Non-lethal damage as a feat?

[H_H_F_F]

A player doesn't want to multiclass, but wants to be able to do non lethal damage in melee. It's a very low-op campaign, everyone chose tier 4-5 classes and they're pretty unoptimized.

I don't see any issue homebrewing a feat for this purpose - can anyone see it causing any issues?

[SangoProduction]

Eh. I generally just allow players to do nonlethal on demand. Generally makes next to no different, aside from being RP-friendly. (As in, not necessarily being expected to kill every combat encounter.)

You're a low-op group. There might conceptually be potential abuses, but those generally won't be found in such a group, except by That Guy.... so... go ahead.

[loky1109]

Sap. Whip.

[Rynjin]

Non-lethal damage is, in most regards, "damage, but worse". I've never understood why you need to jump through hoops (Feats like Improved Unarmed Strike, Enforcer) or eat a -4 to attack to deal it.

[Fizban]

As mentioned, the sap is already a standard martial weapon that deals nonlethal damage. A one-handed version (big enough to use two hands if desired) could deal a d8, and if it's not somewhere in a WotC book I know I've seen it in 3rd party (they called it a truncheon, though I think that's just another word for sap or blackjack). And the goad can be found in Frostburn, a two-handed weapon that can deal either lethal or nonlethal, without having to pay for two magic weapons, though they charge an exotic proficiency for the privilege.

There is already a standalone feat for removing the -4 penalty to deal non-lethal damage with normal weapons, in Book of Exalted Deeds, as well as the occasional prestige class, most notably the Justicar. And the Merciful magic weapon property in the DMG.

Perhaps more useful, I recall a feat I read in a 3rd party book which could make nonlethal damage quite attractive: for a single feat with no prerequisites (or maybe BAB +1 or something), it gave +2 attack and +2 damage when striking for nonlethal or using such a weapon, more than enough to offset the slightly reduced crit of the sap/truncheon/goad. I think this feat is the better way to encourage/reward/enable the tactic, by giving a significant bonus which is most effectively used with an appropriate weapon, rather than simply paying to remove a penalty which only gets to back to where you were supposed to be.

Also note that you don't need very much nonlethal damage to make sure an enemy survives: they already have 10 hit points of buffer between 0 and death, and every point of nonlethal increases that range, so even a few points will help (though if they land in the negatives anyway you'll still need to stabilize them), and once the total nonlethal is greater than the damage of the party's best attack, you can be pretty sure that they won't even hit negative. Only one party member needs to deal a certain amount, rather than everyone going nonlethal.





My standard warning regarding nonlethal damage, is that now you're going to have to deal with prisoners. Which might sound simple, but unless the entire group already agrees on exactly how these things should be resolved, you will run into disagreements. And the treatment of prisoners is one of those issues where people's opinions tend to tie into their identity such that they will not give an inch because X is right and Y is wrong.

DnD uses an objective morality system with verifiable afterlives and monsters and even people who by definition harm, kill, or do worse to others for personal gain and as a direct source of their power. What do you do when one such is taken alive, and there is one party member who is savvy about DnD and says they must be executed for the good of the world, while another thinks they must be released, and another thinks they must be dragged all the way back to a town that may or may not be able to jail them?

The secret is that if anything, the DM should not let the players take prisoners. Or rather, the group should for best results have the discussion before the game even starts, on where the game will fall on a scale of say, MMO trash mobs to modern law enforcement. But if there was no discussion and the game has been going along fine with all enemies left dying or dead without a second thought, suddenly deciding to take prisoners is a great way to cause a huge problem. I would recommend figuring out what the actual goal is and supplying it in some other way, if possible.

On the other hand, if this is a primarily roleplaying focused game where you're just now realizing that DnD combat is lethal and this poses a major problem because you've been proceeding under the assumption that it's possible to go all-out in martial combat without actually killing people, then in that case it's probably better to just change the rules. If your game assumes that killing is a deliberate choice, then make it more of a choice. Or if you want people to decide fights based on first blood or yielding, you'll need to grant xp and treasure for enemies that do that, and the PCs should be held to the same standards.

