My group's Paladin has a sentient war hammer, that is an Abberation Bane. It glows whenever one is near and POSSESSES the attuned Paladin and only wants to hammer hammer hammer the abberation. The possession doesn't stop until the abberation is dead or the host Paladin is unconscious.
This hasn't occurred yet in the past, but it's on the way.
The party may want to parlay w an upcoming beholder.
What are some options you could see them trying? The other party members are a wizard, barbarian and ranger.
Before going to meet the Beholder, have the Barbarian take the war hammer away from the Paladin. A Remove Curse from the Wizard might be required.
Edit: Btw, assuming you're the DM, it's not your job to find a solution to the players' problem. It's your job to provide the problem for the players to solve. It's up to them as to how to deal with this issue.
The key will be making sure that an exceptionally intelligent being is aware that a group of people want to talk, and there is annoying ant that obviously has one of the great forbidden artifacts.
Why, that would make a lovely price for the exchange.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
My group's Paladin has a sentient war hammer, that is an Abberation Bane. It glows whenever one is near and POSSESSES the attuned Paladin and only wants to hammer hammer hammer the abberation. The possession doesn't stop until the abberation is dead or the host Paladin is unconscious.
This hasn't occurred yet in the past, but it's on the way.
The party may want to parlay w an upcoming beholder.
What are some options you could see them trying? The other party members are a wizard, barbarian and ranger.
Thanks!+
Is this technically classed as a curse? It sounds to me like a curse so I'd be preparing for Remove Curse. I'd also be thinking about Protection from Evil and Good.
Beyond that the next tactic would be grappling, hold person, or any other mechanic to try and restrict the movement of the affected person. You've also got coersive manners, things like Command to try and get the Paladin to drop, or hide the weapon in question.
Then there's the protective/interference tactics - so Sanctuary, or Tiny Hut to protect the Beholder. Fog Cloud to make it difficult for the Paladin to see or get to the Beholder the spell being cast on either the Beholder or the Paladin. I'd also be considering Sleep or other similar ways of knocking the Paladin out.
Realistically, if the party know they're meeting a beholder, I'd be restraining the Paladin and excluding him from the parlay. If they don't, I'd be having something like Leomund's Tiny Hut, or Banishment to protect the beholder or exclude the Paladin respectively.
Excellent! Thank you all in this. I'm the regular DM for the group and the Pally is my npc. But for my b day month(october), a player has taken over and running a one shot where I get to play my character.
I was saving the abberation bane/sentient weapon possession for a later storyline BUT our guest DM ended the last session w the party stumbling into a Spectator's secret lair! (The player/fill-in DM had no idea! 😀)
Sooo... its all happening a bit sooner than planned but here we go w me as a PC but going to be the DM again next month!
The low-tech way would be to tell the pally to wait around the corner, or in the other room or something. Assuming the party knows about the weapon and also about the upcoming chat. Or, they could knock him out, like he's B.A. from the A-team, if you're old enough to get that reference.
Otherwise, to the above suggestions, I'd add Calm Emotions, which has the line "Alternatively, you can make a target indifferent about creatures of your choice that it is hostile toward." The pally is likely to have a good cha save, though, so it might not work. Also, if the pally is in on it, you could allow them to choose to fail the save -- that's not RAW, but it is a kind of common house rule. At least, I think its kind of common, and I'm pretty sure they are making it RAW for 1D&D.
When you reduce something to 0 hp you can say the damage is non lethal but I don't think the party will need to subdue them. Now if your party is dealing with a beholder, it's anti magic cone should suppress the possession by the hammer unless it is a particularly powerful item significant to the world. If you don't want the item to be suppressed by the beholder looking at it there are variant abilities in Volo's including the effects of mirage arcane which is cool because it creates an illusory environment in the cone or power word stun but you could do any spell or magical effect in the cone. Also as others have pointed out the eye rays are also often disabling so the beholder should have no issue.
There are also rules for sentient magic item conflict in the DMG. Basically they make a save initially then are controlled for 1d12 hours and then they repeat the save every time they are damaged. This happens only if the wielder disagrees with the sentient weapon, if the weapon agrees with the players course of action then it will not attempt to take control.
