I was just thinking "What damage type would snapping someone's neck be"

[mcumoric]

So I'm making a statblock for an enemy, and one of it's key features is snapping a foe's neck. What damage type would it be if it didn't instakill the enemy? I was thinking bludgeoning damage but that didn't really make sense. I'm also going to make it only work on human like creatures with a skeleton, because that would make the most sense.

[Naanomi]

Damage from grappling tends to be bludgeoning or (I think there may be examples) untyped, regardless of fluff of the attack specifics

[JackPhoenix]

Bludgeoning, because that's what unarmed strikes do.

And 5e's combat too abstract to go into more details.

[heavyfuel]

Yeah, I agree that it's probably bludgeoning.

I imagine that a mace to the back of the neck would have a similar enough effect. The broken bones might cut and pierce some tissue, but that's more of a consequence of the initial damage

[NecessaryWeevil]

It might have incidental bludgeoning damage but it's really a maneuver resulting in paralysis or death depending on how badly the target fails their CON (STR?) save.

[Tanarii]

Reducing them to 0 hit points.

[Keltest]

I wouldn't have it deal damage at all. It would just kill them period. Trying to create a rules justification for stuff like that leads down a road labeled "here be lawyers" and nobody wants that.

[Greywander]

5e (and probably D&D in general) oversimplifies physical damage types a bit, though probably because a lot of the distinctions aren't really worth making most of the time.

Piercing is pretty obvious. Force focused on a single point that can penetrate deep, potentially damaging vital organs. Can be highly lethal while leaving the body mostly intact, but often does little damage if you miss anything vital.

Slashing would, in my mind, be more things like draw cuts. They're shallow, but long, and cause a lot of bleeding. Between the pain and the bleeding, they can make it difficult to continue fighting, even if you're not actually that badly hurt. You do need to get treated quickly, or else blood loss or infection could still kill you.

Hacking is more about pressing a blade into the target, rather than drawing it along the target. Cuts are shorter but deeper than slashing. Can break bones or sever limbs (or heads), and usually causes a lot of damage. You're definitely going to have a nasty scar, and might not fully recover in terms of range of motion or strength.

Smashing is about hitting someone with something heavy. Especially dangerous because the shockwave can travel through armor and still injure you. Injuries are typically beneath the skin, with lots of bruising. Good at breaking bones and disrupting organs (which can stun an opponent, or, in extreme cases, straight up kill them).

Crushing is about slowly compressing something, like a python coiled around their prey, squeezing them to death. One big difference with Smashing is that plate or other rigid armor would actually be very effective here, whereas any type of flexible armor like mail or cloth would do basically nothing.

Pulling is when someone tries to rip your arms off. A very niche case, but realistically it would interact with things like armor differently, and the wounds it produces would definitely be different from hitting someone with a mace.

In a similar vein are Sheering (imagine your arm is caught in the elevator door, and the elevator is going up anyway...) and Twisting. Like Pulling and Crushing, these are going to interact with armor differently. Different materials also react to these different types of forces differently as well. For example, concrete is very strong against being compressed (Crushing) but weak against being stretched out (Pulling). This makes concrete good for skyscrapers, but not so great for bridges.

In D&D terms, Piercing is Piercing, Slashing and Hacking are just Slashing, and everything else probably falls under Bludgeoning.

[Zhorn]

Reducing them to 0 hit points.

I wouldn't have it deal damage at all. It would just kill them period. Trying to create a rules justification for stuff like that leads down a road labeled "here be lawyers" and nobody wants that.

Agreeing with these. Trying to type them would being getting too specific for what it is representing.
It doesn't need a type because it's not about dealing a set number of damage. It was either successful and the creature is reduced to 0 hit points, or it wasn't.
Much like suffocating (PHB p183).

