Would you Allow Nonlethal Damage on Ranged/Spell Attacks?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

My DM and I want to do some research. I know that RAW you can only declare nonlethal damage on a melee attack. But would you as a DM allow it for ranged and spell attacks/spells with saves? Why or why not?

[Unoriginal]

I would not. It's easy enough to do nonlethal damage if you want to, and there are spells that are *specifically* made to take down enemies non-lethally. I don't see any reason for giving more options to ranged attacks or damage spells.

[ciarannihill]

I do at my table for the sake of simplicity (not that it ever really comes up, non-lethal encounters aren't my players' strong suit), though I suppose there are spells for which it might be less appropriate to allow a non-lethal takedown, but to me anything targeted/causes you to make an attack roll should be able to be aimed at extremities, allowing for a non-lethal takedown IMO. Things like Toll the Dead or Fireball, less the case.

[GlenSmash!]

If I did I would gate it with a save.

Choosing to wing someone with an arrow or spell has inheirant risks that you don't have as much of up close.

Plus I like Melees having nice things every now and again.

[KorvinStarmast]

My DM and I want to do some research. I know that RAW you can only declare nonlethal damage on a melee attack. But would you as a DM allow it for ranged and spell attacks/spells with saves? Why or why not?
Rule #1. Aim for center of mass
Rule #2: Follow Rule #1, unless they are wearing body armor; then aim for the head.

Non lethal damage? Unlikely.

(I learned this rule from a cop I know very well. I was sharing with him my distaste for the popular nonsense about "only shoot at their legs" or whatever, and he countered with some of his years of experience). "Aim center of mass" isn't the reliable approach anymore, it seems, now that the criminals have body armor in a variety of cases

In a word, no. I would not allow that variation on the rules. If you want the benefits of non lethal damage, get up close and personal; take the risk.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Things like Toll the Dead or Fireball, less the case.

Haha! Why would you bring up Fireball? Haha, that's funny! Wow! Somebody would have to be really dumb to ask if Fireball could do nonlethal damage! Wow! What a good joke!

*Wipes sweat from brow and glances around nervously*

[ImproperJustice]

Well.......
If you allow superhero physics, lethal doses of electricity just knock people out, and maybe that fireball just explodes behind the enemy knocking the wind out of them, or you hit the ceiling above them with shatter knocking them out with falling rocks, etc......

I’d allow it with a pseudo-plausible explanation and maybe a Caster check of some kind.

[AureusFulgens]

I wouldn't as a general rule. I usually fluff players dealing a nonlethal KO as, say, clocking people with the haft of their weapon or something to knock them out. There's no good equivalent for shooting a pointy stick at someone.

With that being said, I did design an archery-based paladin subclass for one of my campaigns that granted the ability to deal nonlethal damage at range, to reflect their commitment to preserving life. It doesn't make much real-world sense, again, but for a class that can perform much stranger shenanigans with weapon attacks, I was comfortable making it a semi-supernatural ability. Still not something I would allow as a general option.

[Keravath]

Generally no.

When attacking at range there is no way to control the attack with the precision required to ensure that it won't be lethal. Spellls like chill touch, shocking grasp, firebolt all do a specific kind of damage when they hit. There is generally no way to ensure that these will not be lethal either.

On the other hand, at melee range, it is much easier to hit a less lethal area, hit not quite as hard, or use a less lethal part of the weapon to inflict the damage so it makes sense to allow non-lethal attacks.

If I had a ranged player who wanted to do non-lethal damage sometimes, I would probably have them carry a supply of blunt arrows or some sort of similar ranged ammunition that could be designed to be less than lethal when hitting but still inflict some sort of damage ... something more likely to disable or knock a target out than kill them.

[Gorgo]

For ranged attacks, you might allow non-lethal damage if the character switched to fowling blunts or other non-pointed arrows/bolts, perhaps with some reduction in damage done.

[Kane0]

I bundled it into a metamagic option.

[DMThac0]

I've only allowed non-lethal ranged damage once: the player took the time to research and plan a way to fletch a specific type of arrow that could be used for that purpose.

Spells: nope...they either cause pain, or they don't, the spell's description is the effect.

[Kane0]

I've only allowed non-lethal ranged damage once: the player took the time to research and plan a way to fletch a specific type of arrow that could be used for that purpose.

Spells: nope...they either cause pain, or they don't, the spell's description is the effect.

Boxing glove arrow?

[Ronnocius]

Depends on the attack but in general, no. If they make a good argument I would probably give them disadvantage or some other penalty but give them a chance to do non lethal damage.

When talking about spells, it would depend on the damage type. I would allow psychic and possibly cold damage to be non lethal but otherwise I would generally rule it as regular old lethal damage.

[Lunali]

I allow not-necessarily-lethal ranged attacks, meaning if the player declares that they aren't trying to kill the target, the target gets to make death saves instead of automatically dying.

[brainface]

Yes. Mostly because I'm just more comfortable with comic book style violence, where superman hits a badguy in the chest with a radioactive murder glare and it just knocks them out, rather than from any realism or rules standpoint.

[KorvinStarmast]

I bundled it into a metamagic option. Nice job. Make it cost a choice. Well done.

[BoxANT]

i mean, isn't this what the sleep spell is for?