When a monster is dealt damage reducing itto 0 hit point, there's no timing difference based on ammount, it dies at that instant.
It can die at that instant, the rule is:
A monster usually dies or is destroyed when it drops to 0 hit points.
So you can absolutely knock monsters out if that's what you want to do, because specific beats general and monsters dying at 0 is really optional, as a DM can run death saving throws if they wish; the dead at 0 is just for speed/simplicity rather than players having to finish everything off just in case.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree with you that this is a case of a specific rule overriding a general rule but I disagree with you about which rule is being overridden. Knocking a creature out is not replacing what happens to a creature who is dropped to zero hit points. It is replacing what happens to a creature who was dropped to zero hit points and falls unconscious. As a default, when a creature falls unconscious after dropping to zero hit points, either the DM declares that creature dead or they enter the process of death saving throws. But if non-lethal damage is then declared, such a creature is instead automatically stabilized.
The problematic portions of the rules that lead to this result are:
Instant Death
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.
and:
the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt.
So, it's a question of timing. With massive damage, as soon as the damage is dealt the creature is dead. But you cannot make a decision to change this into non-lethal damage until the damage is dealt. By then, the creature is already dead, instantly.
Death occurs more slowly in the cases where there is not massive damage and the creature instead falls unconscious. With the first option, the damage is dealt but the DM has not yet declared it to be dead. That provides a window of opportunity to declare non-lethal damage and stabilize the creature. If death saving throws are used it could be several rounds before such a creature dies if it doesn't become stable on it's own so again there is a chance to declare non-lethal damage.
"Knocking a creature out is not replacing what happens to a creature who is dropped to zero hit points. It is replacing what happens to a creature who was dropped to zero hit points and falls unconscious."
Ummm no?
Read the rule for knocking a creature out:
"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."
The specific rule triggers ONLY on reducing a creature to 0 hit points. It does not care whether they are unconscious or not. It does not care what other effects could occur at zero hit points. If the creature hits zero hit points the attacker can THEN choose that the creature is "unconscious and stable". The specific rule does not trigger on a creature being at zero hit points and unconscious which might lead to some confusion since instead of being unconscious what if it was dead?
The specific rule states ONLY when a creature is reduced to 0 hit points. For the specific rule, it does not matter what else could be triggered by hitting zero hit points (unconscious, dead from massive damage). These other effects COULD occur when a creature hits zero hit points and the specific rule regarding knocking a creature out is not used. However, if a creature hits zero hit points, and an attacker decides to knock it out then the specific rule takes over and none of the other rules regarding hitting zero hit points are relevant.
Regarding swinging on an unconscious creature, that's a completely different matter. All the nonlethal takedown does is put them at 0 HP, stable, and unconscious. It does impose any kind of special lasting condition, just puts them down and stable as if they'd succeeded on death saves. The massive damage doesn't linger, anymore than if the massive damage got soaked by a Death Ward. It's an instantaneous effect, it either resolves or it doesn't and then it's over.
For the "despite intent" bit, it is ultimately the DM's call, as with all things, but I think it'd be a jerk move to override player intent for something they have no way to control in this case. RAW clearly puts the ball in their court for making the call, so you're in effect punishing them for rolling high if you override it.
What happen when hitting an unconscious creature that has been knocked out at 0 hit point depends which rules the DM use for it, It would either suffer a death saving throw failure or die outright.
The thing to remember is that you control the lethality of your final blow. For Instant Death by massive damage to bypass Knocking a Creature Out it would need to say so similar to Half-Orc's Relentless Endurance does for exemple;
Knocking a Creature Out: 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 but not killed outright, 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.
The decision to go non-lethal happens the instant damage is done, however, the very next instant, that creature has still been knocked unconscious by massive damage. So what overrides that rule, if it is in play?
If you swing at an unconscious creature, is it immune to death simply because someone used non-lethal damage on it? When the damage is massive enough (which is an optional rule in the first place), can it not nevertheless be lethal, despite intent?
The decision to go non-lethal is at zero hit points before unconsciousness or massive damage or any other possible effects of hitting zero hit points occurs.
The procedure for the general rule: zero hit points is trigger -> possibility of massive damage death -> if not then either unconscious and death saves OR dead if DM is not using the death save method (eg common for NPCs).
The procedure for the specific rule on knocking a creature out: zero hit points is trigger -> unconscious and stable if the attacker decides that the final attack was not intended to kill the creature.
