Are commoners too weak?

[Jerrykhor]

So the basic peasant 'Commoner' have 10 AC and only 4 hp. This means that a lv1 monk with 16 Dex can kill the Commoner in 1 punch. Isn't that kind of absurd? An adult human(oid) getting killed in a single unarmed blow is pretty ridiculous. Even if the monk slaps a commoner (1 damage), it will take only take 4 slaps to kill.

This may come across as a little petty, but lets compare the lv1 Fighter to the commoner. A lv1 Fighter who has 14 con will have 12 hp. That is 3 times more hp than the Commoner. The lv1 Fighter is supposed to be a peasant with some basic training, but when standing next to a Commoner, he is more like Captain America.

#Commonerlivesmatter#

[Lord Haart]

I don't see much ridiculousness in a trained-for-war martial artist being able to kill a common nontrained, non-protected person with a single attack. Think of it less in terms of "the monk punches the person, the person falls dead" and more in terms of "the monk gets behind the person and snaps its neck/the monk finger-stabs the person's windpipe/the monk does the Spock Poke/the monk cracks the person's head against the nearest hard angle like a big coconut". There are lots of ways to kill a person without a weapon IRL, you know.

Neither is it ridiculous that an armed, ready to kill combat-trained person can murder an entire shop's worth of casual people unless they do the most rational thing: run away expediently.

You want to measure commoners' power on the offence? Measure them as a mob, not as individuals. Being dangerous as an individual is what PCs and villains do.

https://1d4chan.org/images/2/2f/HectoPeasant2.jpg

[Regitnui]

I look at it more as an indication that a commoner is not an enemy: they're collateral damage. They only have 4 Hp because it doesn't take much to kill a 'nameless extra' on a battlefield.

I'm also fairly certain that a trained martial artist can kill or severely injure with one strike, punch or not. A monk isn't a normal guy hitting you in the street. He's a trained combatant who knows how to hurt you.

[lperkins2]

Forget getting hit by a monk, 4 housecats stand a pretty good chance of killing one... I've never run a campaign with stock commoners, they just don't make sense. 20' of caltrops are lethal, a 10' fall has a 50/50 shot of killing one, the list goes on.

My general rule is 1 level per 5 years of age, assuming humans anyway. Of course, 5e discourages drawing up PC levels for NPCs, but that is the general way power scales. This means the average commoner is somewhere from level 3 to 5. What is unusual about PCs is not the overall power they achieve, but the speed with which they rise to fame, and the fact that they regularly go seeking trouble and walk away from it. After all, the old smith is a level 6 smith, he's really good at smithing, but he still isn't a fighter.

Edit: Oh, and the commoner getting attacked by housecats? Put the commoner in full plate, no exposed skin anywhere, the cats still have a decent chance of killing him.

[Arastel]

I don't believe commoners are too weak. This does rely on the ruling I use that when something is reduced to 0hp, it is knocked unconscious not killed. From here it has a decent chance of stabilising itself unless something follows up and deals it more damage, probably killing it.

Now this makes more sense, people can definitely be knocked unconscious with a single blow from a trained martial artist. Whether this has a chance of killing them is probably less likely in reality than 5e mechanics represent, though my understanding is that it is possible given some unfortunate medical complications.

In addition, I personally disagree with your interpretation of a fighter. I think that they need more training then you describe. Being a (slightly) more hardened combatant, the fighter's hit points don't just represent more blood and flesh to be lost before falling unconscious but also represent their mental resilience before passing out. So no, I personally don't think commoners are too weak.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I reckon commoners are just right. Being reduced to 0 HP is not the same as 'killed', after all, and PCs are super-special. Plus, there are (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wife-soldier-killed-one-punch-12220074) frequently (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/22/man-who-killed-banker-with-one-punch-cleared-of-murder) stories (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-killed-savage-one-punch-9483255) in the media about people being killed by randos with one punch. People be fragile!

I mean, take me for example. I have taken a proper hit from a cat (it was standing on my arm, overbalanced and fell off the bed with its claw still in my arm), I rather think I would have been incapacitated by 4 like that. I certainly had to drop what I was doing to stem the bleeding. Last September I feel down some steps (a drop of about two feet) and broke both my wrists, tore a muscle in my back and knocked myself out. I'm still not in any condition to fight anyone.

[Jerrykhor]

I reckon commoners are just right. Being reduced to 0 HP is not the same as 'killed', after all, and PCs are super-special. Plus, there are (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wife-soldier-killed-one-punch-12220074) frequently (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/22/man-who-killed-banker-with-one-punch-cleared-of-murder) stories (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-killed-savage-one-punch-9483255) in the media about people being killed by randos with one punch. People be fragile!

I mean, take me for example. I have taken a proper hit from a cat (it was standing on my arm, overbalanced and fell off the bed with its claw still in my arm), I rather think I would have been incapacitated by 4 like that. I certainly had to drop what I was doing to stem the bleeding. Last September I feel down some steps (a drop of about two feet) and broke both my wrists, tore a muscle in my back and knocked myself out. I'm still not in any condition to fight anyone.

Those being killed in one punch are normally hit in the head, I'd say that means the attacker rolled nat 20s on a surprise round, having advantage on their attack.

As weak as you think you are, I still don't think you would be killed by a house cat, if only because D&D has never been good at simulating real injuries and bleeding out from flesh wounds.

Maybe they made the commoner super weak so they can a good laugh from seeing nameless nobodies dying comically from almost anything mildly harmful. After all, their lives are cheap, and if they dare riot against the PCs, they can feel heroic by slaughtering hordes of peasants.

[Knaight]

Forget getting hit by a monk, 4 housecats stand a pretty good chance of killing one... I've never run a campaign with stock commoners, they just don't make sense. 20' of caltrops are lethal, a 10' fall has a 50/50 shot of killing one, the list goes on.
...
Edit: Oh, and the commoner getting attacked by housecats? Put the commoner in full plate, no exposed skin anywhere, the cats still have a decent chance of killing him.
The cat case says more about the cats than the commoner, as do the caltrops - neither should really be doing damage at all.

[Regitnui]

The cat case says more about the cats than the commoner, as do the caltrops - neither should really be doing damage at all.

I'm fairly certain both can reduce the average person to 0 hit points if we remember hit points aren't just meat. I know walking on caltrops would defeat any desire I had to fight really quickly.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I still don't think you would be killed by a house cat

But this goes back to my first point, which is that 0 HP =/= dead. I am imagining being unable to fight thanks to the pain and loss of morale.

[Jerrykhor]

But this goes back to my first point, which is that 0 HP =/= dead. I am imagining being unable to fight thanks to the pain and loss of morale.

By RAW 0 hp = dead, or in the PCs case, unconscious.

So cats are very poorly designed in D&D. They can kill a commoner in 4 hits, but has a 83% chance of dying from falling 10ft.

[sotik]

I am not master of martial arts, but I do remember taking classes as a kid. Something I was taught that with enough force and upward momentum you could use the palm of your hand to drive someones nose up into their brain. Thus killing them then in one stroke. There are also stories, maybe a little false and outlandish, that people can punch someone hard enough in the chest causing their heart to stop.

So using a monk as an example, the medieval equivalent of a ninja or samurai, being able to kill a commoner in one punch isn't the best example to be had. Are commoners weak? Yes, but they also represent the peasants of the world, which were generally seen as weak no bodies.

[some guy]

By RAW 0 hp = dead, or in the PCs case, unconscious.


A monster usually dies or is destroyed when it drops to 0 hit points.


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.
Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters.

By RAW, 0 hp = usually dead, but there are exceptions.


Also, don't forget 4 hp is the avarage for a commoner, you can just roll the Hit Dice for a commoner, or say that a tough commoner has 8 hp.

Edit: a single weak commoner not surviving a blow from an adventurer sounds right for me, as does a lucky and tough commoner surviving 2 hits. Commoners aren't supposed to be the opponent, unless riled up to a mob (and even then, the enemy should be the one who incites the crowd, not the crowd itselve) .

Monsters with a challenge rating of 0 are insignificant except in large numbers;

[Capt Spanner]

This means that a lv1 monk with 16 Dex can kill the Commoner in 1 punch. Isn't that kind of absurd? An adult human(oid) getting killed in a single unarmed blow is pretty ridiculous.

