I have a question regarding the rules around a PC specifying non-lethal damage being done to an opponent. Does a player just have to specify before an attack that they are going to do damage in a non-lethal fashion, or is there more to it than that? Also can a sneak attack by a rogue or an attack in rage by a barbarian be done with non-lethal damage?
My party includes a monk, a rogue, and a barbarian. The monk is very anti-conflict, and the barbarian is quite the opposite, while the rogue is up for whatever will help her get her way. We had an encounter with some bandits, and knowing it was coming up the monk pleaded with the barbarian and the rogue that we not harm them, as they are just humans who have lost their way. They agreed for this encounter, if they could reasonably subdue the bandits without putting themselves in harms way that they would abide by the monks wishes.
So the time came, we are in battle, and the rogue does a sneak attack and the barbarian raged then attacked. I ruled the following at the time of the conflict (which resulted in 2 dead bandits because, well, the barbarian is a beast):
Sneak attack damage can be specified as non-lethal. I rule that the nature of a sneak attack is precision in inflicting damage, thus assuming the character inflicting the damage has enough knowledge to know what will hurt vs. what will kill. The only exception for this is if the attack roll crits, in which case the character inflicting the damage underestimated the force they used, thus resulting in a lethal strike.
An attack made while in "rage" cannot be specified as non-lethal. A character in "rage" is in such anger that it cannot reasonably control the damage it inflicts.
Thoughts on these rulings? Any issues with them, or is there anything specific in the rules that contradicts or confirms what I ruled?
The basic rule of thumb is that, after damage is rolled, if the attack would reduce the target to 0 hp or less, the attacker can specify that the attack was meant to knock out the target and the target is rendered unconscious. If the attack was a ranged attack or a spell attack, then this option is not available. Apparently WotC doesn't believe in knocking people out with comical arrow heads, knife handles, etc. Spell effects make sense though.
EDIT: As for your examples, I see no reason an attack from a raging barbarian can't be used to beat an opponent into unconsciousness.
Public Mod Note(Stormknight): Merged three posts together into one. Please try to avoid replying to yourself - you can edit your posts if you find you have additional text you missed. :)
I guess my reason for the raging barbarian is that in the PHB it says they are "defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury". The way I read it is that they are so furious/raged that they cannot rationally think about swinging with less force. They can rationally think, as they can choose to come out of rage and they know who is and isn't a threat, but if they are using their rage to attack, they aren't doing so controlled enough to use non-lethal force, by definition (to me) they are swinging as hard as they can.
As far as your "basic rule of thumb" is that specified anywhere in the text, or is that something perhaps carried over from a previous version? Just curious as I'm fairly new, and a first time DM.
Also as an FYI, I made rulings on the fly (without giving any rationale) based on my judgement to keep the game going -- but initially deemed both to be lethal. However after the session we as a group discussed it further. As a group this is what we came up with (we are all fairly new to D&D as a whole), but I was just curious if it was explicitly stated in a rule somewhere (though I think even if it was we might continue to play this way, as we agreed on it).
As a completely new group we spend 3 hours playing and another 1 hour or so talking about what we think we can improve/do better and going over rules questions at that point.
Public Mod Note
(Stormknight):
Merged three posts together into one. Please try to avoid replying to yourself - you can edit your posts if you find you have additional text you missed. :)
The rule (Player's Handbook, page 198, or here), is pretty clear about when the attacker decides: At the instant the creature's HP are reduced to 0. Assuming a melee attack (Unarmed Strike counts, but crossbow/bow sneak attacks do not, and nor do most spells).
For the latter questions, I see no concern with Sneak Attack. It can be argued that dealing extra damage is supposed to depict serious (possibly internal) injury, but I don't see why you can't do with the pommel of your rapier what you used to be able to do with a sap. Or, if you go for more high fantasy, that situation when the victim wakes up in the healer's room, thinking "she avoided my vitals".
For your ruling on the Barbarian's Rage, I'd say "depends on the player". If the player is fine with it, sure - it can make sense. Play it the hulk way and smash! If the player offers arguments, concerns or counterpoints, I'd suggest listening to them; the rage as depicted is "primal ferocity", not "mindless bloodlust", and even a barbarian consumed by blood lust can violently smash the side of his axe in his opponent's face. The rules don't prevent him from dropping his opponents unconscious during rage (contrary to spellcasting), and I don't think it offers anything if the exchange is an upset player.