Non-lethal damage is, in most regards, "damage, but worse". I've never understood why you need to jump through hoops (Feats like Improved Unarmed Strike, Enforcer) or eat a -4 to attack to deal it.

In real life, even hitting people bare-fisted can be potentially lethal, let alone with a proper solid instrument. Even if you're trying to aim for nothing but muscle mass or knocking the wind out of them, you can still miss and break bones or knock too much wind out of them. There is simply no realistic way to cut or stab someone such that they will safely fall unconscious and then wake up in a few hours. The combat rules are written so the standard attack is using your weapon to its fullest extent, which means lethal weapons are lethal weapons. The amount of effort required to change an attack with a lethal weapon into a "non-lethal" hit is substantial, and from what I understand is generally not something anyone bothers to teach. If you want to subdue someone less-lethally, you grapple them, not try to clip them with your sledgehammer or the back end of a sword in the just the right way to leave them exactly as alive as you want.

If anything, being allowed to deal nonlethal damage with any lethal weapon simply by taking a -4 is already a ridiculous heroic power being granted to every creature in the world.

Having specialized padded weapons or heroic feats or features, entirely reasonable. The 5e approach of "whoever gets the last hit can just say they're actually alive and unconcious," now that doesn't make sense.

[Elysiume]

Outside of niche builds (like Enforcer in Pathfinder), non-lethal damage is, mechanically, almost strictly worse than lethal damage. Many enemies are immune to non-lethal damage, and even for the enemies that aren't, non-lethal damage is significantly less dangerous than lethal damage if healing is in the mix. If you're looking for a precedent, there's Blade of Mercy, a 3.5 trait by Paizo that grants the following, although it's deity-specific:

You know that within the heart of even the most hateful and cruel living creature exists a sliver of shame and hope for redemption. You have trained long on martial techniques to use bladed weapons not to kill, but to subdue. When striking to inflict nonlethal damage with any slashing weapon, you do not take the normal –4 penalty on your attack roll, and gain a +1 trait bonus to any nonlethal damage you inflict with a slashing weapon.

Allowing this trait to work irrespective of weapon and deity feels reasonable for a trait-to-feat upgrade. Given the relative weakness of non-lethal damage, if the character isn't going to build around optimizing for non-lethal damage, I'd consider a feat to deal non-lethal damage with no penalty more than fair (i.e. underpowered, but a potentially reasonable build cost for a character benefit given the power level of the campaign).

e: Fizban makes a good point about the implications for the campaign: a character focused on dealing non-lethal damage is going to make the DM deal with prisoners rather than corpses. They may also have issues with the party if the rest of the party has no qualms with killing their foes.

[H_H_F_F]

There is already a standalone feat for removing the -4 penalty to deal non-lethal damage with normal weapons, in Book of Exalted Deeds

Oh man, I misremembered subduing strike as an exalted feat. That solves my issue. Thanks!

My standard warning regarding nonlethal damage, is that now you're going to have to deal with prisoners. Which might sound simple, but unless the entire group already agrees on exactly how these things should be resolved, you will run into disagreements. And the treatment of prisoners is one of those issues where people's opinions tend to tie into their identity such that they will not give an inch because X is right and Y is wrong.

DnD uses an objective morality system with verifiable afterlives and monsters and even people who by definition harm, kill, or do worse to others for personal gain and as a direct source of their power. What do you do when one such is taken alive, and there is one party member who is savvy about DnD and says they must be executed for the good of the world, while another thinks they must be released, and another thinks they must be dragged all the way back to a town that may or may not be able to jail them?

The secret is that if anything, the DM should not let the players take prisoners. Or rather, the group should for best results have the discussion before the game even starts, on where the game will fall on a scale of say, MMO trash mobs to modern law enforcement. But if there was no discussion and the game has been going along fine with all enemies left dying or dead without a second thought, suddenly deciding to take prisoners is a great way to cause a huge problem. I would recommend figuring out what the actual goal is and supplying it in some other way, if possible.

