Knockouts vs Death from Massive Damage

[No brains]

I asked a question on the Simple RAW Thread 4 that doesn't seem so simple any more. Relevant quotes below, but they are probably better represented in the original context of page 16 of that thread.


Q 161 Does knocking a creature out prevent instant death from massive damage?


A161: No.

Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.


Re 161 To clarify what I meant, if a melee attack would deal enough damage to a creature to reduce it to 0hp and still have enough remaining damage to exceed the creature's maximum hp, would it matter if the attacker wanted to knock out the creature or not?


A161. No it wouldn't.

A creature falling to 0 hp or below automatically falls unconscious. This rule says that when your damage causes this ('the instant the damage is dealt'), you can choose to not let it bleed out ("it becomes stable"), so it doesn't need to make death saving throws. The rule says nothing about negating excessive damage. The general rule of "taking damage at 0 hp" still applies: "If the damage equals or exceeds [the creature's] hit point maximum, instant death." (PHB p. 197).

This even matches common experience, for once. It is not uncommon that people try to knock somebody else out but their punch hits so unintendedly hard or in such an unfortunate location (it "crits") that the victim dies anyway.


R161: Thank you for the correction! I’ve deleted that post.


R161

NPCs don't usually make death saving throws; only if the DM finds it appropriate to the situation. Normally, NPC opponents just die instantly at 0HP. The "knock unconscious" rule negates that effect.

For creatures (including PCs) that [I]would normally need to make death saving throws, that is also negated because the "knock unconscious" rule makes the attacked creature stable. Either way, we're not talking about taking damage while at 0 HP; that imposes death save failures (and renders the creature no longer stable).

The actual question is whether the text (quoted by E’Tallitnics) negates the clause about massive damage ("Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.") To me, by saying "rather than deal a killing blow", it does. It's a specific exception to the general rule (both general rules, actually: the one about NPCs dying when they hit 0 HP and the one about massive damage).


Powers &8^]


1. The PHB states: "Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 HP, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws." -- This is clearly descriptive, not normative, and furthermore describes a deviation ("rather than"). It thus has no bearing on the rules; it certainly isn't one.

2. We are indeed talking about taking damage while at 0 HP. Damage that exceeds the remainder of a creature's HP is half the reason why we have the rule about massive damage in the first place (the other half being the case where a creature already at 0 HP gets hit *again*, this time with massive damage). If your statement were correct in that damage exceeding the remaining HPs were not "damage at 0 hp", the ancient red dragon would need *two* attacks to kill a level 1 nobody (or a fluffy bunny for that matter), because the first attack would only send it to 0, making the remaining 48 damage vanish in a puff of smoke (and making the nobody/bunny unstable, but that's irrelevant).

3. The writers could easily have worded the situation like they did for certain class and monster abilities: 'You can choose to fall to n HP instead.' They didn't use such a wording, neither did they say anything about excessive damage being negated.

You are reading something into this passage that isn't there. There are no specific rules to override the general rule here, so that rule stands: Massive damage can kill a creature -- even if the attack was intended to "knock out".

Edit: Just to visualise: Imagine a giant using his club trying to knock a bunny out (because said giant has a pet bunny at home that is very lonely, so he's trying to catch it a friend to play with). I'd like to see how that'd work out. Or well... I'd rather not. Poor bunny.


R161

1. I agree it has no bearing; you were the one that raised the topic of death saving throws. My point is that whether the creature would make death saving throws or simply die instantly at 0HP is irrelevant to the application of the "knock unconscious" rule.

2. No, we are not talking about taking damage at 0HP. In the massive damage case, when the creature drops to 0, the damage has already been taken. The only question is whether the excess damage exceeds the creature's maximum HP. That excess damage is not applied to the creature; the creature doesn't take it again after reaching 0HP. It's just a number that is compared to the creature's maximum HP to determine another effect. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "would need *two* attacks"; the massive damage rule is quite clear that it would only take one.