When you reduce something to 0 hp you can say the damage is non lethal but I don't think the party will need to subdue them. Now if your party is dealing with a beholder, it's anti magic cone should suppress the possession by the hammer unless it is a particularly powerful item significant to the world. If you don't want the item to be suppressed by the beholder looking at it there are variant abilities in Volo's including the effects of mirage arcane which is cool because it creates an illusory environment in the cone or power word stun but you could do any spell or magical effect in the cone. Also as others have pointed out the eye rays are also often disabling so the beholder should have no issue.
There are also rules for sentient magic item conflict in the DMG. Basically they make a save initially then are controlled for 1d12 hours and then they repeat the save every time they are damaged. This happens only if the wielder disagrees with the sentient weapon, if the weapon agrees with the players course of action then it will not attempt to take control.
This is hugely going to depend on the DM and the style of the table. There are DMs out there who require non-lethal damage to be called out prior to the attack, there are DMs like me who state that only unarmed strikes can be used for non-lethal attacks...but even then massive damage would over-rule the non-lethality, there are even DMs that make it clear in their games there is no non-lethal strike.
My point, is that compared to the dozens of reliable means out there - non-lethal is not as reliable.
Excellent! Thank you all in this. I'm the regular DM for the group and the Pally is my npc. But for my b day month(october), a player has taken over and running a one shot where I get to play my character.
I was saving the abberation bane/sentient weapon possession for a later storyline BUT our guest DM ended the last session w the party stumbling into a Spectator's secret lair! (The player/fill-in DM had no idea! 😀)
Sooo... its all happening a bit sooner than planned but here we go w me as a PC but going to be the DM again next month!
The problem here is that the party won't know it is coming until the paladin suddenly attacks the Aberration for no apparent reason. The party won't know why the paladin is attacking, the possessor is unlikely to tell them what is going on so they may not realize what is happening.
Also, if you set this up for the NPC in your game while you were DMing - and are now playing the character - you need to let the current DM in on the surprise so that they can be prepared to deal with it in whatever way they want to. You aren't DMing, it isn't your surprise to reveal anymore.
Anyway, if the beholder is at all suspicious of the party then the encounter is going to go sideways when the paladin attacks. The Beholder has absolutely no reason to allow the paladin and party to live after being attacked so the beholder and allies will either kill the party or flee before they die.
The only way that the options like Remove Curse are going to work is if the party is prepared in advance - which given the surprise you mention is unlikely. Paladins are usually pretty strong so grappling may not work, the paladin has decent saves after level 6 (I'm not sure what level this game is at) and if the party suddenly decide to restrain the paladin then they are open to the Beholder attacking which it will likely do if the paladin has damaged it or its friends.
Non-lethal melee damage taking the paladin to zero hit points would be the classic way of subduing them without killing them ... but ranged attacks can't be used for this purpose.
Just before the encounter, talk to the player, alone. Explain to them that:
The hammer will be trying to possess them. They will basically need to make death saving throws, and if they "die" then the hammer takes control, and makes them attack. You will catch their eye or PM them to make them roll.
The hammer has no power, and resets, if the Beholder is looking at them, because of the Antimagic Eye.
They are immediately aware of the problem, though they don't know where it's coming from, and must roleplay their efforts to suppress it accordingly.
Then have the Beholder be quite animate - going from watching them to "pacing" back and forth, or looking for something - anything to give them gaps where the Paladin might be possessed.
Then let them decide if they want to leave, or try to hold the beholders attention, or whatever - let the scene unfurl however it does!
It might feel a bit like a "gotcha" moment if the first time this curse goes off happens to be in an encounter that the party would want to parlay.
They should come up against at least one aberration before that which triggers the item. At that point, it will be on them to avoid it happening again, and if they forget they will know it was due to their own failing rather than the DM just (as far as they can tell) arbitrarily ruining their attempt to avoid combat.
When you reduce something to 0 hp you can say the damage is non lethal but I don't think the party will need to subdue them. Now if your party is dealing with a beholder, it's anti magic cone should suppress the possession by the hammer unless it is a particularly powerful item significant to the world. If you don't want the item to be suppressed by the beholder looking at it there are variant abilities in Volo's including the effects of mirage arcane which is cool because it creates an illusory environment in the cone or power word stun but you could do any spell or magical effect in the cone. Also as others have pointed out the eye rays are also often disabling so the beholder should have no issue.
