Also strictly RAW, a melee spell attack is different from a melee attack (mechanically they use different ability score bonuses for the rolls), so shocking hands is not usable as a nonlethal taser substitute.
A melee attack covers both weapons and spells, so you can absolutely taser someone with shocking grasp. Using spells to incapacitate is confirmed in Sage Advice.
I get that a general rule is necessary to keep things manageable, but a spell like Flame Blade doing nonlethal fire damage stretches the imagination quite a bit.
I don't see a need of stretching imagination. Here how I deal with this:
It's true we usually see spellcasting as a "instant uncontrollable burst of deadlly energy" but I think the better way to deal with those things in DnD is that a spellcaster have enought control on its magic (if not, wild magic wouldn't be a thing) to moderate the damage dealing.
For Flame Blade for example, I've used it to knocking out before and the explanation were pretty simple:
A person subjectet to a sudden large amount of pain (as from burning) usually pass out as a body reaction (thats also true that people dying from burning have their neuronal system shut dawn before it really dies).
So what I do to make it plausable its to role as the aplication of damage on that hit were just enought to make the foe pass out for the pain. I think a DM can ask for a arcana check if it wants since that bearing on passing out or being fatally injuried from the fire can be thin, but I don't think that is too much of a bother seeing a spellcaster can have control on its magic power.
The same works for Shocking Grasp: A high voltage discharge could blow a heart from inside, but as the caster have control over its magic power is plausible that it can apply a voltage just enough to faint that foe as a taser gun do.
I don't set a high DC, I usually start it at 10 and increase it if the caster has cast the spell at a higher level, or if the spell is an area effect. For instance a Fireball it is hard to gauge how to place the blast and set the damage to knock someone out, or if the damage rolled is really over kill, sometimes the DC becomes so high it effectively needs a nat 20.
Also strictly RAW, a melee spell attack is different from a melee attack (mechanically they use different ability score bonuses for the rolls), so shocking hands is not usable as a nonlethal taser substitute.
A melee attack covers both weapons and spells, so you can absolutely taser someone with shocking grasp. Using spells to incapacitate is confirmed in Sage Advice.
I get that a general rule is necessary to keep things manageable, but a spell like Flame Blade doing nonlethal fire damage stretches the imagination quite a bit.
I don't see a need of stretching imagination. Here how I deal with this:
It's true we usually see spellcasting as a "instant uncontrollable burst of deadlly energy" but I think the better way to deal with those things in DnD is that a spellcaster have enought control on its magic (if not, wild magic wouldn't be a thing) to moderate the damage dealing.
For Flame Blade for example, I've used it to knocking out before and the explanation were pretty simple:
A person subjectet to a sudden large amount of pain (as from burning) usually pass out as a body reaction (thats also true that people dying from burning have their neuronal system shut dawn before it really dies).
So what I do to make it plausable its to role as the aplication of damage on that hit were just enought to make the foe pass out for the pain. I think a DM can ask for a arcana check if it wants since that bearing on passing out or being fatally injuried from the fire can be thin, but I don't think that is too much of a bother seeing a spellcaster can have control on its magic power.
The same works for Shocking Grasp: A high voltage discharge could blow a heart from inside, but as the caster have control over its magic power is plausible that it can apply a voltage just enough to faint that foe as a taser gun do.
I don't set a high DC, I usually start it at 10 and increase it if the caster has cast the spell at a higher level, or if the spell is an area effect. For instance a Fireball it is hard to gauge how to place the blast and set the damage to knock someone out, or if the damage rolled is really over kill, sometimes the DC becomes so high it effectively needs a nat 20.
That's a reasonable houserule to make a ranged spell controlable in that way.
For a fireball, it really needs a bit of that stretching imagination couse the spell it self is a "explosion of fire". I think that's the main thing on making "knocking out" exceptional for melee attacks, since in any ranged (spell or weapon) the attacker have control over aim and shot but not as much over the "projectile" impact itself.
For myself, I can make that explanation on applying a melee spell on knocking out a foe, but for ranged attacks (spell or not) I put it out of the "knocking a creature out" rule and make that creature roll death saves if it has a purpouse on not dying outright.
Also strictly RAW, a melee spell attack is different from a melee attack (mechanically they use different ability score bonuses for the rolls), so shocking hands is not usable as a nonlethal taser substitute.
A melee attack covers both weapons and spells, so you can absolutely taser someone with shocking grasp. Using spells to incapacitate is confirmed in Sage Advice.
I get that a general rule is necessary to keep things manageable, but a spell like Flame Blade doing nonlethal fire damage stretches the imagination quite a bit.
I don't see a need of stretching imagination. Here how I deal with this:
It's true we usually see spellcasting as a "instant uncontrollable burst of deadlly energy" but I think the better way to deal with those things in DnD is that a spellcaster have enought control on its magic (if not, wild magic wouldn't be a thing) to moderate the damage dealing.
For Flame Blade for example, I've used it to knocking out before and the explanation were pretty simple:
A person subjectet to a sudden large amount of pain (as from burning) usually pass out as a body reaction (thats also true that people dying from burning have their neuronal system shut dawn before it really dies).
So what I do to make it plausable its to role as the aplication of damage on that hit were just enought to make the foe pass out for the pain. I think a DM can ask for a arcana check if it wants since that bearing on passing out or being fatally injuried from the fire can be thin, but I don't think that is too much of a bother seeing a spellcaster can have control on its magic power.