3. I'm not sure what your proposed parallel wording would look like, but the 5e designers aren't known for their consistency of phrasing anyway. All we can do is look at the text of the rule. And the rule says that "the instant the damage is dealt" the attacker can choose to knock the creature unconscious "rather than deal a killing blow". Death from massive damage is a killing blow, and is a state that is only evaluated after the damage has been dealt. So the attacker deals damage -- at that instant, he can decide to knock unconscious rather than kill the creature. Since the massive damage is what would kill the creature.... what else would be negated if not the massive damage?

Re: your Edit: This is RAW, not "how should 5e best model reality?". In reality, it should be very difficult to knock anyone out without killing her, but they put in a simple rule that allows it in order to make for better storytelling. The alternative (see earlier editions) was more realistic but a lot more frustrating.


Powers &8^]


Partially taken. You seem to read somewhere that the remaining part of the damage gets negated. Where?


I'm not arguing to have the creature take the excess damage twice, just once, which might trigger death from massive damage; whereas you are not having the creature take any of the excess damage at all, thus preventing the massive damage rule from operating in any case where the creature was not already at 0 HP and thus unconscious before the attack in question. Or am I not understanding your argument correctly?


Becoming unstable from hitting 0 HP, for one, which, depending on the DM, might mean instant death for random mooks.

The only thing the rule prevents is the creature becoming unstable, i.e. having to make death saving throws. For reference:

The rule does not negate any damage, whether massive or not. If you still want to maintain the opposite, please point at the text that says so. This is a discussion about RAW.

Edit: Maybe an example is in order. Creature has 10 HP out of 50 HP max, incoming damage is X, attacker tries to knock victim out.

X<10 : creature lives, not unconscious.
X=10 : creature lives, unconscious, stable. === KO rule prevented death*.
X>10, X<60 : creature lives, unconscious, stable. === KO rule prevented death*.
X>=60 : creature dies from massive damage. === KO rule does not negate damage, so victim is killed. A dead, but stable creature is still dead.

*: As you pointed out, some DMs would have creatures die immediately without any saving throws. In this case, the KO rule prevented a guaranteed death. In the other case, the KO rule prevented a potential death from failing three death saving throws.

[Unoriginal]

Like they said, NPCs don't usually have a "death saves before death" condition, just death at 0 HPs. So there is no "instant death from massive damage" for them, since any damage is instant death for them.

So the correct answer is: "if you want to knockout a NPC, you don't have to worry about massive damage rules."

Now if it's for a PC, ask yourself: do you want people to risk accidentally killing PCs when they're trying to knock them out?

[LtPowers]

Partially taken. You seem to read somewhere that the remaining part of the damage gets negated. Where?

The damage isn't negated, per se. If a creature at 10/50 HP gets hit with an attack, and the attacker rolls 25 damage, the creature takes 25 damage and is reduced to 0 HP. The creature doesn't take the damage points sequentially -- the creature doesn't take 10 damage (which reduces it to 0 HP) and then take another 15 damage; it just takes 25.

But since only 10 was needed to reduce the creature to 0, we subtract 10 from the original 25 to get 15 and compare that 15 to the creature's max HP of 50. It's not taking 15 damage while at 0 HP (that would impose a failed death save!); it already took that damage. We're just looking at how much of the damage (of the total taken by the creature) was excess.


The only thing the rule prevents is the creature becoming unstable, i.e. having to make death saving throws.

No, the rule explicitly says it's intended to prevent a killing blow. Are you suggesting that no creature that could make a death saving throw could ever suffer a killing blow? Or are you suggesting that the "knock unconscious rule" does not prevent killing blows?


Powers &8^]

[Keravath]

Here are the rules ... they seem pretty clear to me though clearly there is some argument.

INSTANT DEATH
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

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.



If you deal damage that reduces a creature to 0 hit points you have the CHOICE to incapacitate rather than kill at the instant that you do the damage. The creature falls unconscious and is stable. In THIS case, there is NO damage remaining since the target is unconscious and stable and so the massive damage rule does not apply.

This is a case of the SPECIFIC rule for knocking a creature out over-riding the GENERAL rule of dealing massive damage. The massive damage rule only applies if there is damage remaining ... if the creature falls unconscious and is stable then they are clearly NOT DEAD and so there was no damage remaining if the attacker chose to knock the creature out.

