good of the story." That gets the full thumbs up from me! :)
I look forward to more discussions in the future.
Haha, well that sums my life up quite well; Overcomplicate and introspect everything much further than I should, and then finally take the simplest route which is probably what I would have done instinctively anyway. :)
Important note, in order to deal non-lethal damage, it has to be done with a melee weapon attack. Spells, ranged weapons, and traps cannot deal non-lethal damage, but they can incapacitate enemies in other ways (i.e. glue trap, paralysis poison, sleep spell, etc.).
Is that really important though? What about pinning an enemy to a wall through the shoulder with an arrow? Or a sputtering goblin boss who's been burnt nearly to a crisp by a fireball but still has the breath to insult the party as he lies on the edge of death.
I think it's more important to note that you should do what seems right for the good of the story.
Its only important if players try to take an enemy hostage by seting them on fire or firing arrows haphazardly into their torso.
Non-lethal damage is only relevant if the creature's HP is 0 because of it. If an arrow pins someone to a wall and they are not at 0 hp, no problem.
How a creature's death is described is up to the DM. If they want to have them shout curses with their dying breath, GOOD. What's important is that said creature is beyond help and dies from the lethal damage (as far as game rules are concerned).
It is absolutely important to do what is right for the story. Just remember that it is not ONLY story and role play, it is also a game. The rules represent balance within the game's world. Typically, bending the rules tips the balance one way or another.
It seems that everybody accepts that at 0 hp you either fall unconscious or die. Maybe we should view it as being so wounded that you no longer have the will/capacity to continue fighting. Except then you need rules for combat ending wounds that still allow you to run away. And people of "such singular focus" (Russian accent required) that they can "do a bear" and fight on below 0HP. ("One does not simply fall unconscious." - Boromir). Monty Python's Black Knight was obviously the comedic end of the scale, but injuries are a scale of magnitude, not just positive/negative hps. The trouble is, you need a more complex system for that and....well, see my comment above about "beautifully streamlined."
D&D 5e already has a wonderfully simple mechanic for determining how injured a creature is. It is called HP. I know, a smart @$$ comment, but hear me out.
Hp in d&d is defined as a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. And when you are out of it, you are unconscious and probably dead unless something else wanted you alive.
When a creature is not willing to risk its life, it should flee before its hp hits 0. Simple right? And a few creatures and classes CAN fight past 0 hp to various extents.
Sometimes a smart @$$ comment is just what is called for. :)
If you read that last line of that quote of mine, you'll see that I agree with you...
This game, and as Mr. Pumpkin infers, this life, can be as simple or complex as we make it. (Within limits. T&Cs apply. YMMV) I like the simplicity of HP.
These are all good points and I do appreciate how balance is something the rules bring to the game and is extremely important. But when a player is confused or frustrated by the fact that they've "accidentally" killed an enemy they wanted to interrogate, I don't think the best line of action is to stick to some technical rule about how the roleplay translates to paper rules. My guess is that this is all behind the curtain anyway and that we'd probably handle this in, from the players perspective, a very similar way. I'm very much a homebrewer, and I should probably count myself lucky that none of my current players have played D&D before. They are more than happy for me to just make a ruling there and then.
Now that I think about it, it would be a nightmare if I had a player constantly piping up to say "technically the rules state x", as I constantly cut corners with the rules in the interest of keeping things moving smoothly.
@DxJxC Your comment about HP is spot on. I consider hp as an indication of whether a creature is in the fight or not. If the attack which brought the creature to 0hp would make sense for the creature to die, I'll have it die. If the player suggests they're doing something other than trying to kill it, i'll cater for that.
The scene with the dying wizard played out today, and as usual, went completely differently from how I'd planned/anticipated. The players actually ended up killing the wizard outright. I didn't even get a chance to do the "information reveal" portion that I'd hoped for. Lol. So now I'm stuck trying to work in some critical information that I'd hoped the wizard would reveal as a deathbed confession.