I (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/24/trevor-timon-jailed-six-years-killing-oliver-dearlove-one-punch-london) find (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-killed-savage-one-punch-9483255) it (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wife-soldier-killed-one-punch-12220074) quite (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-37554011) believable (http://opck.qhvsg.org.au/).

But the game mechanics aren't really designed for monks v commoners, or "low damage" situations. They're designed for 100' drops off cliffs, and fighting dragons. I don't think commoners need to be balanced.

[War_lord]

Actually, a punch to the head from a trained fighter could kill a man, especially if the fighter in question has deadly intentions. The head obviously contains your brain, and your brain is very vulnerable to blunt trauma, as many hotheads have found out when they end up facing a 2nd degree murder charge.

[Unoriginal]

So the basic peasant 'Commoner' have 10 AC and only 4 hp. This means that a lv1 monk with 16 Dex can kill the Commoner in 1 punch. Isn't that kind of absurd? An adult human(oid) getting killed in a single unarmed blow is pretty ridiculous.

You know what else is ridiculous and absurd? A man killing an adult humanoid by generating fire with his mind and throwing it at the humanoid.

Joke aside, it's pretty normal. A Commoner is a person who's neither strong, nor tough, nor dextrous nor smart, nor wise, nor charismatic, and who has never learned to fight in their lives. They're no hero material, and even basic soldiers outclass them.


This may come across as a little petty, but lets compare the lv1 Fighter to the commoner. A lv1 Fighter who has 14 con will have 12 hp. That is 3 times more hp than the Commoner.

And your average town guard has 11 HP with 12 CON.


The lv1 Fighter is supposed to be a peasant with some basic training

No they're not. Level 1 Fighters are already way-above average individuals. A STR 16 humanoid, which a lot of adventuring Fighters are, is literally as strong as an horse, or as a gorilla.

Would you consider it ridiculous if a gorilla killed an adult man in one attack?



but when standing next to a Commoner, he is more like Captain America.

Captain America is peak human, which in DnD is 20 to your stat. So yeah, a lvl 1 Fighter with 16 in STR would be closer to Captain America than of a regular human with no training.


Forget getting hit by a monk, 4 housecats stand a pretty good chance of killing one... I've never run a campaign with stock commoners, they just don't make sense. 20' of caltrops are lethal, a 10' fall has a 50/50 shot of killing one, the list goes on.

A 10 feet fall is no joke. People can die from falling from an horse.

Note that "a fall" isn't the same as "being able to reception yourself properly".



Maybe they made the commoner super weak so they can a good laugh from seeing nameless nobodies dying comically from almost anything mildly harmful. After all, their lives are cheap, and if they dare riot against the PCs, they can feel heroic by slaughtering hordes of peasants.

...You makes it sounds like the DnD designers are a bunch of horrible people who only paused their marathon torturing animals to write down "must make Commoners suffer" in the books

No, it is not to have a good laugh at NPCs dying. Commoners are simply people who have no business being in a fight unless absolutely desperate.


I am not master of martial arts, but I do remember taking classes as a kid. Something I was taught that with enough force and upward momentum you could use the palm of your hand to drive someones nose up into their brain. Thus killing them then in one stroke.

It's a legend, though. Not saying that a fantasy ninja couldn't do it, just that it's not possible in real life, because your nose isn't going to cause that much damage even if its somehow forced into your skull.

It's however possible to kill an human by hitting them in the face, if you make their brains hit the walls of their skull with enough force.

[gkathellar]

I have to ask, is this complaint particular to monks, or do you also have a problem with the fact that virtually any other PC can do the same thing with a dagger? Because that actually is quite realistic - a stab to the upper torso, neck, head or any major artery can kill a person very easily. Given that, the vibe I'm getting is that your real complaint is about monks, and how they're not "realistic" enough.

To which my answer is twofold: first, look, nothing in this game is realistic - at best, it's genre-appropriate. Second, if monks go too far for your willing suspension of disbelief, don't use 'em.

[Unoriginal]

I have to ask, is this complaint particular to monks, or do you also have a problem with the fact that virtually any other PC can do the same thing with a dagger? Because that actually is quite realistic - a stab to the upper torso, neck, head or any major artery can kill a person very easily. Given that, the vibe I'm getting is that your real complaint is about monks, and how they're not "realistic" enough.

To which my answer is twofold: first, look, nothing in this game is realistic - at best, it's genre-appropriate. Second, if monks go too far for your willing suspension of disbelief, don't use 'em.

A STR 16 PC can also do it with a simple punch.

[Knaight]

No they're not. Level 1 Fighters are already way-above average individuals. A STR 16 humanoid, which a lot of adventuring Fighters are, is literally as strong as an horse, or as a gorilla.

Would you consider it ridiculous if a gorilla killed an adult man in one attack?
They aren't as strong - the way size categories work mean that a given strength score is only part of the picture for strength, with size being the other portion.


A 10 feet fall is no joke. People can die from falling from an horse.

Note that "a fall" isn't the same as "being able to reception yourself properly".
While I don't disagree on a 10' fall being dangerous in some circumstances, it's worth noting that the example with the horse generally involves a fair amount of horizontal movement, and that matters. I don't know how many bike falls you've had, but I can confirm that a fall at 2 mph and a fall at 30 mph are very different from personal experience, and that was on the same bike and on pretty much the same terrain (asphalt with a thin coating of ice).

[Unoriginal]

They aren't as strong - the way size categories work mean that a given strength score is only part of the picture for strength, with size being the other portion.

The Ape described in the MM is Medium sized, though.



While I don't disagree on a 10' fall being dangerous in some circumstances, it's worth noting that the example with the horse generally involves a fair amount of horizontal movement, and that matters. I don't know how many bike falls you've had, but I can confirm that a fall at 2 mph and a fall at 30 mph are very different from personal experience, and that was on the same bike and on pretty much the same terrain (asphalt with a thin coating of ice).

I was talking about falling from a stationary horse or a horse that make a sudden move (when you're trying to dismount, for exemple), actually. Not that I disagree with what you're saying.

[Tetrasodium]

I don't believe commoners are too weak. This does rely on the ruling I use that when something is reduced to 0hp, it is knocked unconscious not killed. From here it has a decent chance of stabilising itself unless something follows up and deals it more damage, probably killing it.

Now this makes more sense, people can definitely be knocked unconscious with a single blow from a trained martial artist. Whether this has a chance of killing them is probably less likely in reality than 5e mechanics represent, though my understanding is that it is possible given some unfortunate medical complications.

In addition, I personally disagree with your interpretation of a fighter. I think that they need more training then you describe. Being a (slightly) more hardened combatant, the fighter's hit points don't just represent more blood and flesh to be lost before falling unconscious but also represent their mental resilience before passing out. So no, I personally don't think commoners are too weak.

4 housecats have a pretty good chance of killing the 12 hp fighter(?) someone mentioned earlier
Cat: ac12 hp2, clawsattack +0 to hit 1 damage. a L1 fighter will probably have leather or chainmail and a shield
round 1: cats deal 4 damage, fighter kills a cat. fighter has 8 hp
Round 2: cats deal 3 damage, fighter kills a cat. Fighter has5 hp
Round 3 Cats deal 2 damage, fighter rolls a 9 or lower for <12 tohit. Fighter has 3 hp
Round4: Cats deal 2 damage, fighter kills a cat. Fighter has 1 hp
Round 5: Cats deal 1 damage, fighter is desperately making death saves. Fighter is at 0 hp
Round6: starving cat proceed to begin eating vital life sustaining bits of the helpless fighter making death saves. Fighter is at -1hp
Round N see above but fighter is at -N hp or just dead.

If the fighter missed on round 1 or 2 instead of round 3 it even allows for the victorious cats to make some misses too. If the fighter started the fight with some damage already, perhaps from that rat/spider/dust bunny earlier it gets even easier for the cats, If your players are massacring commoners, thy are playing the wrong game as d&d is pretty bad at encounters that badly slanted in favor of the players, this might be better (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG!) for their odd desires. That burly looking guy at the bar might not have levels in a PC class, but those levels as a carpenter cultist or something do indeed add up to a real threat. When it comes to a bar fight or something, very few people are trying to -kill- their opponent making the commoners able to win/lose a mostly nonlethal damage bar fight & spend a night in the drunk tank instead of the gallows.