The same works for Shocking Grasp: A high voltage discharge could blow a heart from inside, but as the caster have control over its magic power is plausible that it can apply a voltage just enough to faint that foe as a taser gun do.
I don't set a high DC, I usually start it at 10 and increase it if the caster has cast the spell at a higher level, or if the spell is an area effect. For instance a Fireball it is hard to gauge how to place the blast and set the damage to knock someone out, or if the damage rolled is really over kill, sometimes the DC becomes so high it effectively needs a nat 20.
That's a reasonable houserule to make a ranged spell controlable in that way.
For a fireball, it really needs a bit of that stretching imagination couse the spell it self is a "explosion of fire". I think that's the main thing on making "knocking out" exceptional for melee attacks, since in any ranged (spell or weapon) the attacker have control over aim and shot but not as much over the "projectile" impact itself.
For myself, I can make that explanation on applying a melee spell on knocking out a foe, but for ranged attacks (spell or not) I put it out of the "knocking a creature out" rule and make that creature roll death saves if it has a purpouse on not dying outright.
For things like arrow attacks etc my players have specifically made non lethal arrows and crossbow bolts, these are designed to knock out rather then kill and was a nice little roleplay moment when they came up with the idea. This was triggerd by a job that came with a specific requirement not to kill the target and bring him in alive.
Let's assum a renger are supose to take some foe for any reason alive, but the foe is too far for the ranger to get in melee and in a higher speed. There's no reason for stuck on "the knockin out rule melee limitation" and the PC can hope to take the foe dawn with the blow and rush to stabilize it before it lost to much blood.
Sure there is.
If you want to take them alive, the fact that they can move faster than you puts the pressure on you (the Ranger) to lock them down somehow so they can't escape and allow you to control the battlefield. That you haven't done that (either you didn't hide as well as you should have and your ambush was spotted before your quarry reached the target zone, or you failed to knock him out quick enough, or, for some some bizarre reason you didn't have a horse with you or knock their's out) means you failed. The consequence of that is that you now have to choose: let him go in the hopes that you catch him another time or kill him now.
And that's what D&D is about, isn't it? Making decisions and then dealing with the consequences of those decisions - whether they're successful or if they fail. Insisting that because your character failed to set a good enough trap means that you can change the rules so that he can still succeed flies in the face of that. Don't get me wrong, if a DM made that judgement I'd raise my point but accept whatever they decided, it's not a massive deal at the end of the day, but to imply that there's no reason to stick to the RAW in this case is incorrect. There are very good reasons to stick to RAW. Which you do should depend on what would make the experience better as a whole, and I'd argue that sticking to RAW here is not only RAI, but would generally be beneficial over all (although I'm sure people could come up with valid circumstances where it might not).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
For things like arrow attacks etc my players have specifically made non lethal arrows and crossbow bolts, these are designed to knock out rather then kill and was a nice little roleplay moment when they came up with the idea. This was triggerd by a job that came with a specific requirement not to kill the target and bring him in alive.
To me, non-lethal arrows and crossbow bolts would be like the old Green Arrow 'boxing glove' arrows, which were always silly.
How in blazes would an arrow do full damage not non-lethal? "Blunt" is not enough for something to be non-lethal. Sling bullets (or for that matter, gun bullets) are blunt, yet kill very effectively.
Yeah, I think it's a symptom of computer games where you clock a button and that arrow becomes non lethal. It doesn't make sense - an arrownhead doesn't become less lethal just because you smother anaesthetic over it. I generally rule that you can knock someone out with any attack - so lof as you can convince me that your attack would logically have that outcome (with allowances of course). An arrow is an arrow, so unless theure planning on it spinning and hitting the person on the back of the head with the flat of arrowhead midflight, it does lethal damage. It's not Star Trek with stun settings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It seems like you thought I was disagreeing with you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you want to take them alive, the fact that they can move faster than you puts the pressure on you (the Ranger) to lock them down somehow so they can't escape and allow you to control the battlefield. That you haven't done that (either you didn't hide as well as you should have and your ambush was spotted before your quarry reached the target zone, or you failed to knock him out quick enough, or, for some some bizarre reason you didn't have a horse with you or knock their's out) means you failed. The consequence of that is that you now have to choose: let him go in the hopes that you catch him another time or kill him now.
I don't desagree with you, although the RAW leds to understand thats the only options on this matter. However, the death saves rule can be used in this matter by the abide from the DM, so rather than have that only two options, in anytime the DM judge there's a narrative matter, the option on "kill him now" can be "put him to death saves and rush to stabilize him".
I wouldn't allow it in any given situation, but when it have a narrative matter behind that I don't see the need for the DM to limit it to kill outright.
And that's what D&D is about, isn't it? Making decisions and then dealing with the consequences of those decisions - whether they're successful or if they fail. Insisting that because your character failed to set a good enough trap means that you can change the rules so that he can still succeed flies in the face of that. Don't get me wrong, if a DM made that judgement I'd raise my point but accept whatever they decided, it's not a massive deal at the end of the day, but to imply that there's no reason to stick to the RAW in this case is incorrect.There are very good reasons to stick to RAW. Which you do should depend on what would make the experience better as a whole, and I'd argue that sticking to RAW here is not only RAI, but would generally be beneficial over all (although I'm sure people could come up with valid circumstances where it might not).