On the other hand, if this is a primarily roleplaying focused game where you're just now realizing that DnD combat is lethal and this poses a major problem because you've been proceeding under the assumption that it's possible to go all-out in martial combat without actually killing people, then in that case it's probably better to just change the rules. If your game assumes that killing is a deliberate choice, then make it more of a choice. Or if you want people to decide fights based on first blood or yielding, you'll need to grant xp and treasure for enemies that do that, and the PCs should be held to the same standards.

I agree that this is something to be discussed. In this case, this is a role play heavy ongoing campaign (has been going on for more than a year), and my players have already had those discussions, both out of and in character. This recent change comes about after a traumatic experience for the character, and was discussed with the other players. I appreciate the warning though - I've played in groups that had many issues exactly over this sort of thing.

[Ashtagon]

tl;dr version:I'd allow it, and not even change a feat for it.

From a RP point of view, it means players aren't going to be punished for wanting to capture a prisoner to interrogate. This increases the odds of the PCs doing stuff other than killing things and taking the treasure. They might even talk more to the NPCs.

From a simulationist point of view, most weapons have some people of being used to strike non-lethally. Axes can be swung with blade facing away, effectively working as clubs. Spears can function as staves by using the foot-end (or just swinging if it's not a bladed spear). Swords can strike with the pommel, or even held mordhau style. Strictly speaking, this will do less damage. But that's already accounted for by the fact that non-lethal damage doesn't actually kill. A case could be made for arguing that these should do lesser damage, but that's quibbling at details. If done strictly, you might adjust the damage die down a step or two. But that's less change than going from 14 to 10 Strength for Medium-size PCs.

Note that normal training with weapons would historically have included how to use them non-lethally. The fact that most of us might not be aware of this is more a failure of imagination than anything else.

[noob]

Just take a single skill rank in "disarm/sabotage" and you can sabotage any weapon to make it deal non lethal damage just by doing enough tries(dc 15)
So what you want can be obtained with a single skill rank.
If skill ranks are too costly for you but that you deal enough damage to kill 9 billion people per hit anyway then you can try buying a weapon with the merciful property: +1, removes penalty from dealing nonlethal damage and also add 1d6 damage when dealing non lethal damage.

[Bohandas]

In real life, even hitting people bare-fisted can be potentially lethal, let alone with a proper solid instrument. Even if you're trying to aim for nothing but muscle mass or knocking the wind out of them, you can still miss and break bones or knock too much wind out of them.

I was going to bring this up too. If you look at the history of boxing for example you'll find quite a few people who have died in the ring.

Also, tasers can kill people if they have a heart condition.

And beanbag bullets can potentially kill you if they hit you in the chest. That's why they made Johnny Knoxville wear a bulletproof vest when they were shooting him with beanbags in the Jackass movie.

[Rynjin]

In real life, even hitting people bare-fisted can be potentially lethal, let alone with a proper solid instrument. Even if you're trying to aim for nothing but muscle mass or knocking the wind out of them, you can still miss and break bones or knock too much wind out of them. There is simply no realistic way to cut or stab someone such that they will safely fall unconscious and then wake up in a few hours. The combat rules are written so the standard attack is using your weapon to its fullest extent, which means lethal weapons are lethal weapons. The amount of effort required to change an attack with a lethal weapon into a "non-lethal" hit is substantial, and from what I understand is generally not something anyone bothers to teach. If you want to subdue someone less-lethally, you grapple them, not try to clip them with your sledgehammer or the back end of a sword in the just the right way to leave them exactly as alive as you want.

If anything, being allowed to deal nonlethal damage with any lethal weapon simply by taking a -4 is already a ridiculous heroic power being granted to every creature in the world.

Having specialized padded weapons or heroic feats or features, entirely reasonable. The 5e approach of "whoever gets the last hit can just say they're actually alive and unconcious," now that doesn't make sense.

Sure, okay. That still doesn't really explain the logic from a game design perspective of taking a penalty (either in attack or opportunity cost) to perform what is in most cases an inferior action.

Besides, D&D typically functions on "action movie" or "fantasy film/novel" logic. Knocking someone unconscious with the flat of the blade may be unrealistic, but it's an expected trope in the type of feeling the game is meant to evoke.