[Unoriginal]

4 housecats have a pretty good chance of killing the 12 hp fighter(?) someone mentioned earlier
Cat: ac12 hp2, clawsattack +0 to hit 1 damage. a L1 fighter will probably have leather or chainmail and a shield
round 1: cats deal 4 damage, fighter kills a cat. fighter has 8 hp
Round 2: cats deal 3 damage, fighter kills a cat. Fighter has5 hp
Round 3 Cats deal 2 damage, fighter rolls a 9 or lower for <12 tohit. Fighter has 3 hp
Round4: Cats deal 2 damage, fighter kills a cat. Fighter has 1 hp
Round 5: Cats deal 1 damage, fighter is desperately making death saves. Fighter is at 0 hp
Round6: starving cat proceed to begin eating vital life sustaining bits of the helpless fighter making death saves. Fighter is at -1hp
Round N see above but fighter is at -N hp or just dead.

Errr... this calculation relies on all the cats hitting all the time.

Chain shirt + shield = AC 18 for the fighter. A cat has 15% chance to hit at each attempt.

So it means the cats are likely to not do more than 2 damages per turn, when there is 4 of them

[Lombra]

Commoners being as tough as a chees puff makes the PCs feel more special, which is the core design concept behind it I guess.

[Cybren]

Forget getting hit by a monk, 4 housecats stand a pretty good chance of killing one... I've never run a campaign with stock commoners, they just don't make sense. 20' of caltrops are lethal, a 10' fall has a 50/50 shot of killing one, the list goes on.

My general rule is 1 level per 5 years of age, assuming humans anyway. Of course, 5e discourages drawing up PC levels for NPCs, but that is the general way power scales. This means the average commoner is somewhere from level 3 to 5. What is unusual about PCs is not the overall power they achieve, but the speed with which they rise to fame, and the fact that they regularly go seeking trouble and walk away from it. After all, the old smith is a level 6 smith, he's really good at smithing, but he still isn't a fighter.

Edit: Oh, and the commoner getting attacked by housecats? Put the commoner in full plate, no exposed skin anywhere, the cats still have a decent chance of killing him.

They make sense when you consider that game rules are an abstraction and there needs to be a base-point where resolution works optimally, as it happens, that's level 1 adventurers, meaning there's not much room before that for people weaker than adventurers. Given that they're unimportant, they have low stats. It's not a model of realism, and it's not intended to be. "house cat vs commoner" wouldn't ever come up, because this isn't a game about the ASPCA

[Tanarii]

An unarmed attack does 1 damage. It takes four full strength trying to kill someone punches from a basic (Demi-)Human, ie Str 10, to put a 4 hp Commoner into a coma with a Chance of death. Or one good swipe of a longsword. Sounds about right to me.

Monks are different, because their full power punches are as deadly as daggers. Literally. And PC monks are even more different, because they typically have a Dex score 3-5 pts higher than the average (Demi-)Human. Meaning each blow they make is as deadly as 2 dagger blows from a normie.

Edit: also note that a commoner can survive one average dagger or shortsword blow. In fact, they're 75% likely to survive a dagger blow. That sounds pretty though to me. (Also worth noting HPs aren't necessarily meat, but math wise commoners work IMO.)

[Elderand]

The real problem isn't comonners, the real problems is housecat and other such things.
The problem is that dnd still hasn't let go of the design idea that every attack must somehow result in damage.
A housecat should not be able to deal hp damage, it just shouldn't.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

The real problem isn't comonners, the real problems is housecat and other such things.
The problem is that dnd still hasn't let go of the design idea that every attack must somehow result in damage.
A housecat should not be able to deal hp damage, it just shouldn't.

A house-cat should be treated as a non lethal damage dealer, wounds that could be rather bad if you don't seek treatment


Not grown-ups. Rabies deaths notwithstanding, the Explainer is unaware of any incidents in which a house cat has killed its able-bodied adult owner. Cats can, however, inflict a pretty gruesome mauling. In 2010, a postpartum cat in Idaho bit her owner 35 times, going back for a second round of scratches and bites after the owner washed off the blood. Last year, a Cleveland man was airlifted to a hospital after a brawl with his tabby cat. Fights with humans usually don’t end well for felines.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/12/brett_nash_cat_electrocution_case_can_a_cat_kill_y ou.html

[Tanarii]

The real problem isn't comonners, the real problems is housecat and other such things.
The problem is that dnd still hasn't let go of the design idea that every attack must somehow result in damage.
A housecat should not be able to deal hp damage, it just shouldn't.
Agreed. If something does 1d3-4 damage (for example), it should just do 0 damage unless it gets a critical hit, and a lucky damage roll. (I realize cats just do a flat 1 damage in 5e. Numbers chosen using Cat Str of 3 for illustrative purposes.)

[Ninja_Prawn]

A housecat should not be able to deal hp damage, it just shouldn't.

Oh? What if a housecat attacks a pixie? That's like a human being mauled by a panther!

[Tanarii]

Oh? What if a housecat attacks a pixie? That's like a human being mauled by a panther!
Abstract HP rules have problems. I'm shocked.

[gkathellar]

Abstract HP rules have problems. I'm shocked.

It's not the abstraction that's the problem, though - it's the abstraction's failure to call itself an abstraction.

D&D pretends to be a simulationist game in spite of its mechanics being suitable for a pretty narrow band of uses: fantasy murderhobos killing monsters in skirmish-type combat. When you try to take those rules and use them to answer questions like "what are a housecat's stats" for some stupid reason, the game simply runs out of mathematical space and gets weird. The commoner/cat thing is and has always been the result of level 1 PCs resting close to the bottom of the game's mechanical scale, such that weaker creatures are hard to differentiate from each other.

HP is a perfectly serviceable mechanic, even at level 1, within its context - but in WotC's desire to have D&D be a game for everything when it's very clearly not, they choose to pretend this context requirement doesn't exist. It's not bad mechanical design so much as it is bad perceptual design and a refusal to accept the game's limits.

[Tanarii]

D&D pretends to be a simulationist gameAD&D 1e and D&D 3e were interpreted by many players to be a simulationist game. But D&D has never pretended to be that, even with those versions of the rules. Edit: In other words, the mistake is generally on the simulationist players, not the game system.

However, D&D has often pretended to be something other than a type of a war-game, ie containing heavy emphasis tactical combat mini-game for squad size groups. Even though that's essentially the core of the game.

[Cybren]

AD&D 1e and D&D 3e were interpreted by many players to be a simulationist game. But D&D has never pretended to be that, even with those versions of the rules.

This is where "rulings not rules" has advantages, because you can just say "there's no reason writing up stats for a house cat which will rarely be relevant to adventuring". I mean, there's no rules for taxpolasmosis as far as I know, so you can probably ignore most deaths from cats.

[Tetrasodium]

Errr... this calculation relies on all the cats hitting all the time.

Chain shirt + shield = AC 18 for the fighter. A cat has 15% chance to hit at each attempt.

So it means the cats are likely to not do more than 2 damages per turn, when there is 4 of them

That is still significantly higher than the remote & astronomical possibility of 4 generic housecats killing you or I while decked out in armor & if you want to get technical, a chain shirt or shield probably would not help either of us in that situation nearly as much as a pair of Levi's granting us virtual immunity to most of them.

[Cybren]

That is still significantly higher than the remote & astronomical possibility of 4 generic housecats killing you or I while decked out in armor & if you want to get technical, a chain shirt or shield probably would not help either of us in that situation nearly as much as a pair of Levi's granting us virtual immunity to most of them.

There's no requirement that when a house cat faces off with a level 1 fighter to roll initiative. Just say the house cat scampers off because a giant guy made of metal is stomping around.

[Tanarii]

This is where "rulings not rules" has advantages, because you can just say "there's no reason writing up stats for a house cat which will rarely be relevant to adventuring". I mean, there's no rules for taxpolasmosis as far as I know, so you can probably ignore most deaths from cats.
Agreed. I'm fine with HPs and various other abstractions rules for resolution. I think they generally work fine as long as you realize they're an abstract concept for resolving the tactical-mini game of D&D combat, and not a simulation for anything. And adjust as needed if you do need to 'simulate' something specific.

[Tetrasodium]

There's no requirement that when a house cat faces off with a level 1 fighter to roll initiative. Just say the house cat scampers off because a giant guy made of metal is stomping around.