[JackPhoenix]

Agreeing with these. Trying to type them would being getting too specific for what it is representing.
It doesn't need a type because it's not about dealing a set number of damage. It was either successful and the creature is reduced to 0 hit points, or it wasn't.
Much like suffocating (PHB p183).

Well, just because you try to snap someone's neck doesn't mean you succeed. Forget movies, it's pretty hard to do with bare hands as presented on screen. There would be some damage, but not instant kill, hence my suggestion of unarmed strike.... you won't succeed until the target is at 0.

[Mastikator]

Make an unarmed attack, if you succeed they do a strength save to resist against 8 + your strength + proficiency (if proficient with unarmed). If you succeed and they fail then their HP is reduced to 0. Healing them may restore their HP (if they get death saves) but they're still paralyzed until lesser restoration is cast on them.

*If they have resistance to non-magical bludgeoning they get advantage on their save.

**If you do magical damage on unarmed attacks then no advantage is given.

***If they are immune to bludgeoning then they auto-save.

[Avonar]

Call it HP reduction instead of damage, the same way a failed save on a monk's Quivering Palm works.

[Zhorn]

Well, just because you try to snap someone's neck doesn't mean you succeed. Forget movies, it's pretty hard to do with bare hands as presented on screen. There would be some damage, but not instant kill, hence my suggestion of unarmed strike.... you won't succeed until the target is at 0.
Entirely fair point, OP was asking specifically about the damage dealt as a failure to break the neck after all.

Mechanically I think it's going too many layers deep past the first fail-state to be honest.
I can see where you are coming from with a "rule as unarmed strike. If target drops to 0 hp, rule as a neck snap" which is the least complicated method of this as it can be done without worrying too much in the way of house rules. But as OP is describing their custom statblock as having a neck snapping' feature, which if ruling as an unarmed strike on failure does come across as double dipping.
Ultimately we'd need more info on how they are mechanically running this custom feature, but I'd be less inclined to go with something still dealing damage on a faliure when the success would be resulting in death for the target.

Not my creature, so not my decision, but if I were designing such a feature I would flip the order (same general concept as Mastikator suggests):
1) requires a grappled target
2) attempt an unarmed strike
3) if successfully hit, target makes a strength saving throw
4) failing the saving throw results in the neck snap
so here it's the neck snap at the end of other successful check rather than achieving damage as a result of failed checks, if that makes sense.

I'm not too fond of the overall concept mechanically just because of how it jumps the hurdle of hp, and as it is not supernaturally aided I can't think of a reason why such a feature wouldn't then be available to all creatures (with the right physiology). But that's all OP's territory.

[Gryndle]

Well, just because you try to snap someone's neck doesn't mean you succeed. Forget movies, it's pretty hard to do with bare hands as presented on screen. There would be some damage, but not instant kill, hence my suggestion of unarmed strike.... you won't succeed until the target is at 0.

I agree with this. The insta-kill neck break should only be when you reduce a target to 0 HP through another means, just like beheading or any other gruesome manner of death.

True story. Way back in the olden days when I was 19, me and another young idiot had a disagreement. He felt like he wanted to beat me to death and I didn't like the idea. Both of us wound up severely injured. During the fight, he "tried" to break my neck. I knew he had hurt me, but I wasn't aware of how badly, and because I could still move and feel normally, I dismissed it at the time.

Fast forward to my 30s when my neck issues were getting severe, and after x-rays and mris, it was determined that I had in the past (guess when) that my C3 and C4 vertebrae had been fractured, but through blind luck or divine intervention the spinal cord had not been severed.

Severing the spinal cord at the C3-C4 juncture is normally fatal, as it shuts down the autonomic systems, silly things like breathing and circulation. But trying to do that to a resisting target isn't easy.

It takes more force than most people think, and the anatomy of the neck is pretty amazing, plus you know the other guy probably doesn't want to die and that goes a long way.