There are also rules for sentient magic item conflict in the DMG. Basically they make a save initially then are controlled for 1d12 hours and then they repeat the save every time they are damaged. This happens only if the wielder disagrees with the sentient weapon, if the weapon agrees with the players course of action then it will not attempt to take control.
This is hugely going to depend on the DM and the style of the table. There are DMs out there who require non-lethal damage to be called out prior to the attack, there are DMs like me who state that only unarmed strikes can be used for non-lethal attacks...but even then massive damage would over-rule the non-lethality, there are even DMs that make it clear in their games there is no non-lethal strike.
My point, is that compared to the dozens of reliable means out there - non-lethal is not as reliable.
Yeah I really wouldn't recommend Dms weaken or ignore the non lethal damage rule. There are allot of opportunities in leaving enemies and from a balance perspective, not killing things is in no way over powered. If it's out of some kind of attempt at realism then it's not really realistic that your characters word would automatically align for a cut when you're trying not to do that. If you think knocking people unconscious safely is unrealistic then it's probably more realistic for non lethal damage to incapacitate but not knock unconscious than it is for all attempts at non lethal damage to turn lethal.
I also wouldn't recommend high damage over ruling non lethal attacks either because from a balance perspective you are reducing player utility as they gain more power and from a realism perspective it doesn't make sense that a more powerful adventurer would be worse at the task. It might be funny for the paladin to explode the goblin they are trying to subdue with radiant damage but it feels silly and in the long run simply dissuades them from trying. They don't control the rolls, it's not meaningful challenge, it's rng silliness. Based on how the rules are written I can't really argue that it's against the rules to do that even if I would argue that the formatting implies that it is but it definelty doesn't play well.
I wasn't specifically saying that I recommend it. What I'm saying is that there isn't a universal. It's going to be table dependant. I've been a player with DMs who flat out do not allow non-lethal. I've been a DM where players have asked to never have lethal damage either for their characters or the enemies. My personal ruling on only unarmed strikes allowing for non-lethal was my best fit solution for a middle of the road approach. I don't recommend it for other DMs, create your own solution. However, it's important to recognise that not every table runs to the same interpretation of rules and depending on the different options (which are in the Base rules DMG, PHB) employed at the table...the results will be different.
It is for that reason that I say 'simply having players use non-lethal damage' isn't a reliable suggestion. Not every table employs it, not every player will agree, and not every interpretation of non-lethal is going to be the same.
.. It is for that reason that I say 'simply having players use non-lethal damage' isn't a reliable suggestion. Not every table employs it, not every player will agree, and not every interpretation of non-lethal is going to be the same.
Sure. That is always true since every individual table runs differently. This is the reason why the suggestions and comments in these forums are based on RAW (Rules As Written) and not on any particular table rules.
What does RAW have to say about non-lethal damage?
"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 this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable."
RAW is very clear. Whenever an attacker reduces a target to zero hit points using a melee attack then the attacker, at that specific moment when the damage is dealt, can decide whether the target is knocked out becoming unconscious and stable or not.
Anything else is a house rule and hopefully the DM has addressed this during a session zero so that the players know what to expect.
From the perspective of folks suggesting knocking the target unconscious in order to subdue them, all those suggestions are consistent with the rules, the only requirement being a melee attack (note that that can include melee spell attacks like shocking grasp).
How it ended up going down: Web spell cast on the Spectator missed, hit the paladin, Barbarian ripped hammer from paladin's grip and tossed it in the party's bag of holding.
Parlay w Spectator went smoothly after it saw what the party did to their paladin. (They acted like they meant to hit him w the web spell.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My group's Paladin has a sentient war hammer, that is an Abberation Bane. It glows whenever one is near and POSSESSES the attuned Paladin and only wants to hammer hammer hammer the abberation. The possession doesn't stop until the abberation is dead or the host Paladin is unconscious.
This hasn't occurred yet in the past, but it's on the way.
The party may want to parlay w an upcoming beholder.
What are some options you could see them trying? The other party members are a wizard, barbarian and ranger.
Thanks!+
Before going to meet the Beholder, have the Barbarian take the war hammer away from the Paladin. A Remove Curse from the Wizard might be required.
Edit: Btw, assuming you're the DM, it's not your job to find a solution to the players' problem. It's your job to provide the problem for the players to solve. It's up to them as to how to deal with this issue.