Most likely yes. In a recent game my druid was impersonating a wizard's rat familiar & an illusionist was impersonating the dead evil wizard to get inside a castle with his two "guards". I made all kinds of social impacts on combats including scaring the bejeezus out of some goblins unfamiliar with what kinds of spells could be cast through a familiar & the fact that familiars themselves have no spellcasting abilities. I tried to bite something I was standing onfor 1 damage at some point for the hell of it on account of there being nothing social a rat could doto a greck(?), but later wildshaped into a bear while standing on an important sounding thumpythumpy spot to finish it off & end the fight.

Lets face it, if you are being attacked by four housecat wizard familiars at level 1, the familiars are not the thing you need to be concerned about now that your plan has gone so horrifically wrong.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

If commoners were strong, then there would be no need for Adventures
If Pc can't kill Commoners in one hit, then neither can goblins, or other cr 1/4 creatures
Having a base stat block is useful if the party gathers them as an angry mob
If house cats don't do damage then how can they kill mice?
If you are not trying to kill something, then you don't kill it ( Ie, if you can kill a man in one blow, you know enough about combat to knock somebody out without killing them)

[Cybren]

Most likely yes. In a recent game my druid was impersonating a wizard's rat familiar & an illusionist was impersonating the dead evil wizard to get inside a castle with his two "guards". I made all kinds of social impacts on combats including scaring the bejeezus out of some goblins unfamiliar with what kinds of spells could be cast through a familiar & the fact that familiars themselves have no spellcasting abilities. I tried to bite something I was standing onfor 1 damage at some point for the hell of it on account of there being nothing social a rat could doto a greck(?), but later wildshaped into a bear while standing on an important sounding thumpythumpy spot to finish it off & end the fight.

Sure, but that's what "rulings not rules" are for, for corner cases.


Lets face it, if you are being attacked by four housecat wizard familiars at level 1, the familiars are not the thing you need to be concerned about now that your plan has gone so horrifically wrong.

Well, seeing as wizard familiars can't attack, you're in the clear there buddy



If commoners were strong, then there would be no need for Adventures
If Pc can't kill Commoners in one hit, then neither can goblins, or other cr 1/4 creatures
Having a base stat block is useful if the party gathers them as an angry mob
If house cats don't do damage then how can they kill mice?
If you are not trying to kill something, then you don't kill it ( Ie, if you can kill a man in one blow, you know enough about combat to knock somebody out without killing them)


Well, as for the first bit i bolded, house cats don't go into game combat, because that's an engine meant for resolving skirmishes between adventurers and their foes, not predator animals and their prey, and for the second, that's true in dungeons and dragons because there's a special rule to expedite the game, but it is most certainly not true in real life, where any force capable of subduing someone is easily capable of causing unintentional death.

[ad_hoc]

D&D pretends to be a simulationist game in spite of its mechanics being suitable for a pretty narrow band of uses:

3.x does, but 5e and most other editions certainly don't.

5e is all about story logic, not simulation.

[Unoriginal]

If you are not trying to kill something, then you don't kill it ( Ie, if you can kill a man in one blow, you know enough about combat to knock somebody out without killing them)


True, the PHB explicitly says that you can decide to make your blow non-lethal if you wish to.

[Cybren]

True, the PHB explicitly says that you can decide to make your blow non-lethal if you wish to.

Only for melee weapon attacks. You can't shoot a nonlethal arrow or deliver a nonlethal fireball.

[Unoriginal]

Only for melee weapon attacks. You can't shoot a nonlethal arrow or deliver a nonlethal fireball.

True, but I wouldn't call an arrow or a fireball a "blow".

[Regitnui]

Only for melee weapon attacks. You can't shoot a nonlethal arrow or deliver a nonlethal fireball.

You can shoot a nonlethal arrow. Well, if you can make a nonlethal attack with a greatsword, you can certainly hit someone nonlethally with an arrow.

[Cybren]

You can shoot a nonlethal arrow. Well, if you can make a nonlethal attack with a greatsword, you can certainly hit someone nonlethally with an arrow.
Not according to the players handbook. (and in realism terms, it makes a lot more sense that you can deliver non-lethal greatsword attacks, since historical greatsword fighting was against heavily armored foes and frequently involved armed grapples leveraging the weapon to take the opponent down

True, but I wouldn't call an arrow or a fireball a "blow".

Fair, I only point it out because I've encountered a nonzero number of people who specifically tried to use spells like fireball or magic missile non-lethally

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Well, as for the first bit i bolded, house cats don't go into game combat, because that's an engine meant for resolving skirmishes between adventurers and their foes, not predator animals and their prey, and for the second, that's true in dungeons and dragons because there's a special rule to expedite the game, but it is most certainly not true in real life, where any force capable of subduing someone is easily capable of causing unintentional death.

True but vampires have a nasty habit of summing swarms of rats, If cats are not allowed to kill them "because house cats should not be in combat"

And if we are talking about martial artists who are working on control of their body to the max, while they might not have any control over the lethalness of the blow to the head, but they could always go for the arm, leg, torso.

[Cybren]

True but vampires have a nasty habit of summing swarms of rats, If cats are not allowed to kill them "because house cats should not be in combat"

And if we are talking about martial artists who are working on control of their body to the max, while they might not have any control over the lethalness of the blow to the head, but they could always go for the arm, leg, torso.

Sure, but any amount of punching someone in the arms and legs isn't going to knock them out... until you cause enough internal bleeding that they pass out from blood loss. In real life, if trauma causes you to become unconscious, there's a risk of death. D&D isn't a particularly gritty game, so it ignores that so that play experience is improved.

[Regitnui]

Fair, I only point it out because I've encountered a nonzero number of people who specifically tried to use spells like fireball or magic missile non-lethally

I've encountered zero numbers of people who tried to use any attack nonlethally. Only way monsters get away from my characters alive is surrender or running while their comrades get mowed down.

[sotik]

Only for melee weapon attacks. You can't shoot a nonlethal arrow or deliver a nonlethal fireball.

Fireball, yeah I agree with that. But you can shoot someone with an arrow dealing nonlethal damage. Imagine doing a leg shot, or shooting them in the shoulder. It wouldn't knock them out no, but you could disable someone and prevent them from fighting further with a well placed arrow shot.

[gkathellar]

AD&D 1e and D&D 3e were interpreted by many players to be a simulationist game. But D&D has never pretended to be that, even with those versions of the rules. Edit: In other words, the mistake is generally on the simulationist players, not the game system.

Then why do they keep printing stats for housecats and commoners?

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

A nonlethal arrow is fair mechanically, even if it is not in the rules. After all the phrase "Shoot to Kill" implies that you can shoot to not kill

As far as nonlethal magic, A fireball that a commoner dodges and deals minimum damage, will still drop them to 0 hp and out right dead if they don't dodge, so Fireball does not have a nonlethal setting

[Tanarii]

Then why do they keep printing stats for housecats and commoners?
Because cats are familiars and players want to know what the stats for them are. And commoners are the bulk of most armies. Edit: originally, it was Normal Man, not commoner.

[gkathellar]

A nonlethal arrow is fair mechanically, even if it is not in the rules. After all the phrase "Shoot to Kill" implies that you can shoot to not kill

There's definitely no balance problem with it, and there are a million ways to fluff such a thing - pinning somebody's clothes with arrows just for a start. IRL it's almost difficult to explain how lethal arrows are, but that sounds less fun so ... yeah.


Because cats are familiars and players want to know what the stats for them are. And commoners are the bulk of most armies. Edit: originally, it was Normal Man, not commoner.

That's fair-ish in the case of cats, though it'd be far more expedient and game-friendly to just have a set of general stats specifically for familiars. In the case of commoners, that's a reason to print stats for Generic Guard or Levied Soldier or something, not Person On The Street. In general, that the game fails to mention, "oh, and really, don't try to use the combat rules for everybody and everything," is the major failure, though.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Then why do they keep printing stats for housecats and commoners?

Every once and while, a swarm of kittens happens and you die, its DnD

[Cybren]

Fireball, yeah I agree with that. But you can shoot someone with an arrow dealing nonlethal damage. Imagine doing a leg shot, or shooting them in the shoulder. It wouldn't knock them out no, but you could disable someone and prevent them from fighting further with a well placed arrow shot.