[Maat Mons]

You'll want to decide what, exactly, the authorities in your campaign setting do with captured criminals. Most ancient societies weren't very keen on giving their precious food to a bunch of good-for-nothing prisoners. So flogging, mutilation, execution, and slavery were more typical than long prison sentences. That could really take the heroic feel out of sparing an enemy and bringing him back to town to face justice.

[Zanos]

tl;dr version:I'd allow it, and not even change a feat for it.

From a RP point of view, it means players aren't going to be punished for wanting to capture a prisoner to interrogate. This increases the odds of the PCs doing stuff other than killing things and taking the treasure. They might even talk more to the NPCs.

From a simulationist point of view, most weapons have some people of being used to strike non-lethally. Axes can be swung with blade facing away, effectively working as clubs. Spears can function as staves by using the foot-end (or just swinging if it's not a bladed spear). Swords can strike with the pommel, or even held mordhau style. Strictly speaking, this will do less damage. But that's already accounted for by the fact that non-lethal damage doesn't actually kill. A case could be made for arguing that these should do lesser damage, but that's quibbling at details. If done strictly, you might adjust the damage die down a step or two. But that's less change than going from 14 to 10 Strength for Medium-size PCs.

Note that normal training with weapons would historically have included how to use them non-lethally. The fact that most of us might not be aware of this is more a failure of imagination than anything else.

As others have said in this thread, smashing someone in the face with a metal object is not non-lethal. The technique in your link translated to "murder-strike", I believe because it was lethally effective against enemies wearing full armor.

Now, I think there is a simulationist argument for less lethal combat. Usually people who are in fights with weapons die from untreated wounds, infection, and the like. Death is very rarely instantaneous. D&D 3.5 has a very low window in which people actually have their threat level reduced by damage and actual death, only being 10 hp. And as you go up in levels hit points get bigger but this window is the same. Pretty hard to knock a target down without knocking their soul of their body when every attack deals 25+ damage. It probably shouldn't work like that.

Sure, okay. That still doesn't really explain the logic from a game design perspective of taking a penalty (either in attack or opportunity cost) to perform what is in most cases an inferior action.

I'd say theming, probably. D&D is a heroic game but it's also pretty dark. People die. Everyone swinging for nonlethal all the time because there's no penalty to do so lightens the setting a good deal.

[Fizban]

Sure, okay. That still doesn't really explain the logic from a game design perspective of taking a penalty (either in attack or opportunity cost) to perform what is in most cases an inferior action.

If it was truly an inferior action, you wouldn't be arguing that there should be no penalty: you'd be saying there's no reason to bother doing it at all. Dealing nonlethal damage makes it possible to non-magically capture people alive, when you might otherwise have little chance of winning without killing them. It's an entirely separate action which lets anyone break the rules to take people alive using weapon combat even if they're armed only with lethal weapons. Taking prisoners is more valuable than killing them (until you start having prisoner arguments). It is something that the game wants to allow, but clearly wants it to be more difficult for the unprepared, and have still have drawbacks even if you are prepared with the proper weapons.

Besides, D&D typically functions on "action movie" or "fantasy film/novel" logic. Knocking someone unconscious with the flat of the blade may be unrealistic, but it's an expected trope in the type of feeling the game is meant to evoke.

Sure, except, not really? I'm not sure I've ever actually seen something where someone was hit with the "flat" of the blade- far more common is a club, punch, or the pommel of a sword held in normal grip. The latter could be ruled as an unarmed attack and thus nonlethal (the bigger question being what benefit they "should" be getting over unarmed), the middle is already nonlethal, and the former- well the PHB's picture of a "sap" looks like a smaller club.

And those movies where that happens? Usually done from complete stealth or surprise, and with characters running at "E6" or lower levels. Rogues in hiding or winning initiative then one-shotting people with a nonlethal weapon sneak attack. A movie where knocking people out is easy and people only die if they're coup de grace'd, isn't one where everyone is choosing to strike for nonlethal for some reason, it's a system where people combat with "lethal" weapons isn't actually lethal.