[Dalebert]

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.


Thank you! This was bugging me so much but I haven't had time to respond. It says when you reduce them to zero you can choose to knock the creature out and that when you do so the creature falls unconscious and is stable, and thus NOT DEAD, either from dropping to zero or from massive damage. You can't be both "unconscious and stable" and dead. The former precludes the latter.

[terodil]

It seems that the majority of posters consider the KO-rule to impart absolute immunity on the victim. Whatever happens, you can never kill a creature from trying to knock it out, even if you're a giant using a club to knock a bunny out. Fair enough, I still don't agree as, in my opinion, that is not RAW. This will be my last post in this thread trying to support my position as I think we're already past the point where the argument becomes circular.



Like they said, NPCs don't usually have a "death saves before death" condition, just death at 0 HPs. So there is no "instant death from massive damage" for them, since any damage is instant death for them.
I do respect your posts in this forum immensely, Unoriginal, but I still think this is a bad argument to bring up in this context. The PHB is beyond clear here: NPCs generally do get a death save before death. What the PHB explicitly allows is a deviation from that rule, by citing that many DMs have them die outright. A circumstantial deviation from a rule does not void the rule itself, so this argument does not do anything to support this particular reading of the KO rule.


The damage isn't negated, per se. If a creature at 10/50 HP gets hit with an attack, and the attacker rolls 25 damage, the creature takes 25 damage and is reduced to 0 HP. The creature doesn't take the damage points sequentially -- the creature doesn't take 10 damage (which reduces it to 0 HP) and then take another 15 damage; it just takes 25.

But since only 10 was needed to reduce the creature to 0, we subtract 10 from the original 25 to get 15 and compare that 15 to the creature's max HP of 50. It's not taking 15 damage while at 0 HP (that would impose a failed death save!); it already took that damage. We're just looking at how much of the damage (of the total taken by the creature) was excess.
I absolutely agree with everything you said here. Hence my example above; I agree that the creature would not die in this case as it explicitly ends stable and not-dead. That never was in contention to begin with though: in my example above, we need to talk about the case where the initial attack would impart 60 points of damage, which is the remaining HP and the maximum HP again.


No, the rule explicitly says it's intended to prevent a killing blow. Are you suggesting that no creature that could make a death saving throw could ever suffer a killing blow? Or are you suggesting that the "knock unconscious rule" does not prevent killing blows?
Let's take this one question at a time: "no creature that could make a death saving throw could ever suffer a killing blow" -- I said no such thing. Where do you read that? "suggesting that the knock unconscious rule does not prevent killing blows" -- I explicitly gave two examples where the KO rule did indeed do as advertised! Did you even read my post?

You still haven't said anything about my question if in your world no creature above 0 HP could ever die from massive damage since the initial attack would only ever take it to 0 and never beyond.


Thank you! This was bugging me so much but I haven't had time to respond. It says when you reduce them to zero you can choose to knock the creature out and that when you do so the creature falls unconscious and is stable, and thus NOT DEAD, either from dropping to zero or from massive damage. You can't be both "unconscious and stable" and dead. The former precludes the latter.
The latter also precludes the former. In my reading: Damage is applied (otherwise, how would the creature drop to 0?). In that moment, you can choose not to destabilise the creature and thus save it from death either by auto-kill by DM or by failing death saving throws. If the damage is massive, however, that kills the creature ("instantly") before it can "fall stable and unconscious" via the KO-rule -- and as we've seen, trying to prevent death by having a creature "fall unconscious and stable" is everything the rule does. Unfortunately, being dead precludes falling anything, including stable and unconscious. (Though I guess dead is just a more hard-core version of being unconscious.)


Here are the rules ... they seem pretty clear to me though clearly there is some argument.
Indeed :smallbiggrin: They seem perfectly clear to me too.


INSTANT DEATH
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

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.