Thanks for the input Onyx. The players agreed, and are really into RP for their characters and the way we ruled fit it. The barbarian is a "viking" type player, and lives for killing on the battlefield. He is honorable and loyal to a fault, but when it comes to anyone who poses even the slightest threat, he has no issue chopping their heads off (those poor poor goblins in the first encounter). The rogue truly wants whatever will benefit her the most, as she was screwed over so much as a child and feels that everyone truly only cares for themselves, and that's how you survive. The monk is totally good, will deal damage and kill mindless creatures, but anything that he thinks has a chance at turning from evil ways (almost anything sentient) he wants to try and help.
I like your explanation as "primal ferocity" vs "mindless bloodlust". Also, we played (and all assumed) that you had to make the designation of lethal vs. non-lethal prior to the attack roll which is what brought up these rules. I guess the rule as you pointed out and I'm reading now specifically does state that that choice is made by the player at the time of damage (provided it was a melee attack). With this clarity, the other 2 questions aren't really questions at all anymore, if it's in melee then RAW states the player decides at that moment that the creature reaches 0 HP.
I think I'm going to stick with our rulings made, and possibly adapt the Barbarian Rage to be similar to Rogue Sneak attack I ruled (we will still require a designation prior to the attack roll, and if the attack roll crits, it is lethal damage regardless). But, I will of course discuss with the party first.
I like your explanation as "primal ferocity" vs "mindless bloodlust". Also, we played (and all assumed) that you had to make the designation of lethal vs. non-lethal prior to the attack roll which is what brought up these rules. I guess the rule as you pointed out and I'm reading now specifically does state that that choice is made by the player at the time of damage (provided it was a melee attack). With this clarity, the other 2 questions aren't really questions at all anymore, if it's in melee then RAW states the player decides at that moment that the creature reaches 0 HP.
I think I'm going to stick with our rulings made, and possibly adapt the Barbarian Rage to be similar to Rogue Sneak attack I ruled (we will still require a designation prior to the attack roll, and if the attack roll crits, it is lethal damage regardless). But, I will of course discuss with the party first.
If you don't mind me throwing in my 2 cents, I think you should reconsider these rulings.
If you only require that your players declare they're attacking non-lethally, you haven't changed anything meaningful; they're just going to declare all of their attacks non-lethal. The distinction only makes sense if there's a penalty for attacking non-lethally.
3.5/Pathfinder worked like this; you had to say you're doing non-lethal damage beforehand, and took a penalty to your attack roll. It sucked. Sparing enemy's lives was tedious, and we often ended up killing people for no other reason than it being much easier than the alternative, or because players felt guilty about dragging combat out just for role-playing reasons. In effect, the rules incentivized killing, which deterred roleplaying.
I also feel strongly that critical hits shouldn't lead to accidental kills. From a game design perspective, players can't control whether they get a critical, so this ruling undermines their agency. From a role-playing perspective, I find it hard to justify these accidental killings. I see a critical hit as attacking while an enemy is wide open; note that attacking an unconscious or paralyzed target (someone that can't defend themselves in any way) from within 5 feet is an automatic critical. If a character sees a great opportunity to attack but is intent on not killing the enemy, why would they aim to kill?
I think the 5e rules work very well; they're simple, they don't punish pacifists, and there's no luck-based accidents, nor can you kill someone through neglect (i.e. forgot to mention you wanted the hit to be non-lethal).
At the very least, I urge you to give enemies Death Saving Throws if the players dealt lethal damage but want to save them. Only decapitation or massive damage would kill a creature instantly, and neither of those happen by accident. Players should be able to stabilize dying enemies.
Since you make the designation when the damage is dealt, it does leave open the possibility of not knowing whether or not the attack drops the PC to 0 hp or not. Probably not how the rules were intended, but I could see someone stating that.
Since you make the designation when the damage is dealt, it does leave open the possibility of not knowing whether or not the attack drops the PC to 0 hp or not. Probably not how the rules were intended, but I could see someone stating that.
I think the rules were intended this way, because the rule on p. 198 of the PHB states "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt."