He can still confess with a letter to the people, place, that he's harmed or feels remorse for, otherwise it could simply be a journal he's written to reflect on his endeavors. You could have a familiar, or other creature with which he had a relation show up, and they tell the players about the last days of this wizard. Heck, you could even have some magical device trigger which pulls an illusory image of the mage into the scene as he confesses through that medium. There's a number of ways you could give the players the info, it's just fun to think of the odd ways a wizard might go about it.
He can still confess with a letter to the people, place, that he's harmed or feels remorse for, otherwise it could simply be a journal he's written to reflect on his endeavors. You could have a familiar, or other creature with which he had a relation show up, and they tell the players about the last days of this wizard. Heck, you could even have some magical device trigger which pulls an illusory image of the mage into the scene as he confesses through that medium. There's a number of ways you could give the players the info, it's just fun to think of the odd ways a wizard might go about it.
Yeah. In this case I've used the whole "journal/stack of notes" thing a bit too often to provide info, so I'll probably avoid that. I like the "magical device" idea, though, I might do that. Sort of like a "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi" moment haha.
I dont think Players trying to go about a problem a specific way is necessarily a bad thing any way you go about it
That being said, add restrictions to the information they can get, have interrogated targets trick them, have the person being interrogated be assassinated, flee before they could be hit from nonlethal, or die before they can be fully interrogated.
Even if you cant completely stop the party from interrogating, you could also add higher requirements to do so- I.E: A target NPC with gaping wounds who would require a lot of resources to heal to nonlethal, but may not be able to give a ton of useful information. Make the party weigh the costs of trying to interrogate a target with the potential payoff.
Its also possible you could just talk to your players and say hey, I like that you arent murder hobo-ing everyone, but interrogation is getting a bit repetitive and I feel like its slowing down the game. Would you be willing to cut down on interrogating lower-rank enemies as much?
I didn't get a chance to read all the answers (I read most but skimmed a few toward the end), but I do have a few comments that may or may not have been covered:
How does the party have so much spare healing on hand? Do they really carry cases of healing potions? Do they have that many left over spell slots throughout the day to cast Healing Word? If so, then it sounds like you need to up the challenge rating. Do they use the Cleric's last healing spell to bring back their own wizard or a kobold?
Most people (and presumably creatures) will generally lie. So unless you have a master of Insight checks, make sure you have the captured lie, and tell half-truths. If the party is always casting the 2nd level Zone of Truth, see point 1 about having too many extra spell slots at the end.
What do they do with the creature after interrogation? If they just tie them up, let some of them escape and sound an alarm. If they cast a spell to prevent them from escaping (suggestion, hold creature, etc) see point 1. If they kill them, then there are going to be some alignment problems. No Good or Lawful PC should be able to morally stand by as a bound and defenseless creature is killed after their usefulness is done for very long.
Have the captured creature die again. Either by killing themselves, or by intentionally setting off a trap, or maybe even an off-scene NPC (From a dark corner, a magical bolt flies out and kills the prisoner. The acid starts dissolving the body. When the players look to the source, all they see is a silvery smoke dissipating.) They can of course try again, but it will use more resources.
Interrogation does not happen in a vacuum. The prisoners cries for mercy can bring in reinforcements catching the players off-guard.
Suicide bombers... A team of devoted minions all have Glyphs of Warding on their necklaces. If a player pulls it off (thinking to strip the enemy of everything before waking them up) it goes off. Otherwise, after being revived, the prisoner does it as soon as enough PCs are close enough. Or lie and say that they need it to disable a trap in the next room.
The list can go on, but there is plenty of fodder in there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Smashed Pumpkin,
You make some excellent arguments, and then ignore them all to "do what seems right for the good of the story."
That gets the full thumbs up from me! :)
I look forward to more discussions in the future.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Haha, well that sums my life up quite well; Overcomplicate and introspect everything much further than I should, and then finally take the simplest route which is probably what I would have done instinctively anyway. :)
Its only important if players try to take an enemy hostage by seting them on fire or firing arrows haphazardly into their torso.
Non-lethal damage is only relevant if the creature's HP is 0 because of it. If an arrow pins someone to a wall and they are not at 0 hp, no problem.