And, this isn't even mutually exclusive? You fight an enemy normally until they're low on hit points, then decide actually you want them alive. You take -4 on one last attack for a "called shot to the head with flat of blade," and hit because you're higher level and your scaling attack bonus is already far larger than their static AC from armor, dealing nonlethal damage which knocks them out.

[noob]

As others have said in this thread, smashing someone in the face with a metal object is not non-lethal. The technique in your link translated to "murder-strike", I believe because it was lethally effective against enemies wearing full armor.

Now, I think there is a simulationist argument for less lethal combat. Usually people who are in fights with weapons die from untreated wounds, infection, and the like. Death is very rarely instantaneous. D&D 3.5 has a very low window in which people actually have their threat level reduced by damage and actual death, only being 10 hp. And as you go up in levels hit points get bigger but this window is the same. Pretty hard to knock a target down without knocking their soul of their body when every attack deals 25+ damage. It probably shouldn't work like that.


I'd say theming, probably. D&D is a heroic game but it's also pretty dark. People die. Everyone swinging for nonlethal all the time because there's no penalty to do so lightens the setting a good deal.

Just spend a single skill point to count as trained in Disable Device and you can make any weapon deal non lethal damage as primary damage just by doing enough tries(dc 15)

[Rynjin]

If it was truly an inferior action, you wouldn't be arguing that there should be no penalty: you'd be saying there's no reason to bother doing it at all.

...No, I wouldn't.

Dealing nonlethal damage makes it possible to non-magically capture people alive, when you might otherwise have little chance of winning without killing them. It's an entirely separate action which lets anyone break the rules to take people alive using weapon combat even if they're armed only with lethal weapons. Taking prisoners is more valuable than killing them (until you start having prisoner arguments). It is something that the game wants to allow, but clearly wants it to be more difficult for the unprepared, and have still have drawbacks even if you are prepared with the proper weapons.

Heh? How is taking prisoners more valuable than killing them? It's usually the opposite; it takes you time and resources to do anything with them afterward. It's a useful tactic maybe 5% of the time. That's WHY it's odd that it requires special investment to properly pull off. Because it comes up about once a campaign for the most part, so of course nobody is going to buy Enforcer Bludgeoner unless they really want to min/max nonlethal damage for the enemies that aren't immune to it (which you CAN do, at least in Pathfinder, and in those cases the investment is actually worth it).

It's the same issue as a lot of Feat taxes but compounded. For example, Disarm as a tactic is bad/niche enough already without the Combat Expertise requirement; giving everyone CE for free does make it at least a reasonable build around option though, since you can at least go straight to the useful Feat for your build (Improved Disarm) instead of having a dead Feat. It doesn't stop Disarm being useless against most of the bestiary, but it helps.

The same is true here. For most characters, 95% of the time, buying a Feat that removes the -4 is going to be pointless. This means that investment is only going to be worthwhile for the player who's going to build their entire character around it in the first place, and it's never going to be a super powerful option anyway, so you may as well shortcut the baseline point of entry. It doesn't stop nonlethal from being useless against two common enemy types, but it helps.

Almost every system I've played besides 3.PF shortcuts that investment, with the only exception for games I've played extensively being Savage Worlds (whose whole schtick is being EXTREMELY gritty). Even there, the penalty only exists for edged weapons; unarmed attacks and bludgeoning weapons can deal non-lethal without penalty.

It's...never an issue. Because, again, it's only worthwhile about 5% of the time. Possibly less, because a lot of the time you can just smack a guy lethally until he's bleeding out and then cast Stabilize or whatever.

Sure, except, not really? I'm not sure I've ever actually seen something where someone was hit with the "flat" of the blade- far more common is a club, punch, or the pommel of a sword held in normal grip.

Then you probably haven't read very many fantasy novels; or to be specific the high fantasy fare from the 70s/80s that much of D&D is based on. It's extraordinarily common in those.

[Segev]

If you allow Traits from Pathfinder, Blade of Mercy would be perfect: https://aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?Type=Religion