The specific rule triggers on zero damage BEFORE either unconscious or massive damage riders of the general rule can be considered - specific beats general. Instead the specific rule causes a different chain of events ... 0 hit points -> unconsious and stable.
As The_Ace_of_Rogues said, adding a penalty to a nat20 that a player rolled will never feel good. A nat20 is supposed to represent being able to do what you're trying to do to the best of your character's ability. RAW combat rules doesn't matter because I'd hardly consider punching someone that annoys you 'combat' in the DnD sense.
IMO it was the wrong call and all the argument about RAW vs RAI vs interpretation of instadeath shouldn't really matter. But that's just like, my opinion, man.
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?
The decision to go non-lethal is at zero hit points before unconsciousness or massive damage or any other possible effects of hitting zero hit points occurs.
The specific rule triggers on zero damage BEFORE either unconscious or massive damage riders of the general rule can be considered - specific beats general. Instead the specific rule causes a different chain of events ... 0 hit points -> unconsious and stable.
You keep saying this but that's not what is written. You also quoted the whole thing but only bolded the portion that would help support your claim when you wrote this:
"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."
Of course, I will bold a different portion:
Knocking a Creature Out
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.
It's right there in the rule, it can't be ignored.
I'm actually quite confident about what's going on here now:
When a creature takes damage and is reduced to zero hit points, one of two things are possible. First, the creature dies "if the remaining damage equals or exceeds [its] hit point maximum", instantly. Then, "if damage reduces [it] to 0 hit points and fails to kill [it], [it falls] unconscious" -- or, in the case of the half-orc with relentless endurance, "[it] can drop to 1 hit point instead.
So now, the damage has been dealt and we have either an instantly dead creature or a creature who has fallen unconscious and is subject to either being declared dead by the DM or who has entered the process of death saving throws. Now, at the instant the damage is dealt, a player can declare non-lethal damage.
Please note, when we speak of "declaring non-lethal damage" this phrase does not actually appear in the rule and may be misleading. We are not preventing lethal damage at all by using the rule to knock a creature out -- we are automatically stabilizing a creature who is otherwise unconscious and unstable. That's all.
adding a penalty to a nat20 that a player rolled will never feel good. A nat20 is supposed to represent being able to do what you're trying to do to the best of your character's ability.
In fact, I have proposed that the player DOES have control over what happened in the situation in the OP. The answer resides in this rule:
Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target.
I am now confident about this also. As written, rolling the extra dice on a critical hit is optional. It's right there in the rule. Think about it, whenever you "get to" do something in life, does that mean you MUST do it? No. But you have the option to do so if you want. Example, when you go on a skydiving trip you get to jump out of an airplane. Do you HAVE to jump out of the airplane? No, absolutely not. You can chicken out and ride in the plane back down to the ground. But you have the option to do so if you wish.
The solution in the OP is for the player to say "I choose not to roll the extra dice for the critical hit because I'm trying to keep him alive". DM: "ok." Player rolls dice for base damage which does not exceed the instant death threshold. Player: "I choose to knock the creature out instead of dealing normal damage". DM: "ok, the creature is knocked unconscious and is stable."
The decision to go non-lethal is at zero hit points before unconsciousness or massive damage or any other possible effects of hitting zero hit points occurs.
The specific rule triggers on zero damage BEFORE either unconscious or massive damage riders of the general rule can be considered - specific beats general. Instead the specific rule causes a different chain of events ... 0 hit points -> unconsious and stable.
You keep saying this but that's not what is written. You also quoted the whole thing but only bolded the portion that would help support your claim when you wrote this:
"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."
Of course, I will bold a different portion:
Knocking a Creature Out
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.
It's right there in the rule, it can't be ignored.
I'm actually quite confident about what's going on here now:
When a creature takes damage and is reduced to zero hit points, one of two things are possible. First, the creature dies "if the remaining damage equals or exceeds [its] hit point maximum", instantly. Then, "if damage reduces [it] to 0 hit points and fails to kill [it], [it falls] unconscious" -- or, in the case of the half-orc with relentless endurance, "[it] can drop to 1 hit point instead.
So now, the damage has been dealt and we have either an instantly dead creature or a creature who has fallen unconscious and is subject to either being declared dead by the DM or who has entered the process of death saving throws. Now, at the instant the damage is dealt, a player can declare non-lethal damage.