If you deal damage that reduces a creature to 0 hit points you have the CHOICE to incapacitate rather than kill at the instant that you do the damage. The creature falls unconscious and is stable. In THIS case, there is NO damage remaining since the target is unconscious and stable and so the massive damage rule does not apply.
Once again, the rule enumerates very clearly what it does: It sets a creature hitting 0 HP to stable and unconscious. It doesn't do any more than that. If this rule did not exist, as pointed out, most DMs would immediately have the creature die straight away, or have it make saving throws. The rule prevents exactly both. The killing blow (caused by hitting 0 HP) is not dealt. Massive damage, however, does not require a creature to be unstable to apply, and neither the KO rule, nor the status of 'unconscious' and 'stable' say anything about damage being negated, so there is no specific rule at play here that would supersede the general rule concerning massive damage, as much as people seem to wish there to be.




In any case, I'm done here. I think if this discussion has shown one thing it's that even RAW can never be fully understood without a little helping from RAI. Otherwise, all lawyers would immediately be out of a job. It was a worthwhile discussion. I personally could live with either interpretation if it was agreed upon at the table.

[kamap]

That is something to discuss with your DM.

If you want realism a hit that is aimed to incapacitate might kill.
Fantasy setting and in a game it depends on how the DM and the players at a certain table want to play it.
We have use the KO rule and have mooks die because the damage was to high, there was a discussion between the players and the DM and we came to the concensus that it indeed can happen and it won't take away from our fun. So at our table the massive damage rule trumps the KO rule, I'm certain that at other tables its the other way around and both are equally fine if everyone at that table agrees on it.

[ThePolarBear]

The PHB is beyond clear here: NPCs generally do get a death save before death.

Err..

"Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions;" To be a common exception, the norm would be for them to die outright.

From the MM

"A monster usually dies or is destroyed when it drops to 0 hit points" - I do not think i should also quote what a monster is for 5e.

I think you might have it backwards: NPC SHOULD have, but usually have not. So, usually are the exception to the general, and exceptions on these are further specific exceptions.

[terodil]

I think you might have it backwards: NPC SHOULD have, but usually have not. So, usually are the exception to the general, and exceptions on these are further specific exceptions.
I think we agree? The situation is as follows:

1. All creatures make death saving throws when they hit 0 hp. (= rule)
2. Most DMs have NPC creatures just die without saving throws. (= common exception)
3. Some NPC creatures do get saving throws even if the DM generally does not allow NPC creatures to save: particularly notable villains or w/e. (= common exception from the common exception)

Some posters seemed to imply that 2 was the top-level rule governing NPC deaths. It isn't. It's a specific exception/deviation/variant rule that elaborates on one subset of creatures affected by the top-level rule governing creature death in general.

[ThePolarBear]

I think we agree? The situation is as follows:

1. All creatures make death saving throws when they hit 0 hp. (= rule)
2. Most DMs have NPC creatures just die, i.e. autofail their saving throws. (= common exception)
3. Some NPC creatures do get saving throws even if the DM generally does not allow NPC creatures to save: particularly notable villains or w/e. (= common exception from the common exception)

No? "The PHB is beyond clear here: NPCs generally do get a death save before death."

It's the exact opposite. Most NPCs DO NOT get a saving throw. It's specific exceptions that DO get a saving throw, not "most".
Again, "should" is not "do", just like a level 5+ fighter "should" have only one attack, but "does" get to attack twice due to an exception. The norm, for NPCs, is to NOT have Death Saves. For them to have one is an exception, not the norm.

So, i can't agree that "NPCs generally do get a death save before death.", because it simply isn't true.

[terodil]

No? "The PHB is beyond clear here: NPCs generally do get a death save before death."

It's the exact opposite. Most NPCs DO NOT get a saving throw. It's specific exceptions that DO get a saving throw, not "most".
Sorry, but this is monumentally wrong. PHB p. 196-198.

PHB Subchapter Damage and Healing, Section "Dropping to 0 hit points", describes the general case for all creatures, detailing falling unconscious, making death saving throws etc. (which is also evidenced by one subsection being called 'stablizing a creature', not 'stabilizing a PC or important NPC').