[Naanomi]

I think there are two ways to resolve this really, depending on the power level of the creature:

1) The attack does bludgeoning damage, if it gets them to 0 the fluff is it finally succeeded in breaking their neck

2) The attack has a (CON?) saving throw, if failed they automatically reduce to 0 from their breaking neck; if they succeed it does some bludgeoning damage from the failed attempt to break their neck

[Quietus]

Any suggestion that this should be an unarmed, "str save or die" thing? That's absurd and breaks every assumption of 5e. There's a reason save-or-die effects are rare in 5e. You want to snap someone's neck? Do bludgeoning damage while grappling, representing the progressive damage from yanking their head further than it's meant to go. They hit 0, that's the neck break.

[Zhorn]

The attack has a (CON?) saving throw
Definitely STR.
Constitution saves are more the realm of vitality, stamina and general resilience. You ability to handle poisons, stave off exhaustion, resist diseases, or just generally continue to function under strain (concentration, holding breath, etc).
Strength saves are about resisting a physical force in opposition, such as someone trying to knock you over or move you against your will.
Bracing you neck against the force of someone trying to snap is is definitely in the realms of STR saves.

[Naanomi]

Definitely STR.
Constitution saves are more the realm of vitality, stamina and general resilience. You ability to handle poisons, stave off exhaustion, resist diseases, or just generally continue to function under strain (concentration, holding breath, etc).
Strength saves are about resisting a physical force in opposition, such as someone trying to knock you over or move you against your will.
Bracing you neck against the force of someone trying to snap is is definitely in the realms of STR saves.
I mean... my real life experience and training says that I would always be trying some dex-focused maneuver to escape the hold rather than bracing anything but... that has more to do with the initial grapple checks I suppose

[Zhorn]

I mean... my real life experience and training says that I would always be trying some dex-focused maneuver to escape the hold rather than bracing anything but... that has more to do with the initial grapple checks I suppose
Oh definitely evading and escaping is the desired outcome, but this save is assuming the neck-snapping attempt is in progress, force is being made at the point of application. At that stage either the neck physically resists being moved a way it doesn't want to (person lives) or it doesn't (person ragdolls)

[Segev]

Neck Snap. When this creature reduces a target to zero hit points with an unarmed strike, the target automatically fails death saves until it has regained at least one hit point through magical healing. If it regains hit points through nonmagical means, it is paralyzed until it gets magical healing of any sort.

[MoiMagnus]

Definitely STR.
Constitution saves are more the realm of vitality, stamina and general resilience. You ability to handle poisons, stave off exhaustion, resist diseases, or just generally continue to function under strain (concentration, holding breath, etc).
Strength saves are about resisting a physical force in opposition, such as someone trying to knock you over or move you against your will.
Bracing you neck against the force of someone trying to snap is is definitely in the realms of STR saves.

But your body resistance (including thickness of your skin, resilience of bones, articulations, tissues etc) is Hit Points, so Constitution, right?

Sure, if someone is trying to break your neck, you can brace yourself against, which is a comparison of Strength. But if you "let yourself be manipulated" and just hope for him to be too weak to significantly damage your body, then that's Strength VS Constitution (or Hit Points). In general, Constitution (or Hit Points) should be relevant at some point.

Coming back to the initial question, I will agree with the "you only actually snap the neck if the damage put the target under 0HP", so the question becomes "What damage type would be trying to snap someone's neck be?", and I vote for bludgeoning, with a extended range for critical hit in exchange for lower precision.

[KorvinStarmast]

Call it HP reduction instead of damage, the same way a failed save on a monk's Quivering Palm works. Yeah, it's a very high level ability.

For the OP: "I Win" buttons are great for video games, not so much for the way that D&D is built. You are also delving into the realm of "called shots" which D&D 5e not only doesn't handle, but more or less advises DM's against.

When I compare how Finger of Death and Power Word Kill and Disintegrate have, over the years, been nerfed, there seems to have been a consistent move toward fewer "I win" (see also legendary saves) actions over the years.