1) There's no such thing as a non-lethal arrow. That's ridiculous. There's arrows that weren't lethal, but an arrow fired from a war bow would not just "immobilize" someone, especially in a world with pre-modern medical care. Between infection and bleeding out, you can easily die from getting shot through the leg.
2) The rules of 5th edition D&D say no, you can't shoot someone non-lethally with an arrow.
3) This is a common problem police departments run into, because people assume that there's a such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. With the exception of very expensive prototypes of Directed Energy Weapons that usually use microwaves, the best you can get is "less lethal". Everything from tear gas & pepper spray to tazers can and have caused deaths, because any application of force has potential to cause death.

[Unoriginal]

5e Commoners aren't the bulk of most armies. Commoners are non-combat people.

They have stats so they count as creatures for spells or other interactions.

[sotik]

1) There's no such thing as a non-lethal arrow. That's ridiculous. There's arrows that weren't lethal, but an arrow fired from a war bow would not just "immobilize" someone, especially in a world with pre-modern medical care. Between infection and bleeding out, you can easily die from getting shot through the leg.
2) The rules of 5th edition D&D say no, you can't shoot someone non-lethally with an arrow.
3) This is a common problem police departments run into, because people assume that there's a such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. With the exception of very expensive prototypes of Directed Energy Weapons that usually use microwaves, the best you can get is "less lethal". Everything from tear gas & pepper spray to tazers can and have caused deaths, because any application of force has potential to cause death.

There is such a thing as a non lethal arrow. I'll tell you as a bow hunter in real life, it is a common problem that hunters will place a bad shot on an animal, and it will run away wounded and live. Thus leaving a wounded animal to live on in the wild. It is considered poor practice and unethical hunting.

Could an arrow shot to the leg cause someone to bleed out? Yes it could. Lethal means it kills, shooting someone in the leg does not equal death. A person could very well survive from it, even if bleeding out, actions could be taken to ensure that they don't die from it. Thus making the arrow shot non-lethal. I am not debating the 5E rules, which remember are a moot point anyways due to the fact that the PHB and DMG both say that you DON'T have to follow said rules to the T. The topic on hand is whether or not a arrow can be non-lethal, and as I said, being a bow hunter in real life there is a concern among hunters about those who take non-killing shots. And that is using bows that are way stronger then those in ye ole times, and arrow heads that open up leaving a 1 foot slice. So if you can misplace a arrow shot while hunting, leaving the deer wounded, but still fully alive, then a arrow can be non-lethal.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

1) There's no such thing as a non-lethal arrow. That's ridiculous. There's arrows that weren't lethal, but an arrow fired from a war bow would not just "immobilize" someone, especially in a world with pre-modern medical care. Between infection and bleeding out, you can easily die from getting shot through the leg.
2) The rules of 5th edition D&D say no, you can't shoot someone non-lethally with an arrow.
3) This is a common problem police departments run into, because people assume that there's a such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. With the exception of very expensive prototypes of Directed Energy Weapons that usually use microwaves, the best you can get is "less lethal". Everything from tear gas & pepper spray to tazers can and have caused deaths, because any application of force has potential to cause death.

1) If somebody want to shoot an "nonlethal" shot, they are likely planing on going over and cleaning the would dressing it and restrain them in another way once that is done. It is not that the shot is not dangerous, it is that the person will still be breathing once you go 40ft over there to take them prisoner

2) True the rules don't expressly say that you can shoot nonlethal arrows, but it also assumed that monsters can die without saves, when a player says that their shot is nonlethal, all they really want is to go over and take him alive without that pesky, dies for no reason other then hit 0hp

3) Yes anything is lethal if you try hard enough, though if we are talking about the ranger who can pin flies to trees by their wings without killing the fly levels of archery mastery, then it is safe to assume that they know how to get that sweet spot of less lethal in order to subdue rather then kill.

[Cybren]

There is such a thing as a non lethal arrow. I'll tell you as a bow hunter in real life, it is a common problem that hunters will place a bad shot on an animal, and it will run away wounded and live. Thus leaving a wounded animal to live on in the wild. It is considered poor practice and unethical hunting.


That is an arrow that failed to kill, something that occurs in the D&D rules. THat is not a "non-lethal arrow", and it's incredibly silly to claim that I was saying that all arrows are instantly fatal.


Could an arrow shot to the leg cause someone to bleed out? Yes it could. Lethal means it kills, shooting someone in the leg does not equal death. A person could very well survive from it, even if bleeding out, actions could be taken to ensure that they don't die from it. Thus making the arrow shot non-lethal. I am not debating the 5E rules, which remember are a moot point anyways due to the fact that the PHB and DMG both say that you DON'T have to follow said rules to the T. The topic on hand is whether or not a arrow can be non-lethal, and as I said, being a bow hunter in real life there is a concern among hunters about those who take non-killing shots. And that is using bows that are way stronger then those in ye ole times, and arrow heads that open up leaving a 1 foot slice. So if you can misplace a arrow shot while hunting, leaving the deer wounded, but still fully alive, then a arrow can be non-lethal.

A person very well could survive an arrow to the torso or head as well, but there's no such thing as "intentionally taking a non-lethal shot". There's intentionally taking shots that cause less damage, but all uses of force include the capacity to cause death. Claiming otherwise is foolishness or dishonesty.

[Tanarii]

5e Commoners aren't the bulk of most armies. Commoners are non-combat people.I mean, it's somewhat DM & settings dependent, but if the world is anything like the real world & time that D&D is vaguely an analogue for, this statement is way off base. Not to mention that Normal Men, which is what commoners were called, were (explicitly) the bulk of D&D armies in older editions. So that's why there were stats for them. And tradition is a large part of why D&D keeps doing things.

[Unoriginal]

In DnD 5e, "nonlethal attack" means that you knock the being out once they reach 0 hp, rather than killing them.

You might incapacitate someone with an arrow, but I don't think you can knock someone out by shooting them like that.

[Cybren]

I mean, it's somewhat DM & settings dependent, but if the world is anything like the real world & time that D&D is vaguely an analogue for, this statement is way off base. Not to mention that Normal Men, which is what commoners were called, were (explicitly) the bulk of D&D armies in older editions. So that's why there were stats for them. And tradition is a large part of why D&D keeps doing things.

Historical armies composed of peasant levies still spent times drilling with their weapons, given that when you are on campaign you spend the majority of your time not fighting, and to use medieval england as an example, there it was for significant portions of the middle ages a legal requirement for all men to keep and train in arms

[sotik]

That is an arrow that failed to kill, something that occurs in the D&D rules. THat is not a "non-lethal arrow", and it's incredibly silly to claim that I was saying that all arrows are instantly fatal.


A person very well could survive an arrow to the torso or head as well, but there's no such thing as "intentionally taking a non-lethal shot". There's intentionally taking shots that cause less damage, but all uses of force include the capacity to cause death. Claiming otherwise is foolishness or dishonesty.

To each their own then. In the realm of D&D non-lethal means, do not kill. Your character does non-lethal damage because they do not want to kill someone. So in that mindset if a player said to me that they wanted to take a non-lethal shot, in D&D 5E terms they are saying they don't want to kill that person, then I would let them. I wouldn't say they are knocked out, but I would say they have fallen to the ground clutching their leg, unable to fit anymore.

[Cybren]

To each their own then. In the realm of D&D non-lethal means, do not kill. Your character does non-lethal damage because they do not want to kill someone. So in that mindset if a player said to me that they wanted to take a non-lethal shot, in D&D 5E terms they are saying they don't want to kill that person, then I would let them. I wouldn't say they are knocked out, but I would say they have fallen to the ground clutching their leg, unable to fit anymore.

No, in the realm of D&D non-lethal means "when the creature is reduced to 0HP they are knocked unconcious rather than killed", not "an attack that failed to reduce the target to 0HP", as you are seemingly using it to mean.

[gkathellar]

Historical armies composed of peasant levies still spent times drilling with their weapons, given that when you are on campaign you spend the majority of your time not fighting, and to use medieval england as an example, there it was for significant portions of the middle ages a legal requirement for all men to keep and train in arms

Yeah ... if we're getting historical, the entire concept of the defenseless dirt-farming peasant is nonsense. Militias have at many times been some of the best-trained armies in the world. Which, once again, argues that you don't need generic dirt-farmer stats for any reason.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

A person very well could survive an arrow to the torso or head as well, but there's no such thing as "intentionally taking a non-lethal shot". There's intentionally taking shots that cause less damage, but all uses of force include the capacity to cause death. Claiming otherwise is foolishness or dishonesty.

