I'm not disagreeing - I think that's how RAW work.
However, that implies some pretty tight control of the spell shocking grasp. Somehow I need to be able to accurately judge how much current would disable, but not kill, and control the spell finely enough to deliver just that amount.
If I wanted to up the realism quotient, I might ask for some Medicine and/or Arcana skill checks to get it right.
Fireball is just an Arcane mortar round; no chance there.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
However, that implies some pretty tight control of the spell shocking grasp. Somehow I need to be able to accurately judge how much current would disable, but not kill, and control the spell finely enough to deliver just that amount.
Killing monsters at 0 HP is just a shortcut the DM can choose to take to speed things up. Unless you're targeting something really weak you wouldn't kill a creature outright with your shocking grasp. I'm pretty sure the implication is that you're deliberately avoiding their vitals.
If I wanted to up the realism quotient, I might ask for some Medicine and/or Arcana skill checks to get it right.
Don't make the game more complicated than it needs to be; it's not a physics simulation. The default rules work fine. You should aim to have as few house rules as possible, and use house rules that solve real problems or establish the genre you want for your game (e.g. horror.)
You should aim to have as few house rules as possible, and use house rules that solve real problems or establish the genre you want for your game (e.g. horror.)
Now we're getting into the philosophy of game mechanics :)
I can see and respect your position - I'm not sure I agree 100% with your use of "should", but that's me - I wouldn't try to impose my particular approach on anyone else.
I approach 5e - and most RPGs - not as a game, but a game system framework - and each campaign and set of house rules as an actual game implementation.
If the DM and players wanted it to be "physics simulation", and had fun with it - go for it.
in this case - I agree it's a noodly side issue where - for me at least - "the juice isn't worth the squeeze".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I can't find it via google, but I recall something that Mike Mearls said (maybe on one of his YouTube videos) about subdual damage and knocking creatures unconscious.
Basically, they recognised that there was a need to allow player characters to be able to subdue/knockout creatures, rather than kill them (apprehending criminals etc) and they tried a couple of iterations of special rules for this during internal playtest, but decided that these rules added complexity to the combat rules that just wasn't needed. Thus, they made it so player characters can just declare an attack is "non lethal" and it's up to them and the DM to rationalise how this happens.
Question: would you allow the spirit guardian spell to knock out. What about the spiritual weapon.
I stick as closely to the RAW as I can manage as a general policy; so any spell that says "melee spell attack" can knock someone out, while any spell that doesn't can't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Say the wizard uses fireball to do damage on the enemy, can they say that it only knocks them out instead of killing them?
The standard rules for choosing to knock out your target say "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack"
That means fireball doesn't work for knocking folks out, but shocking grasp does.
I'm not disagreeing - I think that's how RAW work.
However, that implies some pretty tight control of the spell shocking grasp. Somehow I need to be able to accurately judge how much current would disable, but not kill, and control the spell finely enough to deliver just that amount.
If I wanted to up the realism quotient, I might ask for some Medicine and/or Arcana skill checks to get it right.
Fireball is just an Arcane mortar round; no chance there.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Killing monsters at 0 HP is just a shortcut the DM can choose to take to speed things up. Unless you're targeting something really weak you wouldn't kill a creature outright with your shocking grasp. I'm pretty sure the implication is that you're deliberately avoiding their vitals.
Don't make the game more complicated than it needs to be; it's not a physics simulation. The default rules work fine. You should aim to have as few house rules as possible, and use house rules that solve real problems or establish the genre you want for your game (e.g. horror.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Now we're getting into the philosophy of game mechanics :)
I can see and respect your position - I'm not sure I agree 100% with your use of "should", but that's me - I wouldn't try to impose my particular approach on anyone else.
I approach 5e - and most RPGs - not as a game, but a game system framework - and each campaign and set of house rules as an actual game implementation.
If the DM and players wanted it to be "physics simulation", and had fun with it - go for it.
in this case - I agree it's a noodly side issue where - for me at least - "the juice isn't worth the squeeze".
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI can't find it via google, but I recall something that Mike Mearls said (maybe on one of his YouTube videos) about subdual damage and knocking creatures unconscious.
Basically, they recognised that there was a need to allow player characters to be able to subdue/knockout creatures, rather than kill them (apprehending criminals etc) and they tried a couple of iterations of special rules for this during internal playtest, but decided that these rules added complexity to the combat rules that just wasn't needed. Thus, they made it so player characters can just declare an attack is "non lethal" and it's up to them and the DM to rationalise how this happens.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Question: would you allow the spirit guardian spell to knock out. What about the spiritual weapon.