Subdual For Everyone!

[theophage]

I wrote a post a while ago on unarmed combat, and it was suggested "why not simply use the subdual rules already in the game?"

Sometimes you don't need to kill your opponent, you just need to beat the hell out of them to get them to cooperate. M&T gives the rules for subduing dragons, but why limit such an interesting and useful subsystem to just dragons? Why not be able to subdue some orcs, an ogre, or perhaps the local town's Captain of the Guard?

To recap the subdual rules from M&T: Attackers must announce beforehand that they will be striking to subdue rather than striking to kill. Each round, a percentage is calculated by dividing the the defender's remaining hit points by the damage done to him that round. The referee then rolls percentile dice and if the number or lower is scored, the defender is subdued. It seems like an extra hassle doing the calculation and making the extra die roll, but presumably whatever reason the attackers are choosing to subdue rather than just killing the defender makes it worth it.

The M&T entry does not mention what happens in the event the defender is taken to zero HP, but I think it is reasonable to assume that while the subdual chance would then be at 100%, the defender has probably also been beaten into unconsciousness as well. A particularly cruel Referee (is there such a thing?) might also roll a check to see if the defender "survives adversity"; if not, then the subdual process was unfortunately fatal.

The M&T entry also doesn't distinguish between weapons used to subdue. I think it is fairly safe to say that you can't subdue someone by shooting arrows or bolts so they are probably out, but what about daggers or axes? Beating someone with the pommel or your blade or the shaft of your spear seems a little wonky. Perhaps edged and pointed weapons only do half damage when used to subdue, when they can be used at all. That club is starting to look pretty good now, isn't it?

So what would this look like in action?

Joe the Veteran knows that the orc guard knows where the prisoners are being kept, because he also speaks orc and overheard the guard's conversation. Waiting until the guard is alone, Joe attempts to sneak up on the orc and introduce him to Mr. Morningstar. A surprise roll is made, but didn't quite go Joe's way. He does manage to win initiative, however, and hits the orc for 3 points of damage. The orc had four, and a quick calculation tells us that is 75% of his hit points down.

As per M&T, the one being subdued still gets their normal attacks during the round (the dragon still got to fry the characters even though they would have successfully subdued it had they lived), but the referee rolls and the orc does not score a hit. The referee then rolls percentile dice for subdual and scores a 52, meaning that the orc is successfully subdued. "Where are the prisoners?" Joe shouts in the face of the woozy orc…

This seems pretty cool, but the downside is that it would appear to make combats somewhat easier for the PCs: why whack a monster down to zero hit points when you can hit them just enough to hopefully score that subdual percentage? Once subdued you can probably tie them up and administer the old coup de grace anyway, right?

Well, I see two factors mitigating this somewhat: First of all, not all monsters would be able to be subdued (zombies, slimes, etc.), so some you're just going to have to hack and slash like normal anyway. Second, having edged and pointed weapons doing half damage while the defender being subdued getting to make their normal attacks makes the process actually more dangerous in most cases, so I think overall it would balance out.

I would even allow unarmed attacks for subdual as well, though you could say that punching and kicking only does half-damage without something like cesti or brass knuckles. (Want to simulate a Monk class? Call them fighters whose unarmed attacks do 1-6 damage instead of half, and be lethal as well if they'd like…)

Are there any other downsides that I haven't thought of? Any other comments on its expanded use?

[oakesspalding]

As much as I am a, so to speak, fanatical extremist regarding the sanctity of the rules in the little-brown books, I think the dragon subdual rules, as written are incoherent. As is implied above, why wouldn't you ever NOT want to do it? What do you have to lose? Now, saying that edged weapons only count for half is one answer, but in strict OD&D that wouldn't matter anyway since all weapons do 1-6 hits (though I suppose the rule would affect your use of that nifty +3 magical sword).

