I'm a new DM, running a homebrew campaign for a few friends of mine. One of them is playing a Fairy(UA) Bard and doesn't want her character to kill anyone. She's aware that the other players' characters will kill, but she personally will not. How should I do this?
I've thought of possibly having it so that whenever she "kills" someone, they just take the unconscious condition. I've also thought of possibly homebrewing some spells, but our first session is next Thursday and I don't think I'll have the time nor the focus to do so.
Well, I'd assume someone who doesn't want to kill intends to play a support role rather than squaring off in combat. A bard seems like a fine way of doing that. Has she played before? Maybe no action on your part is required and you can trust her to take care of herself?
She's never played before, and I think you may be correct on the support part. I'll see how it plays out and if theres any complications I'll work something out. Thank you :)
That's allowed by the rules. "An attacker who reduces a creature to zero hit points with a melee attack may choose to knock them out instead of kill them."
However, it only works with melee attacks, not ranged attacks or spells with saves. There are a few spells that operate as a melee attack, so I think you could do nonlethal damage there as well. However, most of the damage a bard is going to do is non-melee damage. But bards are also very good at support, so there's plenty for her to do without direct damage. She can at least avoid doing damage to enemies that are low on hp and striking the final blow. And if she does by accident, just cast Healing Word on them (maybe wait until the fighter is looming over them ready to pommel whip them back into unconsciousness).
I played a character that never killed (correction,they never killed humanoids and hesitated to hurt any sentient being).It was okay I was a semi/support (mercy monk all attacks were melee so i could do what the above player reccomends).
This could be a question of genre rather than game mechanics. Is this a character thing, or would the player rather not be killing everyone?
If it's the latter, you can just make it that bad guys go "down" when reduced to 0 HP. They're not dead, just out of the fight. A bad guy is only dead when specifically killed.
This doesn't have to be a problem. Just think of it that you are playing in a The Last Airbender type story rather than Castlevania.
If it is a character choice rather than player then... ignore everything I just said 😅
I have had characters use blunted weapons before. No matter what all damage is now bludgeoning but the amount is the same. It's assumed they have had enough fighting training to know how to avoid vitals. And as others have stated Hawkeye style blunted arrows with the same rules.
Spells are now just "non-lethal" I'd they chose. For example lightning is now more of a trader than an actual bolt of lightning.
Honestly it's mostly just flavor text I change when I do this so it's fine.
You could change spell damage to psychic damage or poison for her spells. Balance wise there is no big difference between fire damage and poison damage.
A dark purple streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a cloud of gas. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Constitution saving throw. A target takes 8d6 poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The poison spreads around corners.
It took 30 seconds to replace fire with poison and to change the save from dex to con. This can be done in my opinion for all fire/ice/lightning type of damage spells if she wishes to.
I would leave thunder as it is and would allow to replace necrotic/force/radiant damage with psychic damage.
The easiest way to handle this situation is just.... let it be.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to kill. Granted, if the entire party felt that way you'd have a very short campaign. But if the rest of the party is combat-capable, and one character decides they'd rather support than kill, that's fine. A bard is a great support character! They can heal, they can inspire, they can use their charisma to open many doors that mere combat would not open. Remember - while combat usually takes a disproportionate amount of game time - the time a character spends in combat is actually very small. A typical encounter usually lasts less than a minute. Even a Big Boss fight might last 5 or maybe 10 minutes. The vast majority of a character's time is spent dealing with NPCs, exploring the town, earning people's trust, uncovering clues and information, discovering (or sowing) rumors, and reveling in their exploits. And those are all things that bards are the absolute masters of!
Let them play their bard their way. There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing to "fix". She's fine. Support characters - and support players - are the glue that hold the party together. Celebrate that!
I'm a new DM, running a homebrew campaign for a few friends of mine. One of them is playing a Fairy(UA) Bard and doesn't want her character to kill anyone. She's aware that the other players' characters will kill, but she personally will not. How should I do this?
I've thought of possibly having it so that whenever she "kills" someone, they just take the unconscious condition. I've also thought of possibly homebrewing some spells, but our first session is next Thursday and I don't think I'll have the time nor the focus to do so.
Any suggestions?
Well, I'd assume someone who doesn't want to kill intends to play a support role rather than squaring off in combat. A bard seems like a fine way of doing that. Has she played before? Maybe no action on your part is required and you can trust her to take care of herself?
She's never played before, and I think you may be correct on the support part. I'll see how it plays out and if theres any complications I'll work something out. Thank you :)
That's allowed by the rules. "An attacker who reduces a creature to zero hit points with a melee attack may choose to knock them out instead of kill them."
However, it only works with melee attacks, not ranged attacks or spells with saves. There are a few spells that operate as a melee attack, so I think you could do nonlethal damage there as well. However, most of the damage a bard is going to do is non-melee damage. But bards are also very good at support, so there's plenty for her to do without direct damage. She can at least avoid doing damage to enemies that are low on hp and striking the final blow. And if she does by accident, just cast Healing Word on them (maybe wait until the fighter is looming over them ready to pommel whip them back into unconsciousness).
I played a character that never killed (correction,they never killed humanoids and hesitated to hurt any sentient being).It was okay I was a semi/support (mercy monk all attacks were melee so i could do what the above player reccomends).
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
You could alter ranged damage to allow KO's. Blunt arrows, a la Hawkeye style archer.
This could be a question of genre rather than game mechanics. Is this a character thing, or would the player rather not be killing everyone?
If it's the latter, you can just make it that bad guys go "down" when reduced to 0 HP. They're not dead, just out of the fight. A bad guy is only dead when specifically killed.
This doesn't have to be a problem. Just think of it that you are playing in a The Last Airbender type story rather than Castlevania.
If it is a character choice rather than player then... ignore everything I just said 😅
I have had characters use blunted weapons before. No matter what all damage is now bludgeoning but the amount is the same. It's assumed they have had enough fighting training to know how to avoid vitals. And as others have stated Hawkeye style blunted arrows with the same rules.
Spells are now just "non-lethal" I'd they chose. For example lightning is now more of a trader than an actual bolt of lightning.
Honestly it's mostly just flavor text I change when I do this so it's fine.
Once rolled a -2 on a perception check
You could change spell damage to psychic damage or poison for her spells. Balance wise there is no big difference between fire damage and poison damage.
Fireball—>Poison Ball:
A dark purple streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a cloud of gas. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Constitution saving throw. A target takes 8d6 poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The poison spreads around corners.
It took 30 seconds to replace fire with poison and to change the save from dex to con. This can be done in my opinion for all fire/ice/lightning type of damage spells if she wishes to.
I would leave thunder as it is and would allow to replace necrotic/force/radiant damage with psychic damage.
I think fire resistance and immunity is more common than poison resistance and immunity, so poison bsll does seem a bit stronger.
The easiest way to handle this situation is just.... let it be.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to kill. Granted, if the entire party felt that way you'd have a very short campaign. But if the rest of the party is combat-capable, and one character decides they'd rather support than kill, that's fine. A bard is a great support character! They can heal, they can inspire, they can use their charisma to open many doors that mere combat would not open. Remember - while combat usually takes a disproportionate amount of game time - the time a character spends in combat is actually very small. A typical encounter usually lasts less than a minute. Even a Big Boss fight might last 5 or maybe 10 minutes. The vast majority of a character's time is spent dealing with NPCs, exploring the town, earning people's trust, uncovering clues and information, discovering (or sowing) rumors, and reveling in their exploits. And those are all things that bards are the absolute masters of!
Let them play their bard their way. There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing to "fix". She's fine. Support characters - and support players - are the glue that hold the party together. Celebrate that!
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.