They way I read it is they only make the designation once the creature is reduced to 0 HP, any other designation doesn't actually mean anything (what's the difference between losing 2 HP non-lethal damage vs. lethal damage if it doesn't actually knock the creature out? The creature still loses that HP either way).
Anyway further discussion with my group after going over the RAW that we all overlooked and couldn't find (thanks Onyx for pointing it out), we decided to go with RAW with one modification of making the designation of lethal/non-lethal before the attack roll. Essentially 3 players didn't like the crit/kill rule and 3 did (noting that 3 characters who actually use melee attacks regularly and they were split 1 in favor of crit/kill, 2 against it). Their argument against convinced me that their reasoning was way stronger than my "accidental kill/overcompensation" reasoning -- "If a good-aligned creature had a 5% chance of killing someone every time he got in a fist fight at a bar, how would he live with himself?" That there was all I needed to hear to completely understand their point.
I also see that this modification I wanted brings up the most arguments, but the way I DM I open these things up to discussion within the group for us to decide together to have the best experience. If the others agreed I would have ran with it, but since they mostly don't I'm always open to change (or not changing in this point).
As far as the designation before or after the attack roll/damage roll -- we all collectively agreed that making your attack roll is choosing how you're swinging and what you are doing, at this point you know what you're trying to do to the opponent (as far as striking to finish him or striking to just knock him out), and without metagaming you wouldn't know "how much HP" an opponent has left though you can make an assumption based on the condition he is described and what has been done to him thus far. (note the group doesn't share HP totals with each other. They track it themselves but describe the condition they are in, rather than saying "I have 2 HP left").
InquisitiveCoder -- I understand your point of having a penalty for non-lethal rolls, but I don't think my group will just make "every roll non-lethal" -- they haven't yet but, that could be a concern. In fact they have forgotten to make the designation when they wanted to resulting in killing an opponent they didn't want to. You also point that out (killing someone through neglect of stating what you were doing). I'll say it hasn't happened often, mostly because I have my players describe what they are doing with their attack (how they are attacking -- i.e. I'm hitting him with the blunt end of my axe, as not to kill him, or I slash my sword across his chest). If they made the first example I just gave, but didn't say the part about not wanting to kill him, I would ask "So you're hitting non-lethally then?" for clarification.
The way the rules are written you only can make a non-leathal attack once the creature reaches 0 hp. So you could effectively state you are always trying to do non-leathal damage it really doesn't matter.
The only debatable point is do you state you are dealing leathal damage before or after learning your attack brought the creature to zero hp. Obviously it makes sense it has to be before, but that means you need to be basically making every attack non-leathal since you don't know how many hp someone has.
The best way to handle this is I think giving the option when the creature is reduced to 0 hp just to make the game run smoother.
I run my blade through his chest until you can see most of the blade running out his back, but I do it non-lethally. As I stab my dagger into the guard's neck severing their carotid and jugular releasing a deadly flow of blood down the side of their body, then I declare it is with non-lethal intent. The Barbarian stands over the hacked dismembered and bloody corpse of his foe, smiling with a bloodthirsty grin through the red covering his face and arms, he holds up a dismembered arm and cries, "I attacked non-lethally!"
If anyone believes you use a slashing or piercing weapon non-lethally, then you really are living in a fantasy world. That is to say there is a way to use a sword to knock someone out, and NO, it isn't by using the flat of the blade, that is only a good way to wastefully break your weapon. You use the pommel, or haft, to bluntly hit them with it. It does change you weapon from whatever blade to a club for damage amount and type.
In our game, you must declare it non-lethal before you attack. Only bludgeoning weapons can do it. Inappropriate weapons can do it by using their pommel or shaft. DM keeps numbers separate for damage, and if they drop below zero beyond the amount of non-lethal damage incurred, they start dying. If non-lethal was part of the total that put them down, then they are unconscious. If you put them into a dying situation, my players found the simplest solution, one heals for 1d4, they pop up, and the warrior hits them non-lethal style with a blunt weapon and they go down unconscious. Hilts for one handed weapons deal 1d4 damage, great/2 handed weapons deal 1d6/1d8 versatile. if someone uses the flat of their blade they get 1d2 damage and the DM rolls a 50-50 chance your weapon breaks. Nobody in Rage or Berserk mode can deliver non-lethal attacks, period.