Particularly at low level.

There are other RPGs where that kind of narrative conclusion to a combat fits perfectly.

[Naanomi]

I don't know the power level of the monster, a few out there do have 'instant death' options lingering (especially at higher levels, with the prerequisite of a grapple or something); this could be some sort of high level neck wrenching tentacle demon or four armed grappling dragon-kin or the like where an instant kill wouldn't be completely inappropriate

[Aimeryan]

5e (and probably D&D in general) oversimplifies physical damage types a bit, though probably because a lot of the distinctions aren't really worth making most of the time.

Piercing is pretty obvious. Force focused on a single point that can penetrate deep, potentially damaging vital organs. Can be highly lethal while leaving the body mostly intact, but often does little damage if you miss anything vital.

Slashing would, in my mind, be more things like draw cuts. They're shallow, but long, and cause a lot of bleeding. Between the pain and the bleeding, they can make it difficult to continue fighting, even if you're not actually that badly hurt. You do need to get treated quickly, or else blood loss or infection could still kill you.

Hacking is more about pressing a blade into the target, rather than drawing it along the target. Cuts are shorter but deeper than slashing. Can break bones or sever limbs (or heads), and usually causes a lot of damage. You're definitely going to have a nasty scar, and might not fully recover in terms of range of motion or strength.

Smashing is about hitting someone with something heavy. Especially dangerous because the shockwave can travel through armor and still injure you. Injuries are typically beneath the skin, with lots of bruising. Good at breaking bones and disrupting organs (which can stun an opponent, or, in extreme cases, straight up kill them).

Crushing is about slowly compressing something, like a python coiled around their prey, squeezing them to death. One big difference with Smashing is that plate or other rigid armor would actually be very effective here, whereas any type of flexible armor like mail or cloth would do basically nothing.

Pulling is when someone tries to rip your arms off. A very niche case, but realistically it would interact with things like armor differently, and the wounds it produces would definitely be different from hitting someone with a mace.

In a similar vein are Sheering (imagine your arm is caught in the elevator door, and the elevator is going up anyway...) and Twisting. Like Pulling and Crushing, these are going to interact with armor differently. Different materials also react to these different types of forces differently as well. For example, concrete is very strong against being compressed (Crushing) but weak against being stretched out (Pulling). This makes concrete good for skyscrapers, but not so great for bridges.

In D&D terms, Piercing is Piercing, Slashing and Hacking are just Slashing, and everything else probably falls under Bludgeoning.

Since no one else seems to have even acknowledged your post, thank you Greywander for this.

I really think there is a market for such levels of modelling within the tabletop genre, although, I do think it would require an app of some sort to do things with any reasonable speed. Obviously 5e went the complete opposite direction choosing pure speed over (in my opinion) interesting mechanical interactions. I look forward to an edition where speed and mechanical complexity exist - one can dream.

[DwarfFighter]

So I'm making a statblock for an enemy, and one of it's key features is snapping a foe's neck. What damage type would it be if it didn't instakill the enemy? I was thinking bludgeoning damage but that didn't really make sense. I'm also going to make it only work on human like creatures with a skeleton, because that would make the most sense.

Why... why would you do that?

Still, assuming you have good reasons, I would suggest this being one of the character's actions (rather than simply an attack) perhaps a Legendary action costing multiple Legendary actions. Apply an effect similar to Power Word Kill, an effect that only works on enemies at a certain number of current hit points or less, let's say... 25? Instead of the character making an attack roll the target makes a saving throw, presumably Strength or Constitution, the DC should be set to something reasonable. If failed he drops to 0 hp, or dies if you really want to. If used against a target that has more hp, a failed save means the target is Stunned of a bit instead.

-DF

[Tanarii]

Well, just because you try to snap someone's neck doesn't mean you succeed. Forget movies, it's pretty hard to do with bare hands as presented on screen. There would be some damage, but not instant kill, hence my suggestion of unarmed strike.... you won't succeed until the target is at 0.
Agreed. That's what I meant. If the target is reduced to 0 hps you snapped the neck.