Please note, when we speak of "declaring non-lethal damage" this phrase does not actually appear in the rule and may be misleading. We are not preventing lethal damage at all by using the rule to knock a creature out -- we are automatically stabilizing a creature who is otherwise unconscious and unstable. That's all.
adding a penalty to a nat20 that a player rolled will never feel good. A nat20 is supposed to represent being able to do what you're trying to do to the best of your character's ability.
In fact, I have proposed that the player DOES have control over what happened in the situation in the OP. The answer resides in this rule:
Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target.
I am now confident about this also. As written, rolling the extra dice on a critical hit is optional. It's right there in the rule. Think about it, whenever you "get to" do something in life, does that mean you MUST do it? No. But you have the option to do so if you want. Example, when you go on a skydiving trip you get to jump out of an airplane. Do you HAVE to jump out of the airplane? No, absolutely not. You can chicken out and ride in the plane back down to the ground. But you have the option to do so if you wish.
The solution in the OP is for the player to say "I choose not to roll the extra dice for the critical hit because I'm trying to keep him alive". DM: "ok." Player rolls dice for base damage which does not exceed the instant death threshold. Player: "I choose to knock the creature out instead of dealing normal damage". DM: "ok, the creature is knocked unconscious and is stable."
Ok. I am unsure how "when the damage is dealt", in any way supports your suggestion that this is after a creature falls unconscious or is killed by massive damage?
The decision to knock a creature out is made when the damage is dealtthat reduces the creature to zero hit points. This is before a creature falls unconscious and before it could die of massive damage. The "when the damage is dealt" clause is there to make it clear that an attacker does not need to declare that they are making an attack to knock a creature out until the damage is dealt that reduces the creature to zero hit points.
The massive damage clause also refers to "remaining damage". There is no remaining damage if the creature has been knocked unconscious by an attacker deciding to knock the creature out when they are reduced to zero hit points since they are unconscious and stable. The specific rule takes precedence over the general one.
Finally, the crit is irrelevant in this case. It is quite possible for a regular normal hit to inflict a massive damage death on a lower level character. Your comments seem to imply that an NPC or monster that happens to do enough damage in one hit to reduce the PC to more than negative hit points will automatically kill the PC and not have the option to knock out the player character instead.
Keep in mind that the rules work both ways. Both PCs and NPCs can declare that they choose to knock a creature out when hitting zero hit points. Your interpretation of the rules removes this possibility if the creature does enough damage to cause an instant death by massive damage which is clearly both not (in my opinion) how the rule works nor what I think is the intent of the rule.
P.S. I think I've said the same thing four different ways, supported by various rules ... I won't be bothering to say it again.
People have to understand what happens actually in the game narratively. Lethal damage vs Knocking Creature Out is done on the attacker's choice, it choose to and the latter outcome happen RATHER than the other. It doesn't accidently happen with no choice. Reducing a creature to 0 hit point leaves you with bleeding injury or trauma OR it simply knocks you unconscious.
Describing the Effects of Damage: Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum. You typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.
Knocking a Creature Out: Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow.
The massive damage clause also refers to "remaining damage". There is no remaining damage if the creature has been knocked unconscious by an attacker deciding to knock the creature out when they are reduced to zero hit points since they are unconscious and stable. The specific rule takes precedence over the general one.
P.S. I think I've said the same thing four different ways, supported by various rules... I won't be bothering to say it again.
Where is this written in the rules? People have directly quoted the section on declaring damage to be non-lethal, but no one has cited a rule about that reducing the damage taken.
The massive damage clause also refers to "remaining damage". There is no remaining damage if the creature has been knocked unconscious by an attacker deciding to knock the creature out when they are reduced to zero hit points since they are unconscious and stable. The specific rule takes precedence over the general one.
P.S. I think I've said the same thing four different ways, supported by various rules... I won't be bothering to say it again.
Where is this written in the rules? People have directly quoted the section on declaring damage to be non-lethal, but no one has cited a rule about that reducing the damage taken.
I’m too busy to look up exact wording, but massive damage is only applicable in that it overrides making Death Saves. The excess damage is not recorded as negative HP or anything the way it was in some prior editions. Ergo, massive damage is generally meaningless against an enemy creature; either the PC calls nonlethal if appropriate to the situation or the enemy is always killed outright. How far beyond zero the damage total goes is a non-issue.
Ok. I am unsure how "when the damage is dealt", in any way supports your suggestion that this is after a creature falls unconscious or is killed by massive damage?