Why not just say that subdual is ALWAYS at half damage (whatever the weapon)? That makes it simple. You could then perhaps give some sort of bonus to subduing dragons or sleeping dragons, or whatever-since they are cowardly, or half-asleep or like being tickled, etc., etc.

[Lord Cias]

I believe dragons have special subdual rules because they, despite being powerful, are inherently cowardly creatures. If I were to use similar subdual rules for creatures with a little more backbone, I'd at least halve the chance of subdual. Actually, I would ignore the first 50% of the creature's hit points, requiring the monster to be brought below 50% hp before subdual is possible. For example, a fighter attempts to subdue an ogre with 16 hit points. The first two hits inflict 6 and 2 points of damage respectively, and thus have 0% chance of subdual. The next hit does 2 points of damage which is 12.5% of 16 hit points, rounded down to 12% chance of subduing the ogre.

Of course one can just use moral rules (I believe Chainmail moral rules are to be used in OD&D since the latter did not contain its own moral rules) and simply announce to the monster that you will accept surrender while you continue to beat it to death.

In either case I'd impose a -2 to -4 attack penalty when attempting to inflict non-lethal damage while using lethal weapons. If the hit that brings the creature to 0 hit points would normally hit but misses due to the penalty, the hit is lethal and kills the creature anyway.

Or something like that.

[cooper]

Just a slight correction: Od&d does contain its own morale rules. The referee is instructed to roll 2d6 and that number is the creatures morale (allowing for some ogres to be cowardly and some to be fanatical). During combat if a morale roll was thought justified, another 2d6 roll under the predetermined number meant flight or surrender (in this way henchmen greater than 1st level could be acquired).

In conjunction with the NPC only 3d6 stat titled: loyalty. Effectively created a workable personality system which dragon age video game partially was modeled after.

Morale is better than subdual for non-dragons. As subdual does not account for creatures who will surrender at the first sign of stress nor for those whom surrender is not an option.

[waysoftheearth]

IMHO the 3LBBs imply that subdual is generally applicable (I posted some references a while back over here).

But the cross-over between subdual and morale sure is tricky, as cooper hints.

As for the downsides of attempting subdual, a few things occur...

1) while you're attempting to subdue you're not doing any "real" damage, so if you suddenly need to switch to lethal combat for any reason, you'd have to start over.
2) If you successfully subdue you then need to handle your prisoners; this could end up being be a real headache -- what with turncoats, treachery, escapees, and so on.
3) If you simply kill your prisoners, your dread reputation will get out and others will eventually be less likely to surrender to you -- and more inclined, perhaps, to kill you rather capture you.

It also seems that while morale checks are for whole groups, subdual is only for individuals. It might even be plausible that individuals are more difficult to subdue when they are members of a group? This is pure fabrication now, but perhaps in that case you could use the whole group's hit points rather than the individual's? I.e., if there were ten orcs with 35 hit points between them, doing 5 hit points subdual damage to one orc could result in a 5/35 = 14% chance of subduing it?

This would be stretching the dragon example, for sure, but not altering it too drastically. Kinda.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2013 23:28:51 GMT -6 cooper said:

Just a slight correction: Od&d does contain its own morale rules. The referee is instructed to roll 2d6 and that number is the creatures morale (allowing for some ogres to be cowardly and some to be fanatical). During combat if a morale roll was thought justified, another 2d6 roll under the predetermined number meant flight or surrender (in this way henchmen greater than 1st level could be acquired).

Where is that rule? Citation, please. It doesn't seem to be in my LBB.

[talysman]

Aug 29, 2013 9:11:38 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Aug 28, 2013 23:28:51 GMT -6 cooper said:

Just a slight correction: Od&d does contain its own morale rules. The referee is instructed to roll 2d6 and that number is the creatures morale (allowing for some ogres to be cowardly and some to be fanatical). During combat if a morale roll was thought justified, another 2d6 roll under the predetermined number meant flight or surrender (in this way henchmen greater than 1st level could be acquired).

Where is that rule? Citation, please. It doesn't seem to be in my LBB.