Yes, but an arrow to the knee is going to cause your heart to stop, or lungs to burst, or your brain to melt out the side of your head, it will lead to a slow painful death, until you help them and then take them prisoner

[Tanarii]

Historical armies composed of peasant levies still spent times drilling with their weapons, given that when you are on campaign you spend the majority of your time not fighting, and to use medieval england as an example, there it was for significant portions of the middle ages a legal requirement for all men to keep and train in arms
Sure. But 5e "Commoners include peasants, serfs, slaves, servants, pilgrims, merchants, artisans, and hermits." Peasants, serfs, and slaves, at the minimum, have a valid reason to have combat stats for in a D&D universe, as they might take up arms and fight. That's not to say a DM isn't justified saying "you kill them" and moving on.

Whereas cats are almost certainly presented because players want to know what the stats for their familiar is. I mean, all the familiar forms are in the back of the PHB. Along with common mounts, common ranger companions, common druid forms, and common warlock special familiars.

[Cybren]

Yeah ... if we're getting historical, the entire concept of the defenseless dirt-farming peasant is nonsense. Militias have at many times been some of the best-trained armies in the world. Which, once again, argues that you don't need generic dirt-farmer stats for any reason.
I tend to think that the commoner statblock is more a representation of narrative relevance than anything else. These are background characters unimportant and sometimes it's fun to see how many villagers you burninate or Arrow without getting bogged down.

Yes, but an arrow to the knee is going to cause your heart to stop, or lungs to burst, or your brain to melt out the side of your head, it will lead to a slow painful death, until you help them and then take them prisoner

No, but it could cause shock, and even if they were to get help, without the aid of magic, a realistic middle ages physician might not be able to prevent someone from bleeding out. An arrow to the knee is also not likely to be the hit that reduces the character to 0HP, given how D&D damage and HP work

[sotik]

No, in the realm of D&D non-lethal means "when the creature is reduced to 0HP they are knocked unconcious rather than killed", not "an attack that failed to reduce the target to 0HP", as you are seemingly using it to mean.

Yes, because you still roll damage. You are deciding that damage does not kill the creature but instead knocks them out. Notice the key points here, you are deciding the damage you do knocks the creature out instead of killing it. You like to mix reality with game mechanics here, but fail to see how that very logic contradicts you.

"Non-lethal weapons, also called less-lethal weapons, less-than-lethal weapons, non-deadly weapons, compliance weapons, or pain-inducing weapons are weapons intended to be less likely to kill a living target than conventional weapons such as knives and firearms."

You are very much deciding not to KILL a creature when you deal non-lethal damage. But as I said, to each their own.

[Cybren]

I don't really understand what your thesis is here. The rules say you can't choose to make non-lethal attacks with ranged weapons. This isn't particularly ambiguous

[SharkForce]

Historical armies composed of peasant levies still spent times drilling with their weapons, given that when you are on campaign you spend the majority of your time not fighting, and to use medieval england as an example, there it was for significant portions of the middle ages a legal requirement for all men to keep and train in arms

it was fairly odd for england to do that (not unheard of, but far from common), and as far as i'm aware only applied to the longbow, specifically so that it was possible to draft longbowmen, a need which basically nobody else had.


Yeah ... if we're getting historical, the entire concept of the defenseless dirt-farming peasant is nonsense. Militias have at many times been some of the best-trained armies in the world. Which, once again, argues that you don't need generic dirt-farmer stats for any reason.

militias might be better than the occasional (poorly trained) professional army, but unless we're talking about "before professional armies really became a thing", i'm having some serious doubts about best in the world. and heck, most of those "militias" are probably more along the lines of "people who went through proper military training and were then added to the reserves instead of being on full active duty" or possibly militias that have been through combat before and are essentially veteran militia, which is unlikely to be the case for the typical commoner.

now, this isn't to say that commoners should be completely incompetent in some kinds of fights. chasing a wolf from their livestock, a friendly wrestling match, a barroom brawl, the typical commoner probably knows enough about fighting to get through those scenarios reasonably well. some lunatic is running through the streets hurling 4 rabid cats at you? typical commoner should not be prepared :P

[Cybren]

it was fairly odd for england to do that (not unheard of, but far from common), and as far as i'm aware only applied to the longbow, specifically so that it was possible to draft longbowmen, a need which basically nobody else had.
No, it applied to any weapon. EDIT: I think the earliest form of such laws referenced bows but i believe it later expanded- am trying to find specific citations

[SharkForce]

about the only weapon that would have displaced the bow that i can imagine would have been the musket. which they probably didn't care about, because unlike the longbow you don't need years of training to be useful with a gun.

remember, the advantages have to outweigh the disadvantages of the fact that you're arming your populace. having tons of recruits in what was probably the most powerful weapon of the time, which almost nobody else could even hope to be able to use in remotely similar numbers, was a major advantage. but if we're talking about, say, pikes? meh. a pike is comparatively not nearly as hard to use. you don't need years and years of training and physical conditioning to be able to use a pike. not to say that there's no technique to using a pike (or any polearm), but it just isn't the same scenario as longbowmen, so... it seems rather odd that they would care enough to require training with other weapons.

still, i'm curious to hear these historical references you've got. it would certainly be something i've never heard of, so something to learn i guess.

[gkathellar]

militias might be better than the occasional (poorly trained) professional army, but unless we're talking about "before professional armies really became a thing", i'm having some serious doubts about best in the world.

That's the period we're largely talking about, which continued until pretty late in most of Europe (really until after you get strong central governments that can afford to pay and manage an army full-time). With the exception of mercenaries, very few people lived entirely as soldiers - they might fight for their feudal lord for a reduction in rent, or if they lived in a town training and service would've been obligatory.


and heck, most of those "militias" are probably more along the lines of "people who went through proper military training and were then added to the reserves instead of being on full active duty" or possibly militias that have been through combat before and are essentially veteran militia, which is unlikely to be the case for the typical commoner.

Your mistake is thinking of the word in a modern context. As mentioned above, in most towns militia duties would have been obligatory for all men of a certain age, including drills and training under a local master-at-arms. Think of it more like how some countries today have mandatory military service, and you'll be on the right track.


now, this isn't to say that commoners should be completely incompetent in some kinds of fights.

Lemme put it this way: in a lot of Europe, it was illegal to wear armor within city walls, because it gave him a huge advantage in any fight that might break out. Weapons, however, were a self-policing issue, since just about everyone who was outside was armed.


some lunatic is running through the streets hurling 4 rabid cats at you? typical commoner should not be prepared :P

I don't think anybody is prepared for that. :smallconfused:

[gkathellar]

about the only weapon that would have displaced the bow that i can imagine would have been the musket. which they probably didn't care about, because unlike the longbow you don't need years of training to be useful with a gun.

remember, the advantages have to outweigh the disadvantages of the fact that you're arming your populace. having tons of recruits in what was probably the most powerful weapon of the time, which almost nobody else could even hope to be able to use in remotely similar numbers, was a major advantage. but if we're talking about, say, pikes? meh. a pike is comparatively not nearly as hard to use. you don't need years and years of training and physical conditioning to be able to use a pike. not to say that there's no technique to using a pike (or any polearm), but it just isn't the same scenario as longbowmen, so... it seems rather odd that they would care enough to require training with other weapons.

still, i'm curious to hear these historical references you've got. it would certainly be something i've never heard of, so something to learn i guess.

Guns and bows had very different uses, and it wasn't so much that guns displaced them as that armor gradually did.

As to pikes, they do require a lot of training - specifically, formation training and drill discipline. A good pike formation was very difficult to approach head on, and with proper training could be taught to change direction very quickly. On the other hand, a pike formation with insufficient training would be much slower to organize and much easier to rout.

(In general, if you want to know more about this kind of stuff, the real experts hang around in the Real-World Weapons and Armor thread in Roleplaying. A lot of what I know I learned from them - and yes, quite a few can provide extensive citation.)

[SharkForce]

Guns and bows had very different uses, and it wasn't so much that guns displaced them as that armor gradually did.

