Adjucating a specific Curse, seeking suggestions

[Jowgen]

One of the curses for Bestow Curse from Dragon 348 reads as follows.


The target fears killing and must attempt to deal nonlethal damage whenever possible, taking a penalty of -4 on attack rolls with most weapons to do so.

My question is, what if the victim of the curse is aware that the target of his attack is immune to nonlethal damage?

He it's possible for him to take the action to make an attack to deal nonlethal, but its impossible for him to actually deal said damage.

I doubt there's a cut and dry answer to this, just looking for thoughts on the matter.

[Doctor Despair]

I'd think it depends on the wording of the immunity. If they take nonlethal damage, but aren't affected by it/ignore it (e.g. those with the Gheden half-undead template), I'd think the PC would have to stick to nonlethal damage; however, if nonlethal damage cannot be applied to the creature in the first place (e.g. those with the Warforged Juggernaut feature to not be subject to nonlethal damage) , there's a conversation to be had about whether or not the PC is able to "deal nonlethal damage" in the first place, and so ignore the curse by RAW.

[SirNibbles]

If he is able to attempt to deal nonlethal damage, he must do so. It does not matter if his attempt is guaranteed to fail.

[DrMartin]

The curse's effect is that the character is afraid to kill. The dealing non-lethal damage is, to my reading, the way to go about "fighting, but not killing" in most circumstances - but that is not the curse's effect, just the most common consequence.

If the character is aware that non-lethal won't cut it, and are still afraid to kill the monster (meaning - it is alive to begin with), I think they would have to find other way to restrain / incapacitate their foe.

If the foe is not "alive", like say, an animated object, or a mindless skeleton, and the character is aware of their nature, then I would argue the fear of killing doesn't activate.

So the real question is - what means killing? what does it mean to be alive? :D

[Nall21cp]

It says "whenever possible". It doesnt say he has to let himself die instead. He would first try to immobilize, but if nonlethal damage is useless and immobilization is not possible or too dangerous...he would still kill out of survival instinct.

[Nall21cp]

He could also use lethal to reduce to negative, then "stabilize them" and take off

[Yogibear41]

Why is the target immune to non-lethal damage?

If its an undead or a construct no worries, can't kill something if it isn't alive to begin with. So attack away for lethal damage.

[Jowgen]

Alright, we got a whole bunch of perspectives! Lets review.:smallbiggrin:


If its an undead or a construct no worries, can't kill something if it isn't alive to begin with. So attack away for lethal damage.

An argument on the semantics of kill vs destroy, very rule lawyeresque, I like it. :smallsmile:

It does however rely on two debateable assumptions.

First that the fear of killing and the requirement to have to attempt nonlethal are inseperable, while one could argue that they're technically seperate; i.e. the target fears killing and also has to do the other thing irrespectivive of that fear, rather than the second being a consequence of the first.

If it is considered a consequence, then there's also the question of whether the attacker personally makes the kill vs destroy distinction, which they might not.


He could also use lethal to reduce to negative, then "stabilize them" and take off

I don't see this one working, the curse is pretty clear that you are required to try and deal nonlethal at all times.


It says "whenever possible". It doesnt say he has to let himself die instead. He would first try to immobilize, but if nonlethal damage is useless and immobilization is not possible or too dangerous...he would still kill out of survival instinct.

Okay, so you'd have the curse be active, permit the target try other non-lethal combat measures, but ultimiately let the target ignore it the curse if things got dire.

The last part I don't quite agree with. Even if down to 1 hp and backed into a corner, there's nothing to say that the fear of death could overcome the curse fear of killing.


The curse's effect is that the character is afraid to kill. The dealing non-lethal damage is, to my reading, the way to go about "fighting, but not killing" in most circumstances - but that is not the curse's effect, just the most common consequence.

If the character is aware that non-lethal won't cut it, and are still afraid to kill the monster (meaning - it is alive to begin with), I think they would have to find other way to restrain / incapacitate their foe.

If the foe is not "alive", like say, an animated object, or a mindless skeleton, and the character is aware of their nature, then I would argue the fear of killing doesn't activate.

So the real question is - what means killing? what does it mean to be alive? :D

You get that philosophy garbage out of my nice clean rule lawyering court :P


I'd think it depends on the wording of the immunity. If they take nonlethal damage, but aren't affected by it/ignore it (e.g. those with the Gheden half-undead template), I'd think the PC would have to stick to nonlethal damage; however, if nonlethal damage cannot be applied to the creature in the first place (e.g. those with the Warforged Juggernaut feature to not be subject to nonlethal damage) , there's a conversation to be had about whether or not the PC is able to "deal nonlethal damage" in the first place, and so ignore the curse by RAW.

I think this relates to SirNibbles point below. The requirement is to make an attempt at nonlethal; immunity means the attempt will be unsuccessufl, but that attempt is not impossible to make.


If he is able to attempt to deal nonlethal damage, he must do so. It does not matter if his attempt is guaranteed to fail.

A clear and conscice reading, for sure. No ifs or buts about it, which fits with the vibe of the rules at large.

If "attempt nonlethal attack" = "possible", then "attack is nonlethal". "Attack chance of effectiveness" is not a factor mentioned in the curse.

I do think some of the points the others brought up, particularly in regards to other nonlethal combat options being valid alternatives