Neck Snap. When this creature reduces a target to zero hit points with an unarmed strike, the target automatically fails death saves until it has regained at least one hit point through magical healing. If it regains hit points through nonmagical means, it is paralyzed until it gets magical healing of any sort.There ya go!

[Segev]

Agreed. That's what I meant. If the target is reduced to 0 hps you snapped the neck.

There ya go!That is why I suggested something like this:


Neck Snap. When this creature reduces a target to zero hit points with an unarmed strike, the target automatically fails death saves until it has regained at least one hit point through magical healing. If it regains hit points through nonmagical means, it is paralyzed until it gets magical healing of any sort.

[Angelalex242]

Autofail death saves is plenty...

But it'd still be a strength check vs. the con check of the opponent...some necks don't snap easy.

[qube]

Segev's suggestion reminds me of mind flayers

Extract Brain. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one incapacitated humanoid grappled by the mind flayer. Hit: The target takes 55 (10d10) piercing damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points, the mind flayer kills the target by extracting and devouring its brain.


One can do the same thing. blund damage seems fair.


Forget movies, it's pretty hard to do with bare hands as presented on screen.That's not how DnD works - lest I need to explain to anyone how in real life, there is no human alive that survives a (un)lucky hit from a sword?

The target is game balance & verisimilitude, not realism.

[KorvinStarmast]

The target is game balance & verisimilitude, not realism. Then make it a 17th level class feature like Monk (Open Hand) Quivering Palm.

What class do you want to give it to? Monk? Fighter? Barbarian? Bard? :smalltongue:

[Avonar]

That's not how DnD works - lest I need to explain to anyone how in real life, there is no human alive that survives a (un)lucky hit from a sword?

The target is game balance & verisimilitude, not realism.

But HP isn't meat. The PHB even says you don't take actual damage until generally you're below half health. By the book this isn't critical role when characters are getting cut open and skewered in every fight.

A hit with a sword might cause you to lose HP but has just knocked you a little off guard.

Anyway, why do you have to mechanic this? You know the outcome you want, right? In a similar way, I wouldn't make up mechanics for a character sneaking up to a sneaking NPC and slitting their throat, I'd just let them do it. Makes more sense than doing 1d4+3 damage, right?

[qube]

But HP isn't meat. The PHB even says you don't take actual damage until generally you're below half health.I don't think that argument works they way you think it works. To requote


there is no human alive that survives a (un)lucky hit from a sword

When you say


A hit with a sword might cause your character to lose HP but has just knocked it a little off guard.

I 100% agree.

If my character has 20+ hp, and a random NPC attacks it with a 1d8+3 longsword ... even the most lucky attack (crit & max damage), will not kill the character. it won't even drop it, or put it on dying. And that's not how real life works.

---------------
Giving a monster (or PC) an attack that just instakills, is bad (or at least, dangerous) game design. Not because snapping necks IRL is not like in the movies. I would in fact argue the opposite: it is because it is like in the movies: in movies, instakill attacks only work against minor characters. If they used against major characters - it might create unsatifying character deaths.

[Tanarii]

I don't think that argument works they way you think it works. To requote


there is no human alive that survives a (un)lucky hit from a sword

When you say


A hit with a sword might cause your character to lose HP but has just knocked it a little off guard.

I 100% agree.

If my character has 20+ hp, and a random NPC attacks it with a 1d8+3 longsword ... even the most lucky attack (crit & max damage), will not kill the character. it won't even drop it, or put it on dying. And that's not how real life works.

---------------

Your post read like you were advocating that D&D didn't have to be realistic, because high level characters with lots of hit points could walk around with multiple swords stuck out of them.

[stoutstien]

Are we talking sneaky silent death or mortal combat finish him tone?