As to pikes, they do require a lot of training - specifically, formation training and drill discipline. A good pike formation was very difficult to approach head on, and with proper training could be taught to change direction very quickly. On the other hand, a pike formation with insufficient training would be much slower to organize and much easier to rout.

(In general, if you want to know more about this kind of stuff, the real experts hang around in the Real-World Weapons and Armor thread in Roleplaying. A lot of what I know I learned from them - and yes, quite a few can provide extensive citation.)

formation training and drill discipline doesn't take 10+ years to develop. nor does it require that you actually own and regularly use a pike, i suspect.

[fbelanger]

So the basic peasant 'Commoner' have 10 AC and only 4 hp. This means that a lv1 monk with 16 Dex can kill the Commoner in 1 punch. Isn't that kind of absurd? An adult human(oid) getting killed in a single unarmed blow is pretty ridiculous. Even if the monk slaps a commoner (1 damage), it will take only take 4 slaps to kill.

This may come across as a little petty, but lets compare the lv1 Fighter to the commoner. A lv1 Fighter who has 14 con will have 12 hp. That is 3 times more hp than the Commoner. The lv1 Fighter is supposed to be a peasant with some basic training, but when standing next to a Commoner, he is more like Captain America.

#Commonerlivesmatter#
A level 1 pc is a becoming hero. He may have more than 100 hit points in a few month. Nothing to compare with a commoner.

[NNescio]

Forget getting hit by a monk, 4 housecats stand a pretty good chance of killing one... I've never run a campaign with stock commoners, they just don't make sense. 20' of caltrops are lethal, a 10' fall has a 50/50 shot of killing one, the list goes on.

My general rule is 1 level per 5 years of age, assuming humans anyway. Of course, 5e discourages drawing up PC levels for NPCs, but that is the general way power scales. This means the average commoner is somewhere from level 3 to 5. What is unusual about PCs is not the overall power they achieve, but the speed with which they rise to fame, and the fact that they regularly go seeking trouble and walk away from it. After all, the old smith is a level 6 smith, he's really good at smithing, but he still isn't a fighter.

Edit: Oh, and the commoner getting attacked by housecats? Put the commoner in full plate, no exposed skin anywhere, the cats still have a decent chance of killing him.

Hey, at least the commoner no longer gets owned by a single housecat like back in 3.5e! No more sizes bonuses to AC, woohoo!


In DnD 5e, "nonlethal attack" means that you knock the being out once they reach 0 hp, rather than killing them.

You might incapacitate someone with an arrow, but I don't think you can knock someone out by shooting them like that.

Not unless you shoot them in the knee.

[Laurefindel]

(...) a 10' fall has a 50/50 shot of killing one (...)

just dropping in to say that 10 fall is more dangerous than most people think. While 50% chance of death is exaggerated, falling is the second world-wide cause of death if i recall my training correctly (first being car crash IIRC), with something like 500 000 deaths yearly, about half of which were under 10 ft.

So in the context of D&D, a commoner's hp does not sounds that much off considering commoner-level threats.

[Cybren]

just dropping in to say that 10 fall is more dangerous than most people think. While 50% chance of death is exaggerated, falling is the second world-wide cause of death if i recall my training correctly (first being car crash IIRC), with something like 500 000 deaths yearly, about half of which were under 10 ft.

So in the context of D&D, a commoner's hp does not sounds that much off considering commoner-level threats.

D&D should probably be a bit more generous with falls in certain conditions, though. On multiple occasions I've jumped off a roof at least 15ft high onto grass to no damage, thanks to the ground being somewhat soft after the rain (in one case, significantly soft,and i sunk a few inches in)

[Laurefindel]

D&D should probably be a bit more generous with falls in certain conditions, though. On multiple occasions I've jumped off a roof at least 15ft high onto grass to no damage, thanks to the ground being somewhat soft after the rain (in one case, significantly soft,and i sunk a few inches in)

true, these were accidental falling stats, not intentional jumps. I guess that's when the athletic checks comes in play.

[Tanarii]

D&D should probably be a bit more generous with falls in certain conditions, though. On multiple occasions I've jumped off a roof at least 15ft high onto grass to no damage, thanks to the ground being somewhat soft after the rain (in one case, significantly soft,and i sunk a few inches in)
Sounds like your DM let you make an acrobatics check to reduce the height of a willing jump down (not a fall) by 10ft, with a low DC or advantage due to soft ground. :smallbiggrin:

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

I don't really understand what your thesis is here. The rules say you can't choose to make non-lethal attacks with ranged weapons. This isn't particularly ambiguous

5e is very loose compared to other dnd rule sets, the argument being made is that is possible IRL to shoot a shot that won't kill somebody instantly, and as such, seeing as it no more unlikely to work then knocking somebody over the head with the hilt of your sword for you last blow.

Taking something alive after you shoot them does not break the game, by any stretch of the imagination

[Cybren]

5e is very loose compared to other dnd rule sets, the argument being made is that is possible IRL to shoot a shot that won't kill somebody instantly, and as such, seeing as it no more unlikely to work then knocking somebody over the head with the hilt of your sword for you last blow.

That argument is nonsensical, though, because it's possible to shoot someone in D&D5E that won't kill them as well. It happens every time your damage roll with a ranged attack fails to reduce the target to 0HP.


Taking something alive after you shoot them does not break the game, by any stretch of the imagination

No, it doesn't, and it's fine in specific situations to do so, but arguing from a realism perspective rather than a gameplay perspective is asinine.

[Unoriginal]

No, it applied to any weapon. EDIT: I think the earliest form of such laws referenced bows but i believe it later expanded- am trying to find specific citations

If a peasant is trained at fighting, then the Commoner stateblock doesn't represent them anymore.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

No, it doesn't, and it's fine in specific situations to do so, but arguing from a realism perspective rather than a gameplay perspective is asinine.


Is it? On the gameplay side of things by RAW the raging barbarian can choose to do nonlethal damage.

On the Realism side, you have snipers. And while snipers often choose to for the lethal shot, there is nothing stopping them from taking a shot at the leg to subdue the target. Now the rouge does not have a scope on his bow, nor does 5e have a system to target your shots, but in all reality there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to subdue

[Cybren]

On the Realism side, you have snipers. And while snipers often choose to for the lethal shot, there is nothing stopping them from taking a shot at the leg to subdue the target.

Which does not render the target unconscious and thus would not preclude them from taking actions or fleeing.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

If a peasant is trained at fighting, then the Commoner stateblock doesn't represent them anymore.

Unless the combat training is basic, like point the bow at a 30 degree angle and when the leader says go, shoot in a volley

[Cybren]

still, i'm curious to hear these historical references you've got. it would certainly be something i've never heard of, so something to learn i guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181
http://historyofengland.typepad.com/documents_in_english_hist/2013/02/statute-of-winchester-1285.html

Unless the combat training is basic, like point the bow at a 30 degree angle and when the leader says go, shoot in a volley

Sure, but if we're getting bogged down into realism, medieval longbows required incredible strength to wield, so they still wouldn't have the commoner statblock

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Which does not render the target unconscious and thus would not preclude them from taking actions or fleeing.

Here's an idea, you don't have to actually knock someone unconscious to drop them to 0 hp. There are some scenarios where it makes more sense that the target would be incapacitated rather then unconscious

Even if it is just a dazed state or movement speed reduction so you can mozy up to it and give it a good wack on the head, It is fair to assume that if you have the Damage to render it dead, you also have the choice of taking a lesser, but equal shot that does not kill it

[Cybren]

Here's an idea, you don't have to actually knock someone unconscious to drop them to 0 hp. There are some scenarios where it makes more sense that the target would be incapacitated rather then unconscious

Even if it is just a dazed state or movement speed reduction so you can mozy up to it and give it a good wack on the head, It is fair to assume that if you have the Damage to render it dead, you also have the choice of taking a lesser, but equal shot that does not kill it

Sure! I'm a rulings not rules guy, I am all for coming up with stuff on the fly. But by the rules of the game when you reduce a creature to 0HP, unless they have some kind of class or racial ability that says otherwise, they are dead or unconscious. One or the other. There's no wiggle room. As far as a general rule goes, if someone is at 0HP, they are knocked out or dead.