The decision to knock a creature out is made when the damage is dealt that reduces the creature to zero hit points. This is before a creature falls unconscious and before it could die of massive damage.
. . .
The massive damage clause also refers to "remaining damage". There is no remaining damage if the creature has been knocked unconscious by an attacker deciding to knock the creature out . . .
David42 -- I want the rule to say what you are saying, I think it would be better. But rules as written I just don't think it says any of this. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.
Finally, the crit is irrelevant in this case. It is quite possible for a regular normal hit to inflict a massive damage death on a lower level character. Your comments seem to imply that an NPC or monster that happens to do enough damage in one hit to reduce the PC to more than negative hit points will automatically kill the PC and not have the option to knock out the player character instead.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by irrelevant -- it's actually a pretty important factor in determining the amount of damage. But you are absolutely correct about the risk of death when a powerful NPC tries to knock out a low level character. Low level characters are very squishy in this game and under these rules being discussed, violent actions have consequences. Again, I would rather that it worked the way that you are saying, and if that is the intention then hopefully the wording can be cleaned up in the next version.
I’m too busy to look up exact wording, but massive damage is only applicable in that it overrides making Death Saves.
. . .
Ergo, massive damage is generally meaningless against an enemy creature; either the PC calls nonlethal if appropriate to the situation or the enemy is always killed outright. How far beyond zero the damage total goes is a non-issue.
I'm sure that this will come across as a semantic nitpick but strictly speaking none of this is correct. Massive damage does not override making death saves. The flow of what happens goes like this:
When you drop to 0 hit points, you either die outright or fall unconscious
So that's two separate outcomes. To determine which one occurs, check for massive damage first:
Instant Death
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.
and THEN
If damage reduces you to 0 hit points and fails to kill you, you fall unconscious
By default, falling unconscious in this manner results in being unstable and making death saving throws. But, there is a DM option to simplify the process:
Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.
Note that if read carefully, the above DM option is not a "rule" per se. It's an option that allows a DM to simplify their game if they so choose, so the notion that "the enemy is always killed outright" isn't really RAW.
So that's two separate outcomes. To determine which one occurs, check for massive damage first:
Instant Death
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.
You're still choosing to impose a specific timing, so you really need to directly compare this to the actual rule for knocking a creature out, which is the more specific rule in this case (since you're choosing to do it):
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.
First sentence makes clear that an attacker can choose to incapacitate rather than kill, suggesting we can disregard the normal conditions for a killing blow (not just Instant Death). Second sentence tells you the condition you're looking for in order to do this, and it's a creature being reduced to 0 hit points by a melee attack.
Third sentence tells us the specific timing is the instant of damage being dealt; I would still argue this is actually before being reduced to 0 hit-points (because there are steps between taking damage and losing hit-points), but RAW never defines this explicitly (or makes a distinction between "take" or "dealt" etc. for damage but it's the only way a number of other rules make sense. If you rule there must be steps then the knocking out must happen before Instant Death can apply, if you don't then you have two instantaneous effects with the same trigger; we have no way to resolve that except to use the guidelines for reactions, in which case you pick the order if it's your turn, so you only really have a problem if you're attacking via the Ready action and have a bloodthirsty DM.
The fourth sentence gives us an explicit effect that is mutually exclusive with Instant Death, because a creature cannot be both "unconscious and stable" and also dead, so if knocking out takes priority either from timing or specificity then it has to win the contest of which effect is applied. But we also kind of loop back around to the first sentence; if we're trying to incapacitate rather than deal a killing blow, then there can be no excess damage with which to trigger Instant Death (you don't knock someone out by hitting them as hard as you possibly can).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Players get to know when they reduce a monster to 0 hit points as the DM tells them it drop dead or unconscious.
It's up to DMs to offer the choice before announcing they do, or else letting a retcon occur to turn it into a knock out.
But the rules for Knocking a Creature Out don't require players to announce it before the attack, but when damage is dealt and the target is reduced to 0 hit point.
For me, though, when the decision as to what type of damage (lethal v non-lethal) is left until after damage is determined, then there is no option to pull punches. Players do not get to know target hps. Creatures are not wearing signs revealing their stats to any who wander by.
Players don't (usually) know exact stats, but that doesn't mean their characters can't judge the weakness of a creature; creatures below half their hit-points are supposed to start showing signs of wear, though it's up to your DM how exactly they describe that (I've sometimes been cagey on this point in some fights on purpose, when winning the fight isn't the priority etc.).