There is no attack or defense penalty/adjustment, since the opponent isn't aware of your intent, so hitting him is the same probability.
It is simple, far more accurate, easy to run and makes the game feel more realistic.
In our game, you must declare it non-lethal before you attack.
That's super annoying and forces players to declare it turn after turn.
Only bludgeoning weapons can do it.
This really sucks for Rogues.
It is simple, far more accurate, easy to run and makes the game feel more realistic.
It's not that simple if it takes a paragraph to describe it. (A lot of that is the rules for using the hilt/flat of a weapon; why not use the improvised weapon rules and call it a day?) It's way simpler to just say "I don't kill him" and assume they didn't decapitate or eviscerate the enemy and someone applied first aid.
Those kinds of rules are fine if you really like realism but they tend to encourage players to just kill everything or work around them the way your players are. I've seen players in 3.5e choose to kill NPCs they would've personally liked to spare just because they didn't want to make the fight harder for everyone by wasting their turns on sub-par attacks. Also, a Water Elemental or Ochre Jelly really doesn't care what weapon type you're hitting them with; they don't have organs.
I'd just like to point out that bludgeoning weapons are just as likely to seriously maim or kill someone as slashing or piercing weapons.
If they didn't, then they wouldn't have been used.
Historically, swords became more dominant as they were simply superior tools for killing with, but if you look at two knights in plate armour fighting each other with longswords, they are basically bludgeoning each other as the armour prevents them from being cut.
Sure, it's not realistic based on our real world biology, but then again neither is someone self-healing from close to death by going to sleep for 8 hours. :)
I have a question that expands on this, a moon druid in dire wolf form argues that the killing blow was meant to be non-lethal. I ruled that piercing damage from a bite would be lethal but it also was a moot point as the (now dead) priestess could easily have her wounds bound and with the use of a healers kit be stabilized. I am looking for opinions or specific rules as the druid got extremely butt hurt about not getting his way.
I have a question that expands on this, a moon druid in dire wolf form argues that the killing blow was meant to be non-lethal. I ruled that piercing damage from a bite would be lethal but it also was a moot point as the (now dead) priestess could easily have her wounds bound and with the use of a healers kit be stabilized. I am looking for opinions or specific rules as the druid got extremely butt hurt about not getting his way.
You either got the rules wrong or ignored them in a way that took away agency from the player, so I’d be upset too. Obviously, a player shouldn’t fight with the DM in the middle of the game, but that doesn’t mean they have to be happy with a bad call.
The rule has been quoted in this very thread. Any time a character reduces another character to 0 HP with a melee attack (either a weapon attack or a spell attack; either is fine, but it must be melee), the attacker can choose to leave the target unconscious and stable. That’s it, that’s the entire rule.
In our group the players actually never announce HOW they attack before damage is rolled but simply that they do with [insert weapon or spell here]. Depending on the damage, I sometimes let them describe how they "split the beasts head with a mighty blow of their axe, after which they - cowered in blood - release a roaring war cry". Alternatively I as the DM simply tell them that their arrow just barely scraped the bandits shoulder (like 2 dmg) or that they cleanly cut off two of the spiders legs and it starts tumbling (near death).
It rarely comes up that my group wants to handle fights non-lethally but when they do it gets clear quite quickly and basically every attack is meant to knock out the enemies so I describe their attacks to be as such, except (most) spells and ranged attacks. Using the pommel, broadside of the axe, or simply a final knockout punch to the face.
I also am not hide bound, the rules are a guideline and in this case when all previous attacks are dealing lethal damage I think it is unrealistic for a Dire Wolf to "pull his punches" with a massive bite from a Cultist that just downed one of the PCs. But that is just me
there is a tension in dnd btw RAW, RP, and player agency.
It's hard to get that balance, especially since there are elements that simply are bizarre.
Like for RP, I don't think saying that you are being non-lethal, and then do 24 pts of damage makes sense.
I also, as a DM, don't like that the RAW allows players to decide *after* they roll dmg to be non-lethal. : "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt." : I feel this is cheating a bit, let's players hedge their bets a little too much. Mostly because I know that I would likely try to do so as well. Now, I do like that it says they have to state at least as soon as the dmg is dealt.