How a creature's death is described is up to the DM. If they want to have them shout curses with their dying breath, GOOD. What's important is that said creature is beyond help and dies from the lethal damage (as far as game rules are concerned).
It is absolutely important to do what is right for the story. Just remember that it is not ONLY story and role play, it is also a game. The rules represent balance within the game's world. Typically, bending the rules tips the balance one way or another.
D&D 5e already has a wonderfully simple mechanic for determining how injured a creature is. It is called HP. I know, a smart @$$ comment, but hear me out.
Hp in d&d is defined as a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. And when you are out of it, you are unconscious and probably dead unless something else wanted you alive.
When a creature is not willing to risk its life, it should flee before its hp hits 0. Simple right? And a few creatures and classes CAN fight past 0 hp to various extents.
Sometimes a smart @$$ comment is just what is called for. :)
If you read that last line of that quote of mine, you'll see that I agree with you...
This game, and as Mr. Pumpkin infers, this life, can be as simple or complex as we make it. (Within limits. T&Cs apply. YMMV)
I like the simplicity of HP.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
These are all good points and I do appreciate how balance is something the rules bring to the game and is extremely important. But when a player is confused or frustrated by the fact that they've "accidentally" killed an enemy they wanted to interrogate, I don't think the best line of action is to stick to some technical rule about how the roleplay translates to paper rules. My guess is that this is all behind the curtain anyway and that we'd probably handle this in, from the players perspective, a very similar way. I'm very much a homebrewer, and I should probably count myself lucky that none of my current players have played D&D before. They are more than happy for me to just make a ruling there and then.
Now that I think about it, it would be a nightmare if I had a player constantly piping up to say "technically the rules state x", as I constantly cut corners with the rules in the interest of keeping things moving smoothly.
@DxJxC
Your comment about HP is spot on. I consider hp as an indication of whether a creature is in the fight or not. If the attack which brought the creature to 0hp would make sense for the creature to die, I'll have it die. If the player suggests they're doing something other than trying to kill it, i'll cater for that.
Hey everyone, again thanks for all the input.
The scene with the dying wizard played out today, and as usual, went completely differently from how I'd planned/anticipated. The players actually ended up killing the wizard outright. I didn't even get a chance to do the "information reveal" portion that I'd hoped for. Lol. So now I'm stuck trying to work in some critical information that I'd hoped the wizard would reveal as a deathbed confession.
He can still confess with a letter to the people, place, that he's harmed or feels remorse for, otherwise it could simply be a journal he's written to reflect on his endeavors. You could have a familiar, or other creature with which he had a relation show up, and they tell the players about the last days of this wizard. Heck, you could even have some magical device trigger which pulls an illusory image of the mage into the scene as he confesses through that medium. There's a number of ways you could give the players the info, it's just fun to think of the odd ways a wizard might go about it.
Yeah. In this case I've used the whole "journal/stack of notes" thing a bit too often to provide info, so I'll probably avoid that. I like the "magical device" idea, though, I might do that. Sort of like a "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi" moment haha.
I dont think Players trying to go about a problem a specific way is necessarily a bad thing any way you go about it
That being said, add restrictions to the information they can get, have interrogated targets trick them, have the person being interrogated be assassinated, flee before they could be hit from nonlethal, or die before they can be fully interrogated.
Even if you cant completely stop the party from interrogating, you could also add higher requirements to do so- I.E: A target NPC with gaping wounds who would require a lot of resources to heal to nonlethal, but may not be able to give a ton of useful information. Make the party weigh the costs of trying to interrogate a target with the potential payoff.
Its also possible you could just talk to your players and say hey, I like that you arent murder hobo-ing everyone, but interrogation is getting a bit repetitive and I feel like its slowing down the game. Would you be willing to cut down on interrogating lower-rank enemies as much?
I didn't get a chance to read all the answers (I read most but skimmed a few toward the end), but I do have a few comments that may or may not have been covered:
The list can go on, but there is plenty of fodder in there.