Men & Magic, pp. 12-13. What Cooper is saying is:

1. Roll 2d6 for general morale for a creature first;
2. Roll again during combat when appropriate.

#2 is quite definitely on page 13: "Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or "Chainmail") whenever a highly dangerous or unnerving situation arises. Poor morale will mean that those in question will not perform as expected." It doesn't mention that this applies to monsters, though, which might be a problem.

#1 is an interpretation of the negotiation rule on page 12. The rules do not actually say to roll 2d6 to get a general morale rating, but it's obvious enough as a possible interpretation that either B/X or BECMI started including morale ratings in the 2-12 range for each monster, essentially making Cooper's reading into the standard.

My personal interpretation is to not do #1, but just #2 where appropriate, with penalties as noted in M&T (goblins getting a penalty in sunlight, for example.) Actually, I convert the 2d6 roll to a 1d6 roll in some cases, so that I can use the player's damage roll as a morale roll where appropriate and skip the extra roll.

[Lord Cias]

Alternatively the DM could check morale for a group as in #2 at the start of each combat round and if the group fails its morale THEN the DM rolls individual morale for each monster in the group as in #1 to see which ones break formation and run and which ones stick it out for another round or two.

The thing about subdual is that we're talking about two different things. On one hand you can use a display of combat prowess to entice your enemy into surrendering voluntarily, and on the other you can simply beat your adversary into unconsciousness using "non-lethal" damage instead of trying to kill him. I believe morale rules (which ever ones you choose to use) are the best way to handle the former for most monsters while significant penalties to the attack and/or damage roll while using lethal weapons is a reasonable option for the latter.

[cooper]

from page 52 of the reformatted LBB.

Morale
This is a factor which is seldom considered. The players, basically representing only their own character and a few others, have their own personal morale in reality. Unintelligent monsters fight until death. Occasionally, however, it is necessary to check either troops serving with a party (in whatever respect) or the morale of intelligent monsters. This is strictly a decision for the referee. Simply throw two dice – a 2 being very bad morale, a 12 being very good morale. With situational adjustments this score will serve as a guideline for what action will be taken by the party checked (see also Checking Morale, page 45).

[Stormcrow]

Aug 29, 2013 10:46:42 GMT -6 cooper said:

from page 52 of the reformatted LBB.

The what?

[Stormcrow]

Men & Magic has morale rules, but they may not be complete, depending on how you interpret the text.

Page 12 includes the reaction table on which you roll two dice to determine a monster's reaction in an encounter. Page 13 talks about the "loyalty of non-player characters (including monsters)," and says that "non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or 'Chainmail') whenever a highly dangerous or un-nerving [sic] situation arises." The morale check is modified by the loyalty score of the character or monster in service according to the loyalty table on p. 13.

Now, this could be interpreted to mean it only applies to NPCs or monsters in the character's service. If so, the morale check described does not apply to monsters that you're fighting, only to loyalty checks for characters in your service.

On the other hand, there's no reason why you couldn't apply it to minions in service of a monster, but this doesn't make much sense unless the monster has minions. A lone ogre doesn't have to check for loyalty to anyone.

Cooper's quote of Gary in which morale "is a factor that is seldom considered" is from the FAQ in The Strategic Review no. 2. I don't read it as a clarification of the published text or as an official rule; it looks to me like Gary is just saying, "What? You want morale rules? Just roll a couple of dice, man!"

Nowhere is there any rule that says to roll two dice to generate a morale score for the monster, against which you'll roll again in dangerous situations.

[geoffrey]

Cooper, thanks a bunch for your observations. I've always assumed that the morale scores of monsters in Moldvay was an invention of the latter. Now I see that it is a reasonable interpretation of Gary's 1974-75 D&D. (Similarly, I used to think that using dex scores instead of initiative rolls was an invention of Holmes, until I realized that it is a natural interpretation of the top of page 11 of Men & Magic.)