But it doesn't matter as the way that the current rule is laid out, knocking a creature out is reactive rather than proactive; you declare when it's actually happening, not in advance. It's a classic example of a rule in RAW that doesn't really fit what you're supposed to be doing but there's no shortage of those.
This is why it's good to have players be clear on what their goals are narratively; are they trying to kill someone, or trying to talk them down/fighting them reluctantly, etc. because that makes it clearer whether they're trying to kill or just try to stop a creature from killing them and so-on.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Players do not get to know target hps. Creatures are not wearing signs revealing their stats to any who wander by.
Players don't (usually) know exact stats, but that doesn't mean their characters can't judge the weakness of a creature; creatures below half their hit-points are supposed to start showing signs of wear, though it's up to your DM how exactly they describe that
To my knowledge, this is not a rule in 5e. It's a 4e rule that has become a common house rule for 5e tables.
I mention it only because I saw someone else bring it up earlier, also.
Players do not get to know target hps. Creatures are not wearing signs revealing their stats to any who wander by.
Players don't (usually) know exact stats, but that doesn't mean their characters can't judge the weakness of a creature; creatures below half their hit-points are supposed to start showing signs of wear, though it's up to your DM how exactly they describe that
To my knowledge, this is not a rule in 5e. It's a 4e rule that has become a common house rule for 5e tables.
I mention it only because I saw someone else bring it up earlier, also.
While there is no formal Bloodied condition like 4E had, 5E has this guideline for describing the effect of damage;
Describing the Effects of Damage: Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum. You typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Critical hit extra damage is not optional, you ''Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together.''
It can die at that instant, the rule is:
So you can absolutely knock monsters out if that's what you want to do, because specific beats general and monsters dying at 0 is really optional, as a DM can run death saving throws if they wish; the dead at 0 is just for speed/simplicity rather than players having to finish everything off just in case.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
"Knocking a creature out is not replacing what happens to a creature who is dropped to zero hit points. It is replacing what happens to a creature who was dropped to zero hit points and falls unconscious."
Ummm no?
Read the rule for knocking a creature out:
"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."
The specific rule triggers ONLY on reducing a creature to 0 hit points. It does not care whether they are unconscious or not. It does not care what other effects could occur at zero hit points. If the creature hits zero hit points the attacker can THEN choose that the creature is "unconscious and stable". The specific rule does not trigger on a creature being at zero hit points and unconscious which might lead to some confusion since instead of being unconscious what if it was dead?
The specific rule states ONLY when a creature is reduced to 0 hit points. For the specific rule, it does not matter what else could be triggered by hitting zero hit points (unconscious, dead from massive damage). These other effects COULD occur when a creature hits zero hit points and the specific rule regarding knocking a creature out is not used. However, if a creature hits zero hit points, and an attacker decides to knock it out then the specific rule takes over and none of the other rules regarding hitting zero hit points are relevant.
Regarding swinging on an unconscious creature, that's a completely different matter. All the nonlethal takedown does is put them at 0 HP, stable, and unconscious. It does impose any kind of special lasting condition, just puts them down and stable as if they'd succeeded on death saves. The massive damage doesn't linger, anymore than if the massive damage got soaked by a Death Ward. It's an instantaneous effect, it either resolves or it doesn't and then it's over.
For the "despite intent" bit, it is ultimately the DM's call, as with all things, but I think it'd be a jerk move to override player intent for something they have no way to control in this case. RAW clearly puts the ball in their court for making the call, so you're in effect punishing them for rolling high if you override it.
What happen when hitting an unconscious creature that has been knocked out at 0 hit point depends which rules the DM use for it, It would either suffer a death saving throw failure or die outright.
The thing to remember is that you control the lethality of your final blow. For Instant Death by massive damage to bypass Knocking a Creature Out it would need to say so similar to Half-Orc's Relentless Endurance does for exemple;
The decision to go non-lethal is at zero hit points before unconsciousness or massive damage or any other possible effects of hitting zero hit points occurs.
The procedure for the general rule: zero hit points is trigger -> possibility of massive damage death -> if not then either unconscious and death saves OR dead if DM is not using the death save method (eg common for NPCs).
The procedure for the specific rule on knocking a creature out: zero hit points is trigger -> unconscious and stable if the attacker decides that the final attack was not intended to kill the creature.