Subsection "Monster Death" is hierarchically placed below "Dropping to 0 hit points", underlining that it's a further detail to the general rule, concerning a subset of creatures called NPCs. Here it says, not even in rule-form, but in descriptive language, that "most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops... rather than have it fall unconscious...". Again, the language is beyond clear here: "most DMs" is definitely not all DMs, ergo no rule, and "rather than" explicitly points out that this is a deviation, and also not the rule.

A further paragraph in the same section, evidencing again that it's a further detail to this deviation, describes the exception of notable enemies.

Case closed. The rule and exception hierarchy is demonstrably like I pointed out in my previous post.

All NPCs by default per RAW do get death saves (just like PCs, who are also creatures, which this rule is about) -- unless the DM in question plays by the (very common) exception to the rules on creature death, as detailed in the PHB.

[Unoriginal]

What are you trying to prove? That 5e is stupid because by RAW you can totally kill someone with excess damages when you're trying to knock them out?

Sorry, but that's clearly not how the game work. It's not written with "gotcha!" rule legalese in mind, and it is clear by the rules that someone can knock out someone else non-lethaly *regardless of the ammount of damage* past 0 HP.

The "you get to 0HP. Part happens before the death saves, and before the insta-death excess damage. the character making the melee attack can decide to make "going to 0HP" non-lethal.

[terodil]

What are you trying to prove? That 5e is stupid because by RAW you can totally kill someone with excess damages when you're trying to knock them out?
Honestly, I thought you were better than this.


Sorry, but that's clearly not how the game work. It's not written with "gotcha!" rule legalese in mind, and it is clear by the rules that someone can knock out someone else non-lethaly *regardless of the ammount of damage* past 0 HP.
It's not clear, at least not evident, as shown by this discussion. I would prefer you actually demonstrated this based on evidence, not on commonplace statements. I'm ready to be convinced, but not on this basis.

[terodil]

By the way -- I don't get where the idea comes from that this action should, unlike almost all other actions in D&D, be a guaranteed success. In combat you may be critically hit and die. You might be unable to beat a DC and alert half a garrison in the process.

If you're unlucky and get a crit when trying to knock somebody out then yes, it's tough cheese, but this is a game that gets a significant amount of engagement out of the possibility of both success and failure.

Besides, it's not an inevitability that you'd fail. In most situations failing would require you to be significantly stronger/higher-level or to crit in the first place. Furthermore, you could minimise that chance by stowing your weapon and executing an unarmed attack, or by using other means with less chance of unintended death (grapple/restrain, magic, etc.). It might be worth considering that whacking a creature that is profusely bleeding and on the verge of dying with a greatclub might not be the most appropriate way of ensuring its survival.

[ThePolarBear]

Sorry, but this is monumentally wrong. PHB p. 196-198.

PHB Subchapter Damage and Healing, Section "Dropping to 0 hit points", describes the general case for all creatures,

Yes.


Subsection "Monster Death" is hierarchically placed below "Dropping to 0 hit points"

Yes. It would be very strange if you write about what happens in a specific case BEFORE the general. It's not only hierarchical, it's good form.


underlining that it's a further detail to the general rule, concerning a subset of creatures called NPCs. Here it says, not even in rule-form, but in descriptive language, that "most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops... rather than have it fall unconscious...".

"Rule form" doesn't need to be a thing. Expecting it is already starting with the wrong foot. Natural english and such.

"MOST". If it's what you expect as of the general situation, the one that happens the "most", then it is not correct to say that, in general, NPCs gets a death saves if most of the time this doesn't happen. Just like the fighter example: Fighters 5+ are characters. All characters generally get one attack if they take the attack action. This however does not mean that Fighters 5+ generally get only one attack.

It is not even a question of being an explicit rule, because you can't find it there: it's in the MM that i quoted before and the rule in the PHB has to be read in context. Even if the rule was "The DM chooses" explicitly, it would be incorrect to say that "NPCs generally do get a death save before death." It is NOT A GIVEN. You can't say either way from just that.

Creatures, in general, get to make Death Saves. It is the general rule. NPCs are, even just considering the PHB, at the mercy of the DM, and the norm is that they DO NOT.