I am the DM, I started this thread just to see what ideas you all might come up with to get my mind ready for what could possibly go down. Thanks!
The Beholder can do it.
Rays 3, 6, or 8 are all capable of such a thing.
The key will be making sure that an exceptionally intelligent being is aware that a group of people want to talk, and there is annoying ant that obviously has one of the great forbidden artifacts.
Why, that would make a lovely price for the exchange.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Is this technically classed as a curse? It sounds to me like a curse so I'd be preparing for Remove Curse. I'd also be thinking about Protection from Evil and Good.
Beyond that the next tactic would be grappling, hold person, or any other mechanic to try and restrict the movement of the affected person. You've also got coersive manners, things like Command to try and get the Paladin to drop, or hide the weapon in question.
Then there's the protective/interference tactics - so Sanctuary, or Tiny Hut to protect the Beholder. Fog Cloud to make it difficult for the Paladin to see or get to the Beholder the spell being cast on either the Beholder or the Paladin. I'd also be considering Sleep or other similar ways of knocking the Paladin out.
Realistically, if the party know they're meeting a beholder, I'd be restraining the Paladin and excluding him from the parlay. If they don't, I'd be having something like Leomund's Tiny Hut, or Banishment to protect the beholder or exclude the Paladin respectively.
There's loads of ways around it.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Excellent! Thank you all in this. I'm the regular DM for the group and the Pally is my npc. But for my b day month(october), a player has taken over and running a one shot where I get to play my character.
I was saving the abberation bane/sentient weapon possession for a later storyline BUT our guest DM ended the last session w the party stumbling into a Spectator's secret lair! (The player/fill-in DM had no idea! 😀)
Sooo... its all happening a bit sooner than planned but here we go w me as a PC but going to be the DM again next month!
The low-tech way would be to tell the pally to wait around the corner, or in the other room or something. Assuming the party knows about the weapon and also about the upcoming chat. Or, they could knock him out, like he's B.A. from the A-team, if you're old enough to get that reference.
Otherwise, to the above suggestions, I'd add Calm Emotions, which has the line "Alternatively, you can make a target indifferent about creatures of your choice that it is hostile toward." The pally is likely to have a good cha save, though, so it might not work. Also, if the pally is in on it, you could allow them to choose to fail the save -- that's not RAW, but it is a kind of common house rule. At least, I think its kind of common, and I'm pretty sure they are making it RAW for 1D&D.
When you reduce something to 0 hp you can say the damage is non lethal but I don't think the party will need to subdue them. Now if your party is dealing with a beholder, it's anti magic cone should suppress the possession by the hammer unless it is a particularly powerful item significant to the world. If you don't want the item to be suppressed by the beholder looking at it there are variant abilities in Volo's including the effects of mirage arcane which is cool because it creates an illusory environment in the cone or power word stun but you could do any spell or magical effect in the cone. Also as others have pointed out the eye rays are also often disabling so the beholder should have no issue.
There are also rules for sentient magic item conflict in the DMG. Basically they make a save initially then are controlled for 1d12 hours and then they repeat the save every time they are damaged. This happens only if the wielder disagrees with the sentient weapon, if the weapon agrees with the players course of action then it will not attempt to take control.
This is hugely going to depend on the DM and the style of the table. There are DMs out there who require non-lethal damage to be called out prior to the attack, there are DMs like me who state that only unarmed strikes can be used for non-lethal attacks...but even then massive damage would over-rule the non-lethality, there are even DMs that make it clear in their games there is no non-lethal strike.
My point, is that compared to the dozens of reliable means out there - non-lethal is not as reliable.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
The problem here is that the party won't know it is coming until the paladin suddenly attacks the Aberration for no apparent reason. The party won't know why the paladin is attacking, the possessor is unlikely to tell them what is going on so they may not realize what is happening.
Also, if you set this up for the NPC in your game while you were DMing - and are now playing the character - you need to let the current DM in on the surprise so that they can be prepared to deal with it in whatever way they want to. You aren't DMing, it isn't your surprise to reveal anymore.
Anyway, if the beholder is at all suspicious of the party then the encounter is going to go sideways when the paladin attacks. The Beholder has absolutely no reason to allow the paladin and party to live after being attacked so the beholder and allies will either kill the party or flee before they die.