Pretty sure D&D is about it, but more than that its also on narrative so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?
I do agree that stick to rules are important, their main role is to make the game workable. I didn't get you wrong thou. I mabe use "stick to the RAW" in a bad way: what I mean is that "knocking out a creature" rule in this case don't overcame the abid of the DM on decide that this foe can be put to death saves (if it matter to them to do it). So I meant "we didn't need to stick in the isolatad read on that rule without consider that other factor".
For things like arrow attacks etc my players have specifically made non lethal arrows and crossbow bolts, these are designed to knock out rather then kill and was a nice little roleplay moment when they came up with the idea. This was triggerd by a job that came with a specific requirement not to kill the target and bring him in alive.
To me, non-lethal arrows and crossbow bolts would be like the old Green Arrow 'boxing glove' arrows, which were always silly.
How in blazes would an arrow do full damage not non-lethal? "Blunt" is not enough for something to be non-lethal. Sling bullets (or for that matter, gun bullets) are blunt, yet kill very effectively.
To me it's no more silly than the barbarian knocking someone out with a great axe. The attack and damage rolls are no different if a barbarian is trying to lob your head off or intending to take you alive.
In my games I just house rule to let people non lethally KO with any weapon. And most spells generally, with exceptions for aoe spells and things like disintigrate/power word kill.
But it still kind of bugs me that for a ranger bounty hunter looking to bring their quarry in alive for a higher payout the best option might be to stay out of easy detection range, shoot lethal arrows until the target looks like pincushion, walk over, tie them up, and then heal the poor sod.
The problem is that Team Monster can do exactly this to the party. Why should one side have such an easy time with it but not the other?
I appreciate the idea that "wanted alive" quests can provide a different kind of challenge to a group. But practically speaking when you make nonlethal combat difficult the primary result is that the party just decides to murder everyone by default unless the story absolutely demands that they shouldn't. Players take the path of least resistance. I feel like the DMs who make nonlethal combat difficult and the DMs that complain about their players being murderhobos have significant overlap.
When I loosened up on my rules for nonlethal KOs, my party immediately stopped killing things that weren't presented as absolutely, irredeemably evil. And following that, I started to see more encounters resolved without combat altogether. Does it require a bit more of a stretch of imagination at times? Yes. But no more than PCs regularly going down and then bouncing right back up again in the next round. Overall it was 100% worth it for the way it changed my players' view of combat and conflict. Having nonlethal become the default means the choice to kill carries much more weight, as it should for any PC who considers themselves Good.
For things like arrow attacks etc my players have specifically made non lethal arrows and crossbow bolts, these are designed to knock out rather then kill and was a nice little roleplay moment when they came up with the idea. This was triggerd by a job that came with a specific requirement not to kill the target and bring him in alive.
To me, non-lethal arrows and crossbow bolts would be like the old Green Arrow 'boxing glove' arrows, which were always silly.
How in blazes would an arrow do full damage not non-lethal? "Blunt" is not enough for something to be non-lethal. Sling bullets (or for that matter, gun bullets) are blunt, yet kill very effectively.
To me it's no more silly than the barbarian knocking someone out with a great axe. The attack and damage rolls are no different if a barbarian is trying to lob your head off or intending to take you alive.
In my games I just house rule to let people non lethally KO with any weapon. And most spells generally, with exceptions for aoe spells and things like disintigrate/power word kill.
It isn't RAW but I also would not let that Barbarian manage it either. Flat of the axe? Improvised weapon, 1d4
Making it improviseed also isn't RAW. That can explain how a axe can be used improvised as a blunt weapon, but not RAW as the rule didn't mention you can choose to make it a different type of damage or action.
For things like arrow attacks etc my players have specifically made non lethal arrows and crossbow bolts, these are designed to knock out rather then kill and was a nice little roleplay moment when they came up with the idea. This was triggerd by a job that came with a specific requirement not to kill the target and bring him in alive.
To me, non-lethal arrows and crossbow bolts would be like the old Green Arrow 'boxing glove' arrows, which were always silly.
How in blazes would an arrow do full damage not non-lethal? "Blunt" is not enough for something to be non-lethal. Sling bullets (or for that matter, gun bullets) are blunt, yet kill very effectively.
To me it's no more silly than the barbarian knocking someone out with a great axe. The attack and damage rolls are no different if a barbarian is trying to lob your head off or intending to take you alive.
In my games I just house rule to let people non lethally KO with any weapon. And most spells generally, with exceptions for aoe spells and things like disintigrate/power word kill.
It isn't RAW but I also would not let that Barbarian manage it either. Flat of the axe? Improvised weapon, 1d4
Making it improviseed also isn't RAW. That can explain how a axe can be used improvised as a blunt weapon, but not RAW as the rule didn't mention you can choose to make it a different type of damage or action.
That's what I meant by opening with "it isn't RAW but..."
Maybe it would have been clearer if I had said "This isn't RAW but....?"
Sorry, "This isn't RAW but..." were clear. I just seems to me that you are refering to the quoted and the end of the sentence after the "."were suggestions aside the "this isn't RAW" but that was a misread of mine.
But it still kind of bugs me that for a ranger bounty hunter looking to bring their quarry in alive for a higher payout the best option might be to stay out of easy detection range, shoot lethal arrows until the target looks like pincushion, walk over, tie them up, and then heal the poor sod.