But you do have to allow player agency and player fun. If I as a dm constantly am trying to make the world work or balanced, but deny my pc choice, then i have defeated and undermined the purpose and fun of RP table top games.
At the end, I have to talk with the players and make sure that they are on board.
Personally, I actually got one of my pcs made when I said they couldn't pick non-lethal dmg without penalty. But they pointed out 5e rules. I admitted my fault. I had earlier editions on the brain. Now, I still don't like that someone can roll a shit ton of damage and be all, "But its non-lethal". But I try to balance all these three things. My only modification and specification is that they have to state that they are being non-lethal before the damage is applied to the enemy. Like, before or after they roll damage and before their turn ends or they take a bonus action or something.
Personally, I actually got one of my pcs made when I said they couldn't pick non-lethal dmg without penalty. But they pointed out 5e rules. I admitted my fault. I had earlier editions on the brain. Now, I still don't like that someone can roll a shit ton of damage and be all, "But its non-lethal". But I try to balance all these three things. My only modification and specification is that they have to state that they are being non-lethal before the damage is applied to the enemy. Like, before or after they roll damage and before their turn ends or they take a bonus action or something.
The problem with your thinking is that players don't get to decide how much damage they do, even though characters have numerous options in that regard. Allowing the player to decide to only knock a character out is how the game models the character exercising those options that the rules otherwise don't allow the player.
An additional very important point here is that even if the player doesn't exercise this option, that enemy who just took 24 points of damage still has to fail three death saves before actually dying. I think it's potentially interesting to say to the players "if you care so much, you can spend your action stabilizing them instead of winning the fight," but at the end of the day, that potential isn't very great. It's just a lot smoother and less obnoxious to let them choose in that moment to leave their target stable rather than in death saves.
The whole issue of lethal vs non-lethal comes back to defining what hit points really are (which I won't get into). Depending on how you envisage hit points, doing a lot of damage may mean the target takes little or no actual physical damage. Alternatively, some folks imagine knocking hit points off as lots of little wounds that add up.
How a player or DM decides to interpret or imagine the application of lethal vs non-lethal damage comes down to how they imagine hit points really work.
All the PHB has to say on the subject is the following:
"Your character's hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations."
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile."
In order to get around how everyone might think of hit points, the PHB made the rule for non-lethal damage extremely simple.
"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."
When you make an attack reducing a creature to zero hit points you can decide whether the damage that reduces them to zero hit points is lethal or not. Essentially - does the creature die at zero hit points due to the attacks of you and your party or not.
This is essentially saying that when you strike the blow that will physically incapacitate the target you decide whether you hit them in such a way as to knock them out or to kill them.
Realistic? Depends on how you like to imagine hit points. Simple, easy to implement and remember? Yes.
As for different types of attacks - a wolf does not need to bite a critical area like the jugular - they could take them out with a bite to the arm or leg. All of that is narrative and simply up to how the DM and player imagine it. A raging barbarian can as easily beat a creature unconscious as kill them. This is one of those rules that may offend some folks sensibilities mostly based on how they imagine the game to be rather than anything to do with the rules themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello All:
I have a question regarding the rules around a PC specifying non-lethal damage being done to an opponent. Does a player just have to specify before an attack that they are going to do damage in a non-lethal fashion, or is there more to it than that? Also can a sneak attack by a rogue or an attack in rage by a barbarian be done with non-lethal damage?
My party includes a monk, a rogue, and a barbarian. The monk is very anti-conflict, and the barbarian is quite the opposite, while the rogue is up for whatever will help her get her way. We had an encounter with some bandits, and knowing it was coming up the monk pleaded with the barbarian and the rogue that we not harm them, as they are just humans who have lost their way. They agreed for this encounter, if they could reasonably subdue the bandits without putting themselves in harms way that they would abide by the monks wishes.
So the time came, we are in battle, and the rogue does a sneak attack and the barbarian raged then attacked. I ruled the following at the time of the conflict (which resulted in 2 dead bandits because, well, the barbarian is a beast):
Thoughts on these rulings? Any issues with them, or is there anything specific in the rules that contradicts or confirms what I ruled?