Again, the language is beyond clear here: "most DMs" is definitely not all DMs, ergo no rule

There's a disconnect here. The fact that a DM can choose either way doesn't make it a rule or the absence of a rule. I can, as a DM, say that a longsword deals 2d8 and still be in the right and following the general rules for D&D even against a specific rule.

The fact that it's a choice a DM makes only makes the rule "the DM chooses", which is still not "no rule". Furthermore the rule here is that usually monsters usually die at 0.

All of this doesn't mean that there is no rule, and thus the general applies. Style choice for exposition is one thing but you cannot simply derive confirmation from a mere possibility.

To provide an example with the same style of writing: <"most" players do not control nonplaying characters, as such these rules do not impact them directly.>
It's the same error you are making: even if it was true that the rule is "all" and some DM allow it either way, you cannot tell that there is no rule for them to be impacted or not based on that statement alone. You can imagine it, but why put a phrase like that if it wasn't THE most common situation?


and "rather than" explicitly points out that this is a deviation, and also not the rule.

Yes. The general rule for all CREATURES does not apply to NPCS generally. This is a deviation from the general to the specific. Again, can't reach a certainty from this alone.
On the same page: if they were meant to make saves, why bother with the paragraph at all? because NPCS are an exception to the great set "creatures", that encompasses PC and NPCs alike.

Where can we find the rule? In the MM. "A monster usually dies or is destroyed when it drops to 0 hit points." A PC player doesn't really need to have more than that information - in fact, more information could be deterimental for pathos and tension building.

It is not just "most DM" without context. It's a paragraph to a player that is in no control on that particualr aspect of a creature. It's a statement of rules that does not, in any case,edit: Dm permission aside, fall under juristiction of a PC player choice. It also recalls to the PHB section where a DM can learn that they have the power to make some NPCs roll their saves if they want to, contextualising the "usually".

Again, "most" is not a statement of whether or not it is intended for them to have or have not the saves. The one in the DM is more clear cut.

Anyway, i cannot agree with you.


Case closed. The rule and exception hierarchy is demonstrably like I pointed out in my previous post.

Sorry, no. I just do not agree. Creatures by default per RAW get death saves. NPC, generally, do not.


(just like PCs, who are also creatures, which this rule is about)

And this is where you are wrong. As you said, the paragraph is about NPCs, not Creatures in general. The previous one is.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, I thought you were better than this.

Better than what?

Elaborating would be welcome.



I would prefer you actually demonstrated this based on evidence, not on commonplace statements. I'm ready to be convinced, but not on this basis.

Postulate 1: the "death by excess damages" rule is applied after and only after being reduced to 0 HPs

Postulate 2: An individual can chose to make an attack which reduce an opponent to 0 HPs non-lethal.

Do you consider any of those two postulate to be incorrect.



By the way -- I don't get where the idea comes from that this action should, unlike almost all other actions in D&D, be a guaranteed success. In combat you may be critically hit and die. You might be unable to beat a DC and alert half a garrison in the process.

If you're unlucky and get a crit when trying to knock somebody out then yes, it's tough cheese, but this is a game that gets a significant amount of engagement out of the possibility of both success and failure.


That's the thing, though. You can fail sneaking into a camp by not beating the DC. You can have someone beat your AC and then kill you.

What you can't do is *succeed too much*. There is no "you rolled a 20 when you jumped, so you get further than where you wanted" or "the guy who attack in this friendly sparring match you misses your AC by 15 so he stabs himself" or "you beat the CHA check's DC by 20 when pretending to be the guard's captain so now even your allies you told you were impersonating the captain don't believe you".

What you're proposing would mean that you CAN succeed to much. You can fail on your attempt to be non-lethal by rolling too high. And that's against the game's design.




Besides, it's not an inevitability that you'd fail. In most situations failing would require you to be significantly stronger/higher-level or to crit in the first place.

Yes, like all those situations where the PCs have to fight Commoners or Guards but don't want to kill.

With your version, PCs would likely kill those people by accident.



Furthermore, you could minimise that chance by stowing your weapon and executing an unarmed attack, or by using other means with less chance of unintended death (grapple/restrain, magic, etc.). It might be worth considering that whacking a creature that is profusely bleeding and on the verge of dying with a greatclub might not be the most appropriate way of ensuring its survival.