[Unoriginal]

Unless the combat training is basic, like point the bow at a 30 degree angle and when the leader says go, shoot in a volley

In which case they're not really trained, and just get to have a bow instead of a club as weapon.


Giving crossbows to Commoners create the deadly HectoPeasant, and so is taboo.

[SharkForce]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181
http://historyofengland.typepad.com/documents_in_english_hist/2013/02/statute-of-winchester-1285.html

hmmm... interesting. never heard of that before. it seems mostly related to having the weapons, but it is reasonable to presume that it must have included at least some expectation of training for some of them (if nothing else, some of them apply to knights, who would obviously be expected to know how to use their weapons - that's a major part of the deal in feudalism after all).

it certainly doesn't seem to have made as big a deal as the laws for longbows, which explicitly required regular practice, so i would expect less training to be involved for most... but as i said, it doesn't take years and years to condition someone to be able to use a spear to a reasonable degree of competence, and with longbows it definitely does :P

[JackPhoenix]

some lunatic is running through the streets hurling 4 rabid cats at you? typical commoner should not be prepared :P

Obligatory the Simpsons reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Xg7QUXiDA

Anyway, non-lethal shooting IS represented in D&D: the target is hit, but not reduced to 0, and decides to cease hostilities... just like in real life. Police officers don't shoot criminals until they fall unconscious (well, they do, but not intentionaly...either they shoot to kill and the target survives, or they shoot to wound/incapacitate, and the target suffers injuries that lead to his uncousciousness, likely from blood loss. The same can also lead to unintentional kill)

It's just that in D&D, opponents (or PC's) rarely do the reasonable thing and surrender or just stop fighting while they still can.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Anyway, non-lethal shooting IS represented in D&D: the target is hit, but not reduced to 0, and decides to cease hostilities... just like in real life. Police officers don't shoot criminals until they fall unconscious (well, they do, but not intentionaly...either they shoot to kill and the target survives, or they shoot to wound/incapacitate, and the target suffers injuries that lead to his uncousciousness, likely from blood loss. The same can also lead to unintentional kill)

It's just that in D&D, opponents (or PC's) rarely do the reasonable thing and surrender or just stop fighting while they still can.

Yeah I guess that that is the real problem then

[Knaight]

just dropping in to say that 10 fall is more dangerous than most people think. While 50% chance of death is exaggerated, falling is the second world-wide cause of death if i recall my training correctly (first being car crash IIRC), with something like 500 000 deaths yearly, about half of which were under 10 ft.

So in the context of D&D, a commoner's hp does not sounds that much off considering commoner-level threats.

Falling is nowhere near second (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/) - it's basically a big pile of illnesses at the top, with vehicular accidents sneaking in at position 10, followed by more illnesses. As far as falling deaths go, it's worth noting that this is heavily age influenced - for me, falling is a complete non-issue; sure it might hurt to slam into the road when biking down a hill at 30mph, but the worst case scenario from the fall alone* is a broken bone, and even that's unlikely. For my grandparents, falling is a real concern.

*Falling in front of a car isn't a falling damage problem.

[War_lord]

Anyway, non-lethal shooting IS represented in D&D: the target is hit, but not reduced to 0, and decides to cease hostilities... just like in real life. Police officers don't shoot criminals until they fall unconscious (well, they do, but not intentionaly...either they shoot to kill and the target survives, or they shoot to wound/incapacitate, and the target suffers injuries that lead to his uncousciousness, likely from blood loss. The same can also lead to unintentional kill)

Actually the idea of "shooting to wound" is a myth, if police are shooting at someone it's (meant) to be because that person is a threat to others to the point that lethal force is justified to protect the lives of others. In a self-defense scenario, you aim for center mass, if your bullets incapacitate, great, if they kill, fine, you were defending yourself or others and that's the expected result of shooting someone. The idea that shooting someone in an arm or leg is "non-lethal", (never mind the idea that anyone is actually able to aim that carefully in a life or death situation), is a myth.

Not that any of this applies in 5e were you just call that your last attack is "non-lethal" and your foe is unconscious even if the last blow was a Rapier.

[Laurefindel]

Falling is nowhere near second (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/) - it's basically a big pile of illnesses at the top, (...)

you're right, I meant to say second cause of accidental death (i.e trauma)

edit: source from same site (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs344/en/)

From the same source, seems numbers are more around 424 000 globally rather than 500 000. Dude giving the fall-arrest training might have inflated the numbers!

[Knaight]

you're right, I meant to say second cause of accidental death (i.e trauma)

edit: source from same site (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs344/en/)

From the same source, seems numbers are more around 424 000 globally rather than 500 000. Dude giving the fall-arrest training might have inflated the numbers!

Said site also confirms that the danger from falls tends to either come from heights, ground hazards, or the fragility of small children and elderly people. The commoner statblock is clearly not intended to represent the particularly frail, so it still works out to being wonky.

[Ninja_Prawn]

you're right, I meant to say second cause of accidental death (i.e trauma)

It is also the number 2 cause of both injuries and fatalities in the my industry (construction) - after 'asbestos-related illness/deaths'. But that obviously factors in the frequency with which construction workers are exposed to the risk of falling, as well as the actual severity of falling damage.

[xanderh]

And that is using bows that are way stronger then those in ye ole times, and arrow heads that open up leaving a 1 foot slice.

I know this is a few pages back, but I wanted to address it. This statement is absolutely, categorically, false. A modern hunting bow shoots at 65+ pounds for the heaviest of game. Medieval warbows shot at over 100 pounds (so about twice as much), and the heaviest bows (like the Mary-rose bows) shot at about 180 pounds (so almost 3 times as much). The arrows fired were also very heavy, so that they could deliver as much force to the enemy armour when they hit. The kinetic energy of a medieval warbow with a war arrow is way higher than a modern hunting bow.
Your assessment of the lethality of arrows isn't useful because of the sheer difference in power between the weapons, as well as the durability of the species involved. A bear is significantly more durable than a human, so it might be easier to accidentally not kill it, especially with such a (comparatively) weak bow.
It's like comparing birdshot to solid slugs in shotguns. One simply does more damage to the target than the other.

[Vogonjeltz]

So the basic peasant 'Commoner' have 10 AC and only 4 hp. This means that a lv1 monk with 16 Dex can kill the Commoner in 1 punch. Isn't that kind of absurd? An adult human(oid) getting killed in a single unarmed blow is pretty ridiculous. Even if the monk slaps a commoner (1 damage), it will take only take 4 slaps to kill.

This may come across as a little petty, but lets compare the lv1 Fighter to the commoner. A lv1 Fighter who has 14 con will have 12 hp. That is 3 times more hp than the Commoner. The lv1 Fighter is supposed to be a peasant with some basic training, but when standing next to a Commoner, he is more like Captain America.

#Commonerlivesmatter#

You're making a common mistake. Hit points aren't meat, the Commoner is just that much worse at keeping themselves alive in a tough situation.

A Monk, unlike every other class, is good at unarmed combat, getting to deal more than 1 point + str damage per successful attack.

In other words, if someone beat someone for over 30 seconds, they'd probably kill them.


I'm fairly certain both can reduce the average person to 0 hit points if we remember hit points aren't just meat. I know walking on caltrops would defeat any desire I had to fight really quickly.

Bingo, stepping on a caltrop and having that sink into your foot would be absolutely crippling.


Cat: ac12 hp2, clawsattack +0 to hit 1 damage. a L1 fighter will probably have leather or chainmail and a shield
round 1: cats deal 4 damage, fighter kills a cat. fighter has 8 hp

The probability of any one cat hitting on any given round is only 15%.

The probability of all 4 cats hitting is only about half of half a percent. (.00050625!)

So no, 4 cats don't have a snowballs chance in hell. Normalized for their to hit, they deal: 0-1 damage as a group on the first round on average (.6 actually).

In effect, the entire group deals approximately 1.5 damage over 4 rounds on average.

[SaintRidley]

The real problem isn't comonners, the real problems is housecat and other such things.
The problem is that dnd still hasn't let go of the design idea that every attack must somehow result in damage.
A housecat should not be able to deal hp damage, it just shouldn't.
Housecats tricked the writers of the books into thinking they attack physically rather than psychically.

What actually happens is cats attack you with cuteness, and that drains your HP and will to fight the cat, because who could ever try to kill a cute widdle kitty?