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
The basic rule of thumb is that, after damage is rolled, if the attack would reduce the target to 0 hp or less, the attacker can specify that the attack was meant to knock out the target and the target is rendered unconscious. If the attack was a ranged attack or a spell attack, then this option is not available. Apparently WotC doesn't believe in knocking people out with comical arrow heads, knife handles, etc. Spell effects make sense though.
EDIT: As for your examples, I see no reason an attack from a raging barbarian can't be used to beat an opponent into unconsciousness.
I guess my reason for the raging barbarian is that in the PHB it says they are "defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury". The way I read it is that they are so furious/raged that they cannot rationally think about swinging with less force. They can rationally think, as they can choose to come out of rage and they know who is and isn't a threat, but if they are using their rage to attack, they aren't doing so controlled enough to use non-lethal force, by definition (to me) they are swinging as hard as they can.
As far as your "basic rule of thumb" is that specified anywhere in the text, or is that something perhaps carried over from a previous version? Just curious as I'm fairly new, and a first time DM.
Also as an FYI, I made rulings on the fly (without giving any rationale) based on my judgement to keep the game going -- but initially deemed both to be lethal. However after the session we as a group discussed it further. As a group this is what we came up with (we are all fairly new to D&D as a whole), but I was just curious if it was explicitly stated in a rule somewhere (though I think even if it was we might continue to play this way, as we agreed on it).
As a completely new group we spend 3 hours playing and another 1 hour or so talking about what we think we can improve/do better and going over rules questions at that point.
Thanks for the input Meta!
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
The rule (Player's Handbook, page 198, or here), is pretty clear about when the attacker decides: At the instant the creature's HP are reduced to 0. Assuming a melee attack (Unarmed Strike counts, but crossbow/bow sneak attacks do not, and nor do most spells).
For the latter questions, I see no concern with Sneak Attack. It can be argued that dealing extra damage is supposed to depict serious (possibly internal) injury, but I don't see why you can't do with the pommel of your rapier what you used to be able to do with a sap. Or, if you go for more high fantasy, that situation when the victim wakes up in the healer's room, thinking "she avoided my vitals".
For your ruling on the Barbarian's Rage, I'd say "depends on the player". If the player is fine with it, sure - it can make sense. Play it the hulk way and smash! If the player offers arguments, concerns or counterpoints, I'd suggest listening to them; the rage as depicted is "primal ferocity", not "mindless bloodlust", and even a barbarian consumed by blood lust can violently smash the side of his axe in his opponent's face. The rules don't prevent him from dropping his opponents unconscious during rage (contrary to spellcasting), and I don't think it offers anything if the exchange is an upset player.
Thanks for the input Onyx. The players agreed, and are really into RP for their characters and the way we ruled fit it. The barbarian is a "viking" type player, and lives for killing on the battlefield. He is honorable and loyal to a fault, but when it comes to anyone who poses even the slightest threat, he has no issue chopping their heads off (those poor poor goblins in the first encounter). The rogue truly wants whatever will benefit her the most, as she was screwed over so much as a child and feels that everyone truly only cares for themselves, and that's how you survive. The monk is totally good, will deal damage and kill mindless creatures, but anything that he thinks has a chance at turning from evil ways (almost anything sentient) he wants to try and help.
I like your explanation as "primal ferocity" vs "mindless bloodlust". Also, we played (and all assumed) that you had to make the designation of lethal vs. non-lethal prior to the attack roll which is what brought up these rules. I guess the rule as you pointed out and I'm reading now specifically does state that that choice is made by the player at the time of damage (provided it was a melee attack). With this clarity, the other 2 questions aren't really questions at all anymore, if it's in melee then RAW states the player decides at that moment that the creature reaches 0 HP.
I think I'm going to stick with our rulings made, and possibly adapt the Barbarian Rage to be similar to Rogue Sneak attack I ruled (we will still require a designation prior to the attack roll, and if the attack roll crits, it is lethal damage regardless). But, I will of course discuss with the party first.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Remember to have fun, and you'll be fine! :)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Since you make the designation when the damage is dealt, it does leave open the possibility of not knowing whether or not the attack drops the PC to 0 hp or not. Probably not how the rules were intended, but I could see someone stating that.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
The way the rules are written you only can make a non-leathal attack once the creature reaches 0 hp. So you could effectively state you are always trying to do non-leathal damage it really doesn't matter.