But you're not whacking the person with a greatclub as if you were using lethal force. You're performing a non-lethal takedown with your greatclub, which involve hitting with the handle, or do a smaller swing, or pull the punch, anything that makes it non-lethal. Or you're hitting with the pommel of the sword. Or your applying your elbow to the opponent's temple. It's all fluff to say "John Playercharater and Jack Nonplayercharacter know how to knock people out non-lethally in melee combat". It's just an abstraction, the same as HPs.

There is NO advantage in taking away one of the options available to melee combatants. Especially if it's to make it the domain of magic exclusively or near-exclusively (grapple don't let you knock out people, restraint take several actions if you have to grapple them then tie/chains/manacle them up, during which time you can be attacked and you're limited by the equipment available, and unarmed attacks makes DEX builds extra-inefficient, not to mention it makes Monks unable to be non-lethal).



Again, I'm sincerely asking: what are you trying to prove? What are you trying to demonstrate? That your reading of the rules is the correct one? That it doesn't make sense there is no chance one can kill those they want to not kill? That 5e is bad because it doesn't use hit points as meatpoints?

I'm just puzzled by what is the point of this discussion past the rule explanation, which has already been done and done well.

[LtPowers]

I absolutely agree with everything you said here. Hence my example above; I agree that the creature would not die in this case as it explicitly ends stable and not-dead. That never was in contention to begin with though: in my example above, we need to talk about the case where the initial attack would impart 60 points of damage, which is the remaining HP and the maximum HP again.

It works exactly the same way. Creature is at 5/15 HP. Creature takes 25 damage. Creature is now at 0 HP. Now the attacker can choose to knock the creature unconscious; if so, the creature is unconscious and stable. Otherwise, we look to see if the excess 20 damage exceeds the creature's max HP of 15.



Let's take this one question at a time: "no creature that could make a death saving throw could ever suffer a killing blow" -- I said no such thing. Where do you read that? "suggesting that the knock unconscious rule does not prevent killing blows" -- I explicitly gave two examples where the KO rule did indeed do as advertised! Did you even read my post?

I read the post; these are the only two conclusions I can draw from your statements.

"no creature that could make a death saving throw could ever suffer a killing blow". I state this because there are only three ways to die from damage: drop to 0 HP (without benefit of death saving throws, by DM fiat); fail three death saving throws; or die from massive damage. You have stated that the "knock unconscious" rule doesn't negate the massive damage rule, so logically you cannot consider massive damage to constitute "a killing blow" (because "knock unconscious" explicitly presented as an alternative to "a killing blow"). The first case cannot happen if you're a creature that makes death saves, and the second case doesn't require any blows at all. So none of three cases qualify as a "killing blow" in your book, as far as I can tell. So what is a killing blow to you?

"suggesting that the knock unconscious rule does not prevent killing blows". That's the only other alternative to the above seeming contradiction. Perhaps you can explain where I went wrong in my analysis.



You still haven't said anything about my question if in your world no creature above 0 HP could ever die from massive damage since the initial attack would only ever take it to 0 and never beyond.

My apologies, but I don't agree with the premises of your question. Massive damage doesn't result from a creature's HP depleting "beyond" 0. There's no such thing. You can never have HP below 0. There's no provision for it in the rules. You take massive damage if the /excess/ damage -- the damage beyond that needed to reduce you to 0 -- meets or exceeds your maximum HP. The rule is not stated as "if your hit points are reduced to (your maximum HP x -1), you die".

If, as you seem to be implying, the excess damage is applied to a character at 0HP, how come the character doesn't take a death saving throw failure as a result of taking damage at 0 HP?


Powers &8^]

[Unoriginal]

Massive damage doesn't result from a creature's HP depleting "beyond" 0. There's no such thing. You can never have HP below 0.

This. For example, if you keep attacking someone who is at 0 HPs, they just fails their saves, they don't go further into negative HPs.

[Dalebert]

This will be my last post in this thread trying to support my position as I think we're already past the point where the argument becomes circular.

I never hold my breath when I hear that.