1) The problem is that Team Monster can do exactly this to the party. Why should one side have such an easy time with it but not the other?
2) I appreciate the idea that "wanted alive" quests can provide a different kind of challenge to a group. But practically speaking when you make nonlethal combat difficult the primary result is that the party just decides to murder everyone by default unless the story absolutely demands that they shouldn't. Players take the path of least resistance. I feel like the DMs who make nonlethal combat difficult and the DMs that complain about their players being murderhobos have significant overlap.
1) I mean, when I run Team Monster I simply choose not to do this. But getting upset with players over some minor gamesmanship isn't going to help anything, so I don't.
2) Depends. If there are in-game consequences for wanton murder sprees, that tends to cut down on excessive shedding of blood a bit at least. Being the mechanically most convenient approach is not the same as being the easy option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I didn't read everything, so it may have been mentioned, but your DM can let you do non-lethal if you want, if not, when you think an enemy is close to death there is always the Sleep spell.
I didn't read everything, so it may have been mentioned, but your DM can let you do non-lethal if you want, if not, when you think an enemy is close to death there is always the Sleep spell.
Yep. That was said. There's always tons of other ways specially spells. The main thin is that beyond all that alternatives there's death saves at the end of the day and at the distinction of the DM it can be called if needed.
I think thats a pretty easy situation to deal. At least for my tables:
PC can go melee to use "knocking out a creature". The pros is that the foe goes straight to stable unconscious and the con is that you must go melee.
Or PC can go to control spells like Sleep, Suggestion, Charm, etc. The pros is that you can do it early and maybe avoid fighting and the con is that you need a spellcaster with those spells.
Or the PC can go to pure damage and hope to stablize the foe before it dies on death saves. The pros is that it still a chance if the others are out and the con is that you have a clock to rush against (death saves - wish can be harder if there still other foes fighting).
Both options seems pretty valid for me and I let to my players to decide how they wish to make their narratives for that game. I do not have a fair explanation withing game if some ask me why their PC go to death saves and a foe it wishes alive die outright (just a out of game answer that is: for the game flow better). I also take in mind and clarefied to the table that this are supposed to bring the narrative to work so either death saves or "knocking out" are out of discussion if they want it just for ruin the fun (I would narrete that a foe dies outright with knocking out in melee if the player were just making the table as fools losing time).
If you want to take them alive, the fact that they can move faster than you puts the pressure on you (the Ranger) to lock them down somehow so they can't escape and allow you to control the battlefield. That you haven't done that (either you didn't hide as well as you should have and your ambush was spotted before your quarry reached the target zone, or you failed to knock him out quick enough, or, for some some bizarre reason you didn't have a horse with you or knock their's out) means you failed. The consequence of that is that you now have to choose: let him go in the hopes that you catch him another time or kill him now.
I don't desagree with you, although the RAW leds to understand thats the only options on this matter. However, the death saves rule can be used in this matter by the abide from the DM, so rather than have that only two options, in anytime the DM judge there's a narrative matter, the option on "kill him now" can be "put him to death saves and rush to stabilize him".
I wouldn't allow it in any given situation, but when it have a narrative matter behind that I don't see the need for the DM to limit it to kill outright.
And that's what D&D is about, isn't it? Making decisions and then dealing with the consequences of those decisions - whether they're successful or if they fail. Insisting that because your character failed to set a good enough trap means that you can change the rules so that he can still succeed flies in the face of that. Don't get me wrong, if a DM made that judgement I'd raise my point but accept whatever they decided, it's not a massive deal at the end of the day, but to imply that there's no reason to stick to the RAW in this case is incorrect.There are very good reasons to stick to RAW. Which you do should depend on what would make the experience better as a whole, and I'd argue that sticking to RAW here is not only RAI, but would generally be beneficial over all (although I'm sure people could come up with valid circumstances where it might not).
Pretty sure D&D is about it, but more than that its also on narrative so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?
I do agree that stick to rules are important, their main role is to make the game workable. I didn't get you wrong thou. I mabe use "stick to the RAW" in a bad way: what I mean is that "knocking out a creature" rule in this case don't overcame the abid of the DM on decide that this foe can be put to death saves (if it matter to them to do it). So I meant "we didn't need to stick in the isolatad read on that rule without consider that other factor".
I think we're agreed other on the original point, just misunderstanding each other. I wanted to comment on when you wrote "so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?". This is more me thinking out loud more than anything.
I'm conflicted. In principle, I agree, but in practice...my experience is being forced to stick to the rules spurs the narrative and pushes us (as players and DMs) to improve it. An example from one of my current campaigns:
I, as DM, had to find a way to unite a Druid, a Paladin and a Ranger. I knew the Druid, as part of her story, was looking for protection. I knew that the Paladin had values that meant that he would feel compelled to defend someone who was at a disadvantage and the Ranger would brook no challenge. So, I had the Ranger jumped on by a bunch of thugs while the other two were coincidently present. With any luck, the Paladin would follow their values and defend the Ranger, beating up the thugs and impressing the Druid so she'd join them for their protection. Simple, right?