The only debatable point is do you state you are dealing leathal damage before or after learning your attack brought the creature to zero hp. Obviously it makes sense it has to be before, but that means you need to be basically making every attack non-leathal since you don't know how many hp someone has.
The best way to handle this is I think giving the option when the creature is reduced to 0 hp just to make the game run smoother.
We found the RAW rule to be utterly stupid.
I run my blade through his chest until you can see most of the blade running out his back, but I do it non-lethally. As I stab my dagger into the guard's neck severing their carotid and jugular releasing a deadly flow of blood down the side of their body, then I declare it is with non-lethal intent. The Barbarian stands over the hacked dismembered and bloody corpse of his foe, smiling with a bloodthirsty grin through the red covering his face and arms, he holds up a dismembered arm and cries, "I attacked non-lethally!"
If anyone believes you use a slashing or piercing weapon non-lethally, then you really are living in a fantasy world. That is to say there is a way to use a sword to knock someone out, and NO, it isn't by using the flat of the blade, that is only a good way to wastefully break your weapon. You use the pommel, or haft, to bluntly hit them with it. It does change you weapon from whatever blade to a club for damage amount and type.
In our game, you must declare it non-lethal before you attack. Only bludgeoning weapons can do it. Inappropriate weapons can do it by using their pommel or shaft. DM keeps numbers separate for damage, and if they drop below zero beyond the amount of non-lethal damage incurred, they start dying. If non-lethal was part of the total that put them down, then they are unconscious. If you put them into a dying situation, my players found the simplest solution, one heals for 1d4, they pop up, and the warrior hits them non-lethal style with a blunt weapon and they go down unconscious. Hilts for one handed weapons deal 1d4 damage, great/2 handed weapons deal 1d6/1d8 versatile. if someone uses the flat of their blade they get 1d2 damage and the DM rolls a 50-50 chance your weapon breaks. Nobody in Rage or Berserk mode can deliver non-lethal attacks, period.
There is no attack or defense penalty/adjustment, since the opponent isn't aware of your intent, so hitting him is the same probability.
It is simple, far more accurate, easy to run and makes the game feel more realistic.
That's super annoying and forces players to declare it turn after turn.
This really sucks for Rogues.
It's not that simple if it takes a paragraph to describe it. (A lot of that is the rules for using the hilt/flat of a weapon; why not use the improvised weapon rules and call it a day?) It's way simpler to just say "I don't kill him" and assume they didn't decapitate or eviscerate the enemy and someone applied first aid.
Those kinds of rules are fine if you really like realism but they tend to encourage players to just kill everything or work around them the way your players are. I've seen players in 3.5e choose to kill NPCs they would've personally liked to spare just because they didn't want to make the fight harder for everyone by wasting their turns on sub-par attacks. Also, a Water Elemental or Ochre Jelly really doesn't care what weapon type you're hitting them with; they don't have organs.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI'd just like to point out that bludgeoning weapons are just as likely to seriously maim or kill someone as slashing or piercing weapons.
If they didn't, then they wouldn't have been used.
Historically, swords became more dominant as they were simply superior tools for killing with, but if you look at two knights in plate armour fighting each other with longswords, they are basically bludgeoning each other as the armour prevents them from being cut.
Sure, it's not realistic based on our real world biology, but then again neither is someone self-healing from close to death by going to sleep for 8 hours. :)
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!"🔊
I have a question that expands on this, a moon druid in dire wolf form argues that the killing blow was meant to be non-lethal. I ruled that piercing damage from a bite would be lethal but it also was a moot point as the (now dead) priestess could easily have her wounds bound and with the use of a healers kit be stabilized. I am looking for opinions or specific rules as the druid got extremely butt hurt about not getting his way.
You either got the rules wrong or ignored them in a way that took away agency from the player, so I’d be upset too. Obviously, a player shouldn’t fight with the DM in the middle of the game, but that doesn’t mean they have to be happy with a bad call.
The rule has been quoted in this very thread. Any time a character reduces another character to 0 HP with a melee attack (either a weapon attack or a spell attack; either is fine, but it must be melee), the attacker can choose to leave the target unconscious and stable. That’s it, that’s the entire rule.
