I was playing in a game where I stated before attacking I was attacking nonlethally. I Crit on the roll, and due to the extra damage went over their constitution score in the negative and killed them. I argued I was trying not to kill them and a Crit means I succeeded in not killing them. The DM argued I "hit them too hard" so they died despite me stating it was nonlethal https://nox.tips/. What are you thoughts? Was I right or was the DM?
As the DM, it's their table and they can adjudicate however they like. That being said, if I were in your shoes I would have a conversation with the DM outside the game. It's one thing for the DM to lay down the rules of the game, but for them to force someone else's character to kill an enemy is kinda....bad DMing. If they wanted some kind of reaction or some kind of specific plot point to happen, there are more elegant ways to do it than forcing a character to do something against the player's will. That kinda thing takes a lot of trust that it sounds like isn't in the game atm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I was playing in a game where I stated before attacking I was attacking nonlethally. I Crit on the roll, and due to the extra damage went over their constitution score in the negative and killed them. I argued I was trying not to kill them and a Crit means I succeeded in not killing them. The DM argued I "hit them too hard" so they died despite me stating it was nonlethal. What are you thoughts? Was I right or was the DM?
That's also not how nonlethal works in this game.
If you declared nonlethal, then the attack is nonlethal the instant damage is dealt.
Your DM doesn't know the rules and needs to go learn up.
I was playing in a game where I stated before attacking I was attacking nonlethally. I Crit on the roll, and due to the extra damage went over their constitution score in the negative and killed them. I argued I was trying not to kill them and a Crit means I succeeded in not killing them. The DM argued I "hit them too hard" so they died despite me stating it was nonlethal. What are you thoughts? Was I right or was the DM?
So, there are a couple things to unpack here. First of all, "attacking nonlethally" is not a thing. What is a thing is that when you reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack specifically, you can choose to knock the creature out when you deal the damage, not before the attack. Second of all, instant death from massive damage happens when the leftover damage is greater than or equal to hit point maximum, not constitution score.
So, if you made a melee attack, your DM was wrong and you should have been able to leave the target unconscious and stable. If you made a ranged attack (or were forcing a saving throw), your DM was still wrong but in a way that could have been either better or worse for you depending on whether the target's HP maximum was greater than or less then its constitution score.
At my table, if you called a nonlethal blow and then rolled a crit, you "expertly knocked them out" with effects like minimal evidence of your attack and minimal lingering pain/complications when the target comes to.
But if I'm at someone else's table and they say a nonlethal crit means you accidentally hit a particularly vulnerable spot with your attack, then your described outcome would be reasonable.
Sometimes there is no "right," it just comes down to the DM's interpretation. The best (and occasionally worst) aspect of the game.
I had this same instance come up in my game, and I may have ruled it incorrectly!
The player said they wanted to punch the guy for the experiences he had undergone whilst in his care (long story for another time). He rolled a critical hit, and then rolled about 16 damage.
I got this wrong because I said that he needed to declare it as non-lethal before the attack, which I now know is incorrect!
However, a commoner with 4hp would be subject to the "Instant Death" rules from this much damage.
So, my question is, can you do non-lethal instant-death, or does one overrule the other?
Non-lethal damage isn't really a thing in 5E. This a very good Session Zero discussion point. As that didn't happen, the DM needed to adjudicate on the spot based on their understanding of how non-lethal damage should be manifest at your table. Bottom line, there is no "right answer" except for what you as a table agree to. RAW, more than double HP dealt in a single blow is insta death, no saving throw. 2 examples of this happening in online play are: Kelith's turning into a fish in Critical Role Campaign 1, and Matt Colville's MCDM campaign where a paladin used smite "non-lethally (intended)" but Matt, Correctly imho, ruled one cannot deliver a non-lethal pally-smite, so NPC died. How I would rule? When I DM your table, we can talk about it. It's not for me to say who was "right" or "wrong" at a table I have no connection to.
Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.
I had this same instance come up in my game, and I may have ruled it incorrectly!
The player said they wanted to punch the guy for the experiences he had undergone whilst in his care (long story for another time). He rolled a critical hit, and then rolled about 16 damage.
I got this wrong because I said that he needed to declare it as non-lethal before the attack, which I now know is incorrect!
However, a commoner with 4hp would be subject to the "Instant Death" rules from this much damage.
So, my question is, can you do non-lethal instant-death, or does one overrule the other?
They wouldn't be subject to "Instant Death" rules in my opinion. Normally, they don't get death saves at all, they just die. Their insta-death occurs at 0hp, not the usual trigger for PCs. You can give death saves to them because [insert circumstantial reasons here], but this is an override of the normal rules and therefore is not subject to the insta-death rule. Therefore, the commoner can still be rendered unconscious regardless of the amount of damage that would have been inflicted (with the assumption that it's enough to drop them to 0hp). As I explain later, I would houserule that crits kill, but that's not RAW, my understanding or otherwise.