The specific rule triggers on zero damage BEFORE either unconscious or massive damage riders of the general rule can be considered - specific beats general. Instead the specific rule causes a different chain of events ... 0 hit points -> unconsious and stable.
As The_Ace_of_Rogues said, adding a penalty to a nat20 that a player rolled will never feel good. A nat20 is supposed to represent being able to do what you're trying to do to the best of your character's ability. RAW combat rules doesn't matter because I'd hardly consider punching someone that annoys you 'combat' in the DnD sense.
IMO it was the wrong call and all the argument about RAW vs RAI vs interpretation of instadeath shouldn't really matter. But that's just like, my opinion, man.
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?
You keep saying this but that's not what is written. You also quoted the whole thing but only bolded the portion that would help support your claim when you wrote this:
Of course, I will bold a different portion:
It's right there in the rule, it can't be ignored.
I'm actually quite confident about what's going on here now:
When a creature takes damage and is reduced to zero hit points, one of two things are possible. First, the creature dies "if the remaining damage equals or exceeds [its] hit point maximum", instantly. Then, "if damage reduces [it] to 0 hit points and fails to kill [it], [it falls] unconscious" -- or, in the case of the half-orc with relentless endurance, "[it] can drop to 1 hit point instead.
So now, the damage has been dealt and we have either an instantly dead creature or a creature who has fallen unconscious and is subject to either being declared dead by the DM or who has entered the process of death saving throws. Now, at the instant the damage is dealt, a player can declare non-lethal damage.
Please note, when we speak of "declaring non-lethal damage" this phrase does not actually appear in the rule and may be misleading. We are not preventing lethal damage at all by using the rule to knock a creature out -- we are automatically stabilizing a creature who is otherwise unconscious and unstable. That's all.
Lastly, we have this:
and
In fact, I have proposed that the player DOES have control over what happened in the situation in the OP. The answer resides in this rule:
I am now confident about this also. As written, rolling the extra dice on a critical hit is optional. It's right there in the rule. Think about it, whenever you "get to" do something in life, does that mean you MUST do it? No. But you have the option to do so if you want. Example, when you go on a skydiving trip you get to jump out of an airplane. Do you HAVE to jump out of the airplane? No, absolutely not. You can chicken out and ride in the plane back down to the ground. But you have the option to do so if you wish.
The solution in the OP is for the player to say "I choose not to roll the extra dice for the critical hit because I'm trying to keep him alive". DM: "ok." Player rolls dice for base damage which does not exceed the instant death threshold. Player: "I choose to knock the creature out instead of dealing normal damage". DM: "ok, the creature is knocked unconscious and is stable."
Ok. I am unsure how "when the damage is dealt", in any way supports your suggestion that this is after a creature falls unconscious or is killed by massive damage?
The decision to knock a creature out is made when the damage is dealt that reduces the creature to zero hit points. This is before a creature falls unconscious and before it could die of massive damage. The "when the damage is dealt" clause is there to make it clear that an attacker does not need to declare that they are making an attack to knock a creature out until the damage is dealt that reduces the creature to zero hit points.
The massive damage clause also refers to "remaining damage". There is no remaining damage if the creature has been knocked unconscious by an attacker deciding to knock the creature out when they are reduced to zero hit points since they are unconscious and stable. The specific rule takes precedence over the general one.
Finally, the crit is irrelevant in this case. It is quite possible for a regular normal hit to inflict a massive damage death on a lower level character. Your comments seem to imply that an NPC or monster that happens to do enough damage in one hit to reduce the PC to more than negative hit points will automatically kill the PC and not have the option to knock out the player character instead.
Keep in mind that the rules work both ways. Both PCs and NPCs can declare that they choose to knock a creature out when hitting zero hit points. Your interpretation of the rules removes this possibility if the creature does enough damage to cause an instant death by massive damage which is clearly both not (in my opinion) how the rule works nor what I think is the intent of the rule.
P.S. I think I've said the same thing four different ways, supported by various rules ... I won't be bothering to say it again.
People have to understand what happens actually in the game narratively. Lethal damage vs Knocking Creature Out is done on the attacker's choice, it choose to and the latter outcome happen RATHER than the other. It doesn't accidently happen with no choice. Reducing a creature to 0 hit point leaves you with bleeding injury or trauma OR it simply knocks you unconscious.