In our group the players actually never announce HOW they attack before damage is rolled but simply that they do with [insert weapon or spell here]. Depending on the damage, I sometimes let them describe how they "split the beasts head with a mighty blow of their axe, after which they - cowered in blood - release a roaring war cry". Alternatively I as the DM simply tell them that their arrow just barely scraped the bandits shoulder (like 2 dmg) or that they cleanly cut off two of the spiders legs and it starts tumbling (near death).
It rarely comes up that my group wants to handle fights non-lethally but when they do it gets clear quite quickly and basically every attack is meant to knock out the enemies so I describe their attacks to be as such, except (most) spells and ranged attacks. Using the pommel, broadside of the axe, or simply a final knockout punch to the face.
I also am not hide bound, the rules are a guideline and in this case when all previous attacks are dealing lethal damage I think it is unrealistic for a Dire Wolf to "pull his punches" with a massive bite from a Cultist that just downed one of the PCs. But that is just me
Personally I struggle with this alot.
there is a tension in dnd btw RAW, RP, and player agency.
It's hard to get that balance, especially since there are elements that simply are bizarre.
Like for RP, I don't think saying that you are being non-lethal, and then do 24 pts of damage makes sense.
I also, as a DM, don't like that the RAW allows players to decide *after* they roll dmg to be non-lethal. : "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt." : I feel this is cheating a bit, let's players hedge their bets a little too much. Mostly because I know that I would likely try to do so as well. Now, I do like that it says they have to state at least as soon as the dmg is dealt.
But you do have to allow player agency and player fun. If I as a dm constantly am trying to make the world work or balanced, but deny my pc choice, then i have defeated and undermined the purpose and fun of RP table top games.
At the end, I have to talk with the players and make sure that they are on board.
Personally, I actually got one of my pcs made when I said they couldn't pick non-lethal dmg without penalty. But they pointed out 5e rules. I admitted my fault. I had earlier editions on the brain. Now, I still don't like that someone can roll a shit ton of damage and be all, "But its non-lethal". But I try to balance all these three things. My only modification and specification is that they have to state that they are being non-lethal before the damage is applied to the enemy. Like, before or after they roll damage and before their turn ends or they take a bonus action or something.
The problem with your thinking is that players don't get to decide how much damage they do, even though characters have numerous options in that regard. Allowing the player to decide to only knock a character out is how the game models the character exercising those options that the rules otherwise don't allow the player.
An additional very important point here is that even if the player doesn't exercise this option, that enemy who just took 24 points of damage still has to fail three death saves before actually dying. I think it's potentially interesting to say to the players "if you care so much, you can spend your action stabilizing them instead of winning the fight," but at the end of the day, that potential isn't very great. It's just a lot smoother and less obnoxious to let them choose in that moment to leave their target stable rather than in death saves.
The whole issue of lethal vs non-lethal comes back to defining what hit points really are (which I won't get into). Depending on how you envisage hit points, doing a lot of damage may mean the target takes little or no actual physical damage. Alternatively, some folks imagine knocking hit points off as lots of little wounds that add up.
How a player or DM decides to interpret or imagine the application of lethal vs non-lethal damage comes down to how they imagine hit points really work.
All the PHB has to say on the subject is the following:
"Your character's hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations."
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile."
In order to get around how everyone might think of hit points, the PHB made the rule for non-lethal damage extremely simple.
"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."
When you make an attack reducing a creature to zero hit points you can decide whether the damage that reduces them to zero hit points is lethal or not. Essentially - does the creature die at zero hit points due to the attacks of you and your party or not.
This is essentially saying that when you strike the blow that will physically incapacitate the target you decide whether you hit them in such a way as to knock them out or to kill them.
Realistic? Depends on how you like to imagine hit points. Simple, easy to implement and remember? Yes.
As for different types of attacks - a wolf does not need to bite a critical area like the jugular - they could take them out with a bite to the arm or leg. All of that is narrative and simply up to how the DM and player imagine it. A raging barbarian can as easily beat a creature unconscious as kill them. This is one of those rules that may offend some folks sensibilities mostly based on how they imagine the game to be rather than anything to do with the rules themselves.