The only way that the options like Remove Curse are going to work is if the party is prepared in advance - which given the surprise you mention is unlikely. Paladins are usually pretty strong so grappling may not work, the paladin has decent saves after level 6 (I'm not sure what level this game is at) and if the party suddenly decide to restrain the paladin then they are open to the Beholder attacking which it will likely do if the paladin has damaged it or its friends.
Non-lethal melee damage taking the paladin to zero hit points would be the classic way of subduing them without killing them ... but ranged attacks can't be used for this purpose.
I told the fill in DM after the sesh and he laughed his ass off and is very excited to see what the party does.
The abberation is just a Spectator this time around. My paladin is a rock gnome w 14 STR and our barbarian is a goliath with 17STR. Should be fun!
I would have this as a roleplay opportunity.
Just before the encounter, talk to the player, alone. Explain to them that:
Then have the Beholder be quite animate - going from watching them to "pacing" back and forth, or looking for something - anything to give them gaps where the Paladin might be possessed.
Then let them decide if they want to leave, or try to hold the beholders attention, or whatever - let the scene unfurl however it does!
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!
It might feel a bit like a "gotcha" moment if the first time this curse goes off happens to be in an encounter that the party would want to parlay.
They should come up against at least one aberration before that which triggers the item. At that point, it will be on them to avoid it happening again, and if they forget they will know it was due to their own failing rather than the DM just (as far as they can tell) arbitrarily ruining their attempt to avoid combat.
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
Yeah I really wouldn't recommend Dms weaken or ignore the non lethal damage rule. There are allot of opportunities in leaving enemies and from a balance perspective, not killing things is in no way over powered. If it's out of some kind of attempt at realism then it's not really realistic that your characters word would automatically align for a cut when you're trying not to do that. If you think knocking people unconscious safely is unrealistic then it's probably more realistic for non lethal damage to incapacitate but not knock unconscious than it is for all attempts at non lethal damage to turn lethal.
I also wouldn't recommend high damage over ruling non lethal attacks either because from a balance perspective you are reducing player utility as they gain more power and from a realism perspective it doesn't make sense that a more powerful adventurer would be worse at the task. It might be funny for the paladin to explode the goblin they are trying to subdue with radiant damage but it feels silly and in the long run simply dissuades them from trying. They don't control the rolls, it's not meaningful challenge, it's rng silliness. Based on how the rules are written I can't really argue that it's against the rules to do that even if I would argue that the formatting implies that it is but it definelty doesn't play well.
I wasn't specifically saying that I recommend it. What I'm saying is that there isn't a universal. It's going to be table dependant. I've been a player with DMs who flat out do not allow non-lethal. I've been a DM where players have asked to never have lethal damage either for their characters or the enemies. My personal ruling on only unarmed strikes allowing for non-lethal was my best fit solution for a middle of the road approach. I don't recommend it for other DMs, create your own solution. However, it's important to recognise that not every table runs to the same interpretation of rules and depending on the different options (which are in the Base rules DMG, PHB) employed at the table...the results will be different.
It is for that reason that I say 'simply having players use non-lethal damage' isn't a reliable suggestion. Not every table employs it, not every player will agree, and not every interpretation of non-lethal is going to be the same.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Sure. That is always true since every individual table runs differently. This is the reason why the suggestions and comments in these forums are based on RAW (Rules As Written) and not on any particular table rules.
What does RAW have to say about non-lethal damage?
"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 this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable."
RAW is very clear. Whenever an attacker reduces a target to zero hit points using a melee attack then the attacker, at that specific moment when the damage is dealt, can decide whether the target is knocked out becoming unconscious and stable or not.
Anything else is a house rule and hopefully the DM has addressed this during a session zero so that the players know what to expect.
From the perspective of folks suggesting knocking the target unconscious in order to subdue them, all those suggestions are consistent with the rules, the only requirement being a melee attack (note that that can include melee spell attacks like shocking grasp).
How it ended up going down: Web spell cast on the Spectator missed, hit the paladin, Barbarian ripped hammer from paladin's grip and tossed it in the party's bag of holding.
Parlay w Spectator went smoothly after it saw what the party did to their paladin. (They acted like they meant to hit him w the web spell.)