When the first punches by both the Paladin and the Ranger were CritFails, I knew that I was in trouble. They ended up being complete buffoons thanks to the dice, resulting in the Druid scoffing and walking off. I could have broken RAW and fudged the results, "serving the narrative", but they would have known that it was forced and of I didn't. They managed to land a few lucky blows, giving me the opportunity to make the thugs withdrawals give me a second to reformulate my plan. Except, the Ranger's and Paladin's values meant that they wouldn't let a retreating enemy escape.
Crap.
So I have a chase going through the city as my characters chase these thugs, with no narrative purpose at this point. So, I have them go past a Town Watch patrol who, with cold steel, manage to persuade them that a night in the cells is their best option. Eventually, I manage to rope the Druid in, and I get my party, but the narrative was a lot more interesting than I'd originally planned because I stuck to RAW and just let things happen.
I'm learning Star Trek Adventures, and someone was asking if Remodulating Shields (which gives resistance) stacked, the answer was no. Why not? Apart from lore, it would stifle creativity and therefore the narrative. No need to play hide and seek in a nebula or find a weak spot in their power grid or whatever, just ramp up resistances until you are effectively invulnerable. That's fine if the goal is to survive, but boring for collaborative story telling.
My point is that sticking to RAW/RAI forces us to be creative and forge a new story. Sure, you could rule that a ranged spell can be non-lethal in your situation...but wouldn't it be fun and more interesting to give them the choice of letting him go and maybe having him come back for a bit of revenge? Or if he goes after whoever posted the bounty? Ir perhaps they have to come up with a whole new and novel plan to capture the quarry. Or, if they kill the quarry, how does the bounty poster react? Lots of options to explore by letting events just play out.
In other words, what does it mean to serve the narrative? I often change the rules a bit to make the story more interesting and I'd instinctively say that letting the Ranger capture his quarry, but I think letting the story go in unexpected directions can be even more rewarding. Often, the dice tell better stories than I do.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you want to take them alive, the fact that they can move faster than you puts the pressure on you (the Ranger) to lock them down somehow so they can't escape and allow you to control the battlefield. That you haven't done that (either you didn't hide as well as you should have and your ambush was spotted before your quarry reached the target zone, or you failed to knock him out quick enough, or, for some some bizarre reason you didn't have a horse with you or knock their's out) means you failed. The consequence of that is that you now have to choose: let him go in the hopes that you catch him another time or kill him now.
I don't desagree with you, although the RAW leds to understand thats the only options on this matter. However, the death saves rule can be used in this matter by the abide from the DM, so rather than have that only two options, in anytime the DM judge there's a narrative matter, the option on "kill him now" can be "put him to death saves and rush to stabilize him".
I wouldn't allow it in any given situation, but when it have a narrative matter behind that I don't see the need for the DM to limit it to kill outright.
And that's what D&D is about, isn't it? Making decisions and then dealing with the consequences of those decisions - whether they're successful or if they fail. Insisting that because your character failed to set a good enough trap means that you can change the rules so that he can still succeed flies in the face of that. Don't get me wrong, if a DM made that judgement I'd raise my point but accept whatever they decided, it's not a massive deal at the end of the day, but to imply that there's no reason to stick to the RAW in this case is incorrect.There are very good reasons to stick to RAW. Which you do should depend on what would make the experience better as a whole, and I'd argue that sticking to RAW here is not only RAI, but would generally be beneficial over all (although I'm sure people could come up with valid circumstances where it might not).
Pretty sure D&D is about it, but more than that its also on narrative so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?
I do agree that stick to rules are important, their main role is to make the game workable. I didn't get you wrong thou. I mabe use "stick to the RAW" in a bad way: what I mean is that "knocking out a creature" rule in this case don't overcame the abid of the DM on decide that this foe can be put to death saves (if it matter to them to do it). So I meant "we didn't need to stick in the isolatad read on that rule without consider that other factor".
I think we're agreed other on the original point, just misunderstanding each other. I wanted to comment on when you wrote "so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?". This is more me thinking out loud more than anything.
I'm conflicted. In principle, I agree, but in practice...my experience is being forced to stick to the rules spurs the narrative and pushes us (as players and DMs) to improve it. An example from one of my current campaigns:
I, as DM, had to find a way to unite a Druid, a Paladin and a Ranger. I knew the Druid, as part of her story, was looking for protection. I knew that the Paladin had values that meant that he would feel compelled to defend someone who was at a disadvantage and the Ranger would brook no challenge. So, I had the Ranger jumped on by a bunch of thugs while the other two were coincidently present. With any luck, the Paladin would follow their values and defend the Ranger, beating up the thugs and impressing the Druid so she'd join them for their protection. Simple, right?
When the first punches by both the Paladin and the Ranger were CritFails, I knew that I was in trouble. They ended up being complete buffoons thanks to the dice, resulting in the Druid scoffing and walking off. I could have broken RAW and fudged the results, "serving the narrative", but they would have known that it was forced and of I didn't. They managed to land a few lucky blows, giving me the opportunity to make the thugs withdrawals give me a second to reformulate my plan. Except, the Ranger's and Paladin's values meant that they wouldn't let a retreating enemy escape.
Crap.
So I have a chase going through the city as my characters chase these thugs, with no narrative purpose at this point. So, I have them go past a Town Watch patrol who, with cold steel, manage to persuade them that a night in the cells is their best option. Eventually, I manage to rope the Druid in, and I get my party, but the narrative was a lot more interesting than I'd originally planned because I stuck to RAW and just let things happen.