Holmes and Moldvay were not inventing so much as providing their own clarifications of the old rules.

[Zenopus]

IIRC, B/X morale is reversed from Chainmail version. In B/X morale, a 2d6 roll over the morale score equals flight/surrender, so 2 is the worst and 12 is the best morale score. In Chainmail, a 2d6 roll under equals flight. Mounted Knights have the best morale score in Chainmail, pg 17, with a score of "4 or better" to remain, and Peasants have the worst "8 or better" to remain.

Cooper's statements above confuse me because first he says, "another 2d6 roll under the predetermined number meant flight or surrender", in which case a high number would be bad morale (ala Chainmail) but then he quotes a statement (originating from the D&D FAQ) that "Simply throw two dice – a 2 being very bad morale, a 12 being very good morale" - which is like Moldvay.

Based on the statement in the FAQ, it seems that Moldvay's version has its basis in the later FAQ version as opposed to the original Chainmail version. I would guess this change came about because it is more intuititve to have a high morale be a high score.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2013 11:31:42 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Aug 29, 2013 10:46:42 GMT -6 cooper said:

from page 52 of the reformatted LBB.

The what?

Likewise. The what?

[cooper]

You guys don't have the reformatted 3 volume LBB with filled with Frank Frezetta artwork?...

[Stormcrow]

Aug 29, 2013 17:49:58 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Cooper's statements above confuse me because first he says, "another 2d6 roll under the predetermined number meant flight or surrender", in which case a high number would be bad morale (ala Chainmail) but then he quotes a statement (originating from the D&D FAQ) that "Simply throw two dice – a 2 being very bad morale, a 12 being very good morale" - which is like Moldvay.

I think cooper is mixing up a morale score and a morale roll. What Gary describes in the FAQ is a very simple kind of morale roll, one which disregards the idea of a morale score. Cooper is presupposing that one first sets a morale score by rolling two dice, but this is not what Gary says in the FAQ.

[Zenopus]

Okay, that makes more sense. I was misinterpreting the FAQ statement. So Chainmail and the FAQ are in accord. In Chainmail, a roll of 12 would also be considered "very good morale" because it is well over the score required by a peasant ("8 or better") or knight ("4 or better") or any other type "to remain". And a roll of 2 would be considered "very poor" as it would result in the fleeing of any unit type.

B/X is a reversal of this system, where a high roll indicates poor morale.

[cooper]

Aug 29, 2013 20:10:45 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Aug 29, 2013 17:49:58 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Cooper's statements above confuse me because first he says, "another 2d6 roll under the predetermined number meant flight or surrender", in which case a high number would be bad morale (ala Chainmail) but then he quotes a statement (originating from the D&D FAQ) that "Simply throw two dice – a 2 being very bad morale, a 12 being very good morale" - which is like Moldvay.

I think cooper is mixing up a morale score and a morale roll. What Gary describes in the FAQ is a very simple kind of morale roll, one which disregards the idea of a morale score. Cooper is presupposing that one first sets a morale score by rolling two dice, but this is not what Gary says in the FAQ.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


I think I understand your argument and see validity. There is no actual morale "score".

The DM determines a henchman needs to roll morale. He has a loyalty of 15 (+2) and his liege has a charisma of 13 (+1) so the DM rolls 2d6+3

2-5 = negative morale reaction from the henchman
6-8 = uncertain reaction (perhaps the henchman freezes or cowers)
9+ = positive morale reaction

[Stormcrow]

Aug 29, 2013 21:17:24 GMT -6 cooper said:

I think I understand your argument and see validity. There is no actual morale "score".

Correct. And no, I have not seen this reformatted and combined-with-the-FAQ document.

[Porphyre]

Aug 29, 2013 19:41:44 GMT -6 cooper said:

You guys don't have the reformatted 3 volume LBB with filled with Frank Frezetta artwork?...

I don't think it is still available on the web. I haven't found either version (one or two colymns layout) in a while.