Where is this written in the rules? People have directly quoted the section on declaring damage to be non-lethal, but no one has cited a rule about that reducing the damage taken.
I’m too busy to look up exact wording, but massive damage is only applicable in that it overrides making Death Saves. The excess damage is not recorded as negative HP or anything the way it was in some prior editions. Ergo, massive damage is generally meaningless against an enemy creature; either the PC calls nonlethal if appropriate to the situation or the enemy is always killed outright. How far beyond zero the damage total goes is a non-issue.
David42 -- I want the rule to say what you are saying, I think it would be better. But rules as written I just don't think it says any of this. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by irrelevant -- it's actually a pretty important factor in determining the amount of damage. But you are absolutely correct about the risk of death when a powerful NPC tries to knock out a low level character. Low level characters are very squishy in this game and under these rules being discussed, violent actions have consequences. Again, I would rather that it worked the way that you are saying, and if that is the intention then hopefully the wording can be cleaned up in the next version.
I'm sure that this will come across as a semantic nitpick but strictly speaking none of this is correct. Massive damage does not override making death saves. The flow of what happens goes like this:
So that's two separate outcomes. To determine which one occurs, check for massive damage first:
and THEN
By default, falling unconscious in this manner results in being unstable and making death saving throws. But, there is a DM option to simplify the process:
Note that if read carefully, the above DM option is not a "rule" per se. It's an option that allows a DM to simplify their game if they so choose, so the notion that "the enemy is always killed outright" isn't really RAW.
You're still choosing to impose a specific timing, so you really need to directly compare this to the actual rule for knocking a creature out, which is the more specific rule in this case (since you're choosing to do it):
First sentence makes clear that an attacker can choose to incapacitate rather than kill, suggesting we can disregard the normal conditions for a killing blow (not just Instant Death). Second sentence tells you the condition you're looking for in order to do this, and it's a creature being reduced to 0 hit points by a melee attack.
Third sentence tells us the specific timing is the instant of damage being dealt; I would still argue this is actually before being reduced to 0 hit-points (because there are steps between taking damage and losing hit-points), but RAW never defines this explicitly (or makes a distinction between "take" or "dealt" etc. for damage but it's the only way a number of other rules make sense. If you rule there must be steps then the knocking out must happen before Instant Death can apply, if you don't then you have two instantaneous effects with the same trigger; we have no way to resolve that except to use the guidelines for reactions, in which case you pick the order if it's your turn, so you only really have a problem if you're attacking via the Ready action and have a bloodthirsty DM.
The fourth sentence gives us an explicit effect that is mutually exclusive with Instant Death, because a creature cannot be both "unconscious and stable" and also dead, so if knocking out takes priority either from timing or specificity then it has to win the contest of which effect is applied. But we also kind of loop back around to the first sentence; if we're trying to incapacitate rather than deal a killing blow, then there can be no excess damage with which to trigger Instant Death (you don't knock someone out by hitting them as hard as you possibly can).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Players get to know when they reduce a monster to 0 hit points as the DM tells them it drop dead or unconscious.
It's up to DMs to offer the choice before announcing they do, or else letting a retcon occur to turn it into a knock out.
But the rules for Knocking a Creature Out don't require players to announce it before the attack, but when damage is dealt and the target is reduced to 0 hit point.
And, as I've said before, ruling that players have to or just players thinking they have to makes nonlethal combat scenarios very tedious.
Players don't (usually) know exact stats, but that doesn't mean their characters can't judge the weakness of a creature; creatures below half their hit-points are supposed to start showing signs of wear, though it's up to your DM how exactly they describe that (I've sometimes been cagey on this point in some fights on purpose, when winning the fight isn't the priority etc.).
But it doesn't matter as the way that the current rule is laid out, knocking a creature out is reactive rather than proactive; you declare when it's actually happening, not in advance. It's a classic example of a rule in RAW that doesn't really fit what you're supposed to be doing but there's no shortage of those.
This is why it's good to have players be clear on what their goals are narratively; are they trying to kill someone, or trying to talk them down/fighting them reluctantly, etc. because that makes it clearer whether they're trying to kill or just try to stop a creature from killing them and so-on.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To my knowledge, this is not a rule in 5e. It's a 4e rule that has become a common house rule for 5e tables.
I mention it only because I saw someone else bring it up earlier, also.
While there is no formal Bloodied condition like 4E had, 5E has this guideline for describing the effect of damage;