I'm learning Star Trek Adventures, and someone was asking if Remodulating Shields (which gives resistance) stacked, the answer was no. Why not? Apart from lore, it would stifle creativity and therefore the narrative. No need to play hide and seek in a nebula or find a weak spot in their power grid or whatever, just ramp up resistances until you are effectively invulnerable. That's fine if the goal is to survive, but boring for collaborative story telling.
My point is that sticking to RAW/RAI forces us to be creative and forge a new story. Sure, you could rule that a ranged spell can be non-lethal in your situation...but wouldn't it be fun and more interesting to give them the choice of letting him go and maybe having him come back for a bit of revenge? Or if he goes after whoever posted the bounty? Ir perhaps they have to come up with a whole new and novel plan to capture the quarry. Or, if they kill the quarry, how does the bounty poster react? Lots of options to explore by letting events just play out.
In other words, what does it mean to serve the narrative? I often change the rules a bit to make the story more interesting and I'd instinctively say that letting the Ranger capture his quarry, but I think letting the story go in unexpected directions can be even more rewarding. Often, the dice tell better stories than I do.
Pretty sure.
I think we do agreed in everything here.
I see the 5e rules as a pretty descent set of rules and honestlly I do not have much of houserules on my tables couse I feel ok with those. When I mean to stretch the rules a bit is situational, and in response to that moment when you feel its needed to make things work in the narrative. Also, I mention that just for enlight the role of the narrative, couse the case death saves/knocking out are still within the rules.
In any of those cases at your table you mention I wouldn't do different than you did. The rules are supposed to make the narrative flow and it do is job vey well, so my support is that keep strick is the best option anytime, houseruling just when you find a wick spot that are a clear obstacle to the narrative flow.
Like in the druid, palading, ranger exemple you make: I think thats nothing in the rules that were failling the narrative. That situation on them to built that relationship in that way should be done by roleplaying over the results of the dice and the course of actions. If you bent the rules to make that story happen in the way you wish you would be just railroading your players, so that wasn't a fair case to justify that rule stretching I guess.
And I don't mean that we should stretch the rules to make the narrative follow the path we wish, to built our own story. What I mean is that if something which would be pretty possible within the lore/physics/logic on the setting of the narrative, there's no need for stick to a rule that are impeding it to be possible or becouse the rules don't cover that well.
But it still kind of bugs me that for a ranger bounty hunter looking to bring their quarry in alive for a higher payout the best option might be to stay out of easy detection range, shoot lethal arrows until the target looks like pincushion, walk over, tie them up, and then heal the poor sod.
1) The problem is that Team Monster can do exactly this to the party. Why should one side have such an easy time with it but not the other?
2) I appreciate the idea that "wanted alive" quests can provide a different kind of challenge to a group. But practically speaking when you make nonlethal combat difficult the primary result is that the party just decides to murder everyone by default unless the story absolutely demands that they shouldn't. Players take the path of least resistance. I feel like the DMs who make nonlethal combat difficult and the DMs that complain about their players being murderhobos have significant overlap.
1) I mean, when I run Team Monster I simply choose not to do this. But getting upset with players over some minor gamesmanship isn't going to help anything, so I don't.
I meant this in the context of the PCs arguing for it when you give them a hard time about capturing someone. "You can do this to us, so why can't we do it to you?" I don't have a reasonable argument against that.
But it still kind of bugs me that for a ranger bounty hunter looking to bring their quarry in alive for a higher payout the best option might be to stay out of easy detection range, shoot lethal arrows until the target looks like pincushion, walk over, tie them up, and then heal the poor sod.
1) The problem is that Team Monster can do exactly this to the party. Why should one side have such an easy time with it but not the other?
2) I appreciate the idea that "wanted alive" quests can provide a different kind of challenge to a group. But practically speaking when you make nonlethal combat difficult the primary result is that the party just decides to murder everyone by default unless the story absolutely demands that they shouldn't. Players take the path of least resistance. I feel like the DMs who make nonlethal combat difficult and the DMs that complain about their players being murderhobos have significant overlap.
1) I mean, when I run Team Monster I simply choose not to do this. But getting upset with players over some minor gamesmanship isn't going to help anything, so I don't.
I meant this in the context of the PCs arguing for it when you give them a hard time about capturing someone. "You can do this to us, so why can't we do it to you?" I don't have a reasonable argument against that.
I guess my argument is that whether I can or not, I don't? If the antagonists have a reason to try and capture the PCs, they'll use melee attacks and spells and traps and whatnot but they'll never rely on death saves being made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't set a high DC, I usually start it at 10 and increase it if the caster has cast the spell at a higher level, or if the spell is an area effect. For instance a Fireball it is hard to gauge how to place the blast and set the damage to knock someone out, or if the damage rolled is really over kill, sometimes the DC becomes so high it effectively needs a nat 20.
That's a reasonable houserule to make a ranged spell controlable in that way.
For a fireball, it really needs a bit of that stretching imagination couse the spell it self is a "explosion of fire". I think that's the main thing on making "knocking out" exceptional for melee attacks, since in any ranged (spell or weapon) the attacker have control over aim and shot but not as much over the "projectile" impact itself.
For myself, I can make that explanation on applying a melee spell on knocking out a foe, but for ranged attacks (spell or not) I put it out of the "knocking a creature out" rule and make that creature roll death saves if it has a purpouse on not dying outright.