As for the OP, there is no mention of crits in the knocking a creature out rules (see earlier in my post for the exact and entire quote). RAW, crits are irrelevant.
My personal house rule is that a crit is a particularly heavy handed blow, and therefore kills instantly. This is a houserule though, and ideally should have been made clear before the attack roll was made. I also houserule that declarations for it to be non-lethal has to be made or clearly implied before the attack role is made. That's part of the roleplay/rollplay structure that I have and what makes sense in that context. These are all houserules though, not RAW. RAW is that you declare it's nonlethal when the damage is dealt, and crits are irrelevant.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was playing in a game where I stated before attacking I was attacking nonlethally. I Crit on the roll, and due to the extra damage went over their constitution score in the negative and killed them. I argued I was trying not to kill them and a Crit means I succeeded in not killing them. The DM argued I "hit them too hard" so they died despite me stating it was nonlethal https://nox.tips/. What are you thoughts? Was I right or was the DM?
As the DM, it's their table and they can adjudicate however they like. That being said, if I were in your shoes I would have a conversation with the DM outside the game. It's one thing for the DM to lay down the rules of the game, but for them to force someone else's character to kill an enemy is kinda....bad DMing. If they wanted some kind of reaction or some kind of specific plot point to happen, there are more elegant ways to do it than forcing a character to do something against the player's will. That kinda thing takes a lot of trust that it sounds like isn't in the game atm.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
That's also not how nonlethal works in this game.
If you declared nonlethal, then the attack is nonlethal the instant damage is dealt.
Your DM doesn't know the rules and needs to go learn up.
So, there are a couple things to unpack here. First of all, "attacking nonlethally" is not a thing. What is a thing is that when you reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack specifically, you can choose to knock the creature out when you deal the damage, not before the attack. Second of all, instant death from massive damage happens when the leftover damage is greater than or equal to hit point maximum, not constitution score.
So, if you made a melee attack, your DM was wrong and you should have been able to leave the target unconscious and stable. If you made a ranged attack (or were forcing a saving throw), your DM was still wrong but in a way that could have been either better or worse for you depending on whether the target's HP maximum was greater than or less then its constitution score.
At my table, if you called a nonlethal blow and then rolled a crit, you "expertly knocked them out" with effects like minimal evidence of your attack and minimal lingering pain/complications when the target comes to.
But if I'm at someone else's table and they say a nonlethal crit means you accidentally hit a particularly vulnerable spot with your attack, then your described outcome would be reasonable.
Sometimes there is no "right," it just comes down to the DM's interpretation. The best (and occasionally worst) aspect of the game.
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 had this same instance come up in my game, and I may have ruled it incorrectly!
The player said they wanted to punch the guy for the experiences he had undergone whilst in his care (long story for another time). He rolled a critical hit, and then rolled about 16 damage.
I got this wrong because I said that he needed to declare it as non-lethal before the attack, which I now know is incorrect!
However, a commoner with 4hp would be subject to the "Instant Death" rules from this much damage.
So, my question is, can you do non-lethal instant-death, or does one overrule the other?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Non-lethal damage isn't really a thing in 5E. This a very good Session Zero discussion point. As that didn't happen, the DM needed to adjudicate on the spot based on their understanding of how non-lethal damage should be manifest at your table. Bottom line, there is no "right answer" except for what you as a table agree to. RAW, more than double HP dealt in a single blow is insta death, no saving throw. 2 examples of this happening in online play are: Kelith's turning into a fish in Critical Role Campaign 1, and Matt Colville's MCDM campaign where a paladin used smite "non-lethally (intended)" but Matt, Correctly imho, ruled one cannot deliver a non-lethal pally-smite, so NPC died. How I would rule? When I DM your table, we can talk about it. It's not for me to say who was "right" or "wrong" at a table I have no connection to.
Yes, it is.
PHB, P198:
They wouldn't be subject to "Instant Death" rules in my opinion. Normally, they don't get death saves at all, they just die. Their insta-death occurs at 0hp, not the usual trigger for PCs. You can give death saves to them because [insert circumstantial reasons here], but this is an override of the normal rules and therefore is not subject to the insta-death rule. Therefore, the commoner can still be rendered unconscious regardless of the amount of damage that would have been inflicted (with the assumption that it's enough to drop them to 0hp). As I explain later, I would houserule that crits kill, but that's not RAW, my understanding or otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the OP, there is no mention of crits in the knocking a creature out rules (see earlier in my post for the exact and entire quote). RAW, crits are irrelevant.
My personal house rule is that a crit is a particularly heavy handed blow, and therefore kills instantly. This is a houserule though, and ideally should have been made clear before the attack roll was made. I also houserule that declarations for it to be non-lethal has to be made or clearly implied before the attack role is made. That's part of the roleplay/rollplay structure that I have and what makes sense in that context. These are all houserules though, not RAW. RAW is that you declare it's nonlethal when the damage is dealt, and crits are irrelevant.
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.