For things like arrow attacks etc my players have specifically made non lethal arrows and crossbow bolts, these are designed to knock out rather then kill and was a nice little roleplay moment when they came up with the idea. This was triggerd by a job that came with a specific requirement not to kill the target and bring him in alive.
Sure there is.
If you want to take them alive, the fact that they can move faster than you puts the pressure on you (the Ranger) to lock them down somehow so they can't escape and allow you to control the battlefield. That you haven't done that (either you didn't hide as well as you should have and your ambush was spotted before your quarry reached the target zone, or you failed to knock him out quick enough, or, for some some bizarre reason you didn't have a horse with you or knock their's out) means you failed. The consequence of that is that you now have to choose: let him go in the hopes that you catch him another time or kill him now.
And that's what D&D is about, isn't it? Making decisions and then dealing with the consequences of those decisions - whether they're successful or if they fail. Insisting that because your character failed to set a good enough trap means that you can change the rules so that he can still succeed flies in the face of that. Don't get me wrong, if a DM made that judgement I'd raise my point but accept whatever they decided, it's not a massive deal at the end of the day, but to imply that there's no reason to stick to the RAW in this case is incorrect. There are very good reasons to stick to RAW. Which you do should depend on what would make the experience better as a whole, and I'd argue that sticking to RAW here is not only RAI, but would generally be beneficial over all (although I'm sure people could come up with valid circumstances where it might not).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, I think it's a symptom of computer games where you clock a button and that arrow becomes non lethal. It doesn't make sense - an arrownhead doesn't become less lethal just because you smother anaesthetic over it. I generally rule that you can knock someone out with any attack - so lof as you can convince me that your attack would logically have that outcome (with allowances of course). An arrow is an arrow, so unless theure planning on it spinning and hitting the person on the back of the head with the flat of arrowhead midflight, it does lethal damage. It's not Star Trek with stun settings.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It seems like you thought I was disagreeing with you?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Sure. And thank you for that contribution thou.
I don't desagree with you, although the RAW leds to understand thats the only options on this matter. However, the death saves rule can be used in this matter by the abide from the DM, so rather than have that only two options, in anytime the DM judge there's a narrative matter, the option on "kill him now" can be "put him to death saves and rush to stabilize him".
I wouldn't allow it in any given situation, but when it have a narrative matter behind that I don't see the need for the DM to limit it to kill outright.
Pretty sure D&D is about it, but more than that its also on narrative so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?
I do agree that stick to rules are important, their main role is to make the game workable. I didn't get you wrong thou. I mabe use "stick to the RAW" in a bad way: what I mean is that "knocking out a creature" rule in this case don't overcame the abid of the DM on decide that this foe can be put to death saves (if it matter to them to do it). So I meant "we didn't need to stick in the isolatad read on that rule without consider that other factor".
To me it's no more silly than the barbarian knocking someone out with a great axe. The attack and damage rolls are no different if a barbarian is trying to lob your head off or intending to take you alive.
In my games I just house rule to let people non lethally KO with any weapon. And most spells generally, with exceptions for aoe spells and things like disintigrate/power word kill.
The problem is that Team Monster can do exactly this to the party. Why should one side have such an easy time with it but not the other?
I appreciate the idea that "wanted alive" quests can provide a different kind of challenge to a group. But practically speaking when you make nonlethal combat difficult the primary result is that the party just decides to murder everyone by default unless the story absolutely demands that they shouldn't. Players take the path of least resistance. I feel like the DMs who make nonlethal combat difficult and the DMs that complain about their players being murderhobos have significant overlap.
When I loosened up on my rules for nonlethal KOs, my party immediately stopped killing things that weren't presented as absolutely, irredeemably evil. And following that, I started to see more encounters resolved without combat altogether. Does it require a bit more of a stretch of imagination at times? Yes. But no more than PCs regularly going down and then bouncing right back up again in the next round. Overall it was 100% worth it for the way it changed my players' view of combat and conflict. Having nonlethal become the default means the choice to kill carries much more weight, as it should for any PC who considers themselves Good.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Making it improviseed also isn't RAW. That can explain how a axe can be used improvised as a blunt weapon, but not RAW as the rule didn't mention you can choose to make it a different type of damage or action.
Sorry, "This isn't RAW but..." were clear. I just seems to me that you are refering to the quoted and the end of the sentence after the "."were suggestions aside the "this isn't RAW" but that was a misread of mine.
1) I mean, when I run Team Monster I simply choose not to do this. But getting upset with players over some minor gamesmanship isn't going to help anything, so I don't.
2) Depends. If there are in-game consequences for wanton murder sprees, that tends to cut down on excessive shedding of blood a bit at least. Being the mechanically most convenient approach is not the same as being the easy option.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If the DM is going to run a "take them alive" scenario, then perhaps the DM should also allow the death save rules to be used for that NPC.
I didn't read everything, so it may have been mentioned, but your DM can let you do non-lethal if you want, if not, when you think an enemy is close to death there is always the Sleep spell.
Yep. That was said. There's always tons of other ways specially spells. The main thin is that beyond all that alternatives there's death saves at the end of the day and at the distinction of the DM it can be called if needed.
I think thats a pretty easy situation to deal. At least for my tables:
PC can go melee to use "knocking out a creature". The pros is that the foe goes straight to stable unconscious and the con is that you must go melee.
Or PC can go to control spells like Sleep, Suggestion, Charm, etc. The pros is that you can do it early and maybe avoid fighting and the con is that you need a spellcaster with those spells.
Or the PC can go to pure damage and hope to stablize the foe before it dies on death saves. The pros is that it still a chance if the others are out and the con is that you have a clock to rush against (death saves - wish can be harder if there still other foes fighting).
Both options seems pretty valid for me and I let to my players to decide how they wish to make their narratives for that game. I do not have a fair explanation withing game if some ask me why their PC go to death saves and a foe it wishes alive die outright (just a out of game answer that is: for the game flow better). I also take in mind and clarefied to the table that this are supposed to bring the narrative to work so either death saves or "knocking out" are out of discussion if they want it just for ruin the fun (I would narrete that a foe dies outright with knocking out in melee if the player were just making the table as fools losing time).
I think we're agreed other on the original point, just misunderstanding each other. I wanted to comment on when you wrote "so anytime the rules impose limitation on narrative its totally fine to bent it right?". This is more me thinking out loud more than anything.
I'm conflicted. In principle, I agree, but in practice...my experience is being forced to stick to the rules spurs the narrative and pushes us (as players and DMs) to improve it. An example from one of my current campaigns:
I, as DM, had to find a way to unite a Druid, a Paladin and a Ranger. I knew the Druid, as part of her story, was looking for protection. I knew that the Paladin had values that meant that he would feel compelled to defend someone who was at a disadvantage and the Ranger would brook no challenge. So, I had the Ranger jumped on by a bunch of thugs while the other two were coincidently present. With any luck, the Paladin would follow their values and defend the Ranger, beating up the thugs and impressing the Druid so she'd join them for their protection. Simple, right?
When the first punches by both the Paladin and the Ranger were CritFails, I knew that I was in trouble. They ended up being complete buffoons thanks to the dice, resulting in the Druid scoffing and walking off. I could have broken RAW and fudged the results, "serving the narrative", but they would have known that it was forced and of I didn't. They managed to land a few lucky blows, giving me the opportunity to make the thugs withdrawals give me a second to reformulate my plan. Except, the Ranger's and Paladin's values meant that they wouldn't let a retreating enemy escape.
Crap.
So I have a chase going through the city as my characters chase these thugs, with no narrative purpose at this point. So, I have them go past a Town Watch patrol who, with cold steel, manage to persuade them that a night in the cells is their best option. Eventually, I manage to rope the Druid in, and I get my party, but the narrative was a lot more interesting than I'd originally planned because I stuck to RAW and just let things happen.
I'm learning Star Trek Adventures, and someone was asking if Remodulating Shields (which gives resistance) stacked, the answer was no. Why not? Apart from lore, it would stifle creativity and therefore the narrative. No need to play hide and seek in a nebula or find a weak spot in their power grid or whatever, just ramp up resistances until you are effectively invulnerable. That's fine if the goal is to survive, but boring for collaborative story telling.
My point is that sticking to RAW/RAI forces us to be creative and forge a new story. Sure, you could rule that a ranged spell can be non-lethal in your situation...but wouldn't it be fun and more interesting to give them the choice of letting him go and maybe having him come back for a bit of revenge? Or if he goes after whoever posted the bounty? Ir perhaps they have to come up with a whole new and novel plan to capture the quarry. Or, if they kill the quarry, how does the bounty poster react? Lots of options to explore by letting events just play out.
In other words, what does it mean to serve the narrative? I often change the rules a bit to make the story more interesting and I'd instinctively say that letting the Ranger capture his quarry, but I think letting the story go in unexpected directions can be even more rewarding. Often, the dice tell better stories than I do.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty sure.
I think we do agreed in everything here.
I see the 5e rules as a pretty descent set of rules and honestlly I do not have much of houserules on my tables couse I feel ok with those. When I mean to stretch the rules a bit is situational, and in response to that moment when you feel its needed to make things work in the narrative. Also, I mention that just for enlight the role of the narrative, couse the case death saves/knocking out are still within the rules.
In any of those cases at your table you mention I wouldn't do different than you did. The rules are supposed to make the narrative flow and it do is job vey well, so my support is that keep strick is the best option anytime, houseruling just when you find a wick spot that are a clear obstacle to the narrative flow.
Like in the druid, palading, ranger exemple you make: I think thats nothing in the rules that were failling the narrative. That situation on them to built that relationship in that way should be done by roleplaying over the results of the dice and the course of actions. If you bent the rules to make that story happen in the way you wish you would be just railroading your players, so that wasn't a fair case to justify that rule stretching I guess.
And I don't mean that we should stretch the rules to make the narrative follow the path we wish, to built our own story. What I mean is that if something which would be pretty possible within the lore/physics/logic on the setting of the narrative, there's no need for stick to a rule that are impeding it to be possible or becouse the rules don't cover that well.
I meant this in the context of the PCs arguing for it when you give them a hard time about capturing someone. "You can do this to us, so why can't we do it to you?" I don't have a reasonable argument against that.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I guess my argument is that whether I can or not, I don't? If the antagonists have a reason to try and capture the PCs, they'll use melee attacks and spells and traps and whatnot but they'll never rely on death saves being made.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].