AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I'm just saying, the difference is more in degree than in character. There aren't 'types' of damage, not in that sense.
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
I'm just saying, the difference is more in degree than in character. There aren't 'types' of damage, not in that sense.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Exactly, because using the kick/punch/grapple system is so unfair to PCs that it is just crazy. Honestly my guess is most DMs have just never bothered, but try it sometime, you will find out it is a completely unusable system.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Well, no. It's because it's intended for use against monsters and NPCs, not PCs. Just read the section. That's all it talks about. Monsters and creatures. Nobody used it against PCs, because it wasn't for use against PCs. Fairness never even played into it.
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
That is true of the subdual damage because it is a type of morale, and PCs are not subject to morale. Another aspect of Gygaxian play, PCs, as the players 'pawns' are not subject to outside control, and deciding they surrender because of a mechanic like that would be outside control. Skilled play, if you are smart, maybe you know when to surrender, otherwise you die. It has nothing to do with 'fairness'.
The non-lethal combat system is found on page 72. Try it sometime, its amusing but silly.
Sepulchrave II
Legend
Most fatalities from punches being thrown are the result of people being knocked unconscious and hitting their skulls on concrete afterwards.
Oregon ruled against regarding fists as deadly weapons in 1975, but the debate has come around again recently. Some jurisdictions consider hands and feet differently. E.g.:
Emphasis mine.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Swimming upthread a bit.
I'd point out that a knife certainly isn't lethal to an elephant. A .22 isn't lethal to a bear (or at least it's really, really unlikely to be). And, I'd point out that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s own dictionary definition "sufficient to cause death." requires death to be caused for something to be described as lethal.
So, a fireball can be lethal, but, it might not be as well. Unless someone dies, it's not lethal. And, 5e does not actually distinguish between lethal and non-lethal damage. It's just damage. Anything that didn't kill you isn't lethal. The only sticking point here is that you cannot simply knock someone unconscious in 5e without a melee attack. But, that doesn't mean that there's any actual difference here in the "kinds of damage". Just that there is an additional option when it comes to melee damage.
No I'm not. I'm talking about the actual game situation that is under discussion.
Contra [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], there is no rule in 4e that says, or permits the result, that fireballs do "non-lethal damage" ie that fireballs are incapable of killing. In 4e there is only damage, and all damage is capable of killing, and fireballs do damage.
Maxperson is arguing that because someone can survive a fireball even though, mechanically, that character's hp have dropped to zero, therefore the fireball must be non-lethal. That argument makes no sense and is without foundation, for two reasons. First, things that are "lethal" in the sense of having the potential to kill don't always kill, and Maxperson has already acknowledged that this is the case for fireballs every version of D&D. Second, because zero hp in 4e doesn't mean dead/dying in the absence of "non-lethal" damage. That (or some variant of that) is a 3E rule. In 4e, for NPCs and creatures under the GM's control, zero hp means the player of the character whose attack reduced the being to zero hp gets to decide whether the being dies or is knocked unconscious.
And because it's already accepted by everyone in this thread that some "lethal" attacks - in the sense of being dangerous and having the potential to kill -don't actually kill, there is nothing unrealistic or at all remarkable that, in 4e, some people hit by fireballs lose consciousness but do not die.
By "few" did you mean "many"? I think there are quite a few such things.
OA tried to make the subdual system a systematic part of the game, but unlike the MM rules for dragons requires dropping the target to zero hp (3/4 of which is subdual damage that comes back after X minutes) rather than generating the percentage chance to subdue that is at the core of the MM system.
The DMG unarmed attack system verges on unusable. And has all the flaws you describe. I would include it in the list of "throwaway filler".
The system in UA (Appendix Q?) is better, though it still makes a dozen orcs very strong for grappling.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
See, the term "lethal" is a bit fuzzy.
I mean, a single stab wound from a knife is rarely lethal. It can be and certainly it potentially can kill you more often than a single punch or kick, but, by comparison, is far less lethal than, say, being hit by a bus.
My point being lethality is a range from, really not likely to kill you to Stage 5 pancreatic cancer. Claiming that spell damage is "always lethal" doesn't really match up with the mechanics of 5e or, really, any version of D&D. 3e had the separation of lethal vs non-lethal damage, but, that's something of an outlier and, frankly, didn't work very well either.
4e and 5e have no such distinction. Damage is damage. End of story. What results from that damage may vary slightly, but, in practice, hardly at all.
I mean, a single stab wound from a knife is rarely lethal. It can be and certainly it potentially can kill you more often than a single punch or kick, but, by comparison, is far less lethal than, say, being hit by a bus.
My point being lethality is a range from, really not likely to kill you to Stage 5 pancreatic cancer. Claiming that spell damage is "always lethal" doesn't really match up with the mechanics of 5e or, really, any version of D&D. 3e had the separation of lethal vs non-lethal damage, but, that's something of an outlier and, frankly, didn't work very well either.
4e and 5e have no such distinction. Damage is damage. End of story. What results from that damage may vary slightly, but, in practice, hardly at all.
Suppose all this is true? What does it have to do with 4e and fireballs?
4e has no concept of "lethal" or "non-lethal" damage. It just has damage. Fireballs do damage (a modest amount). Red dragon breath does damage (potentially quite a big amount). Punches do damage (generally quite a modest amount unless we're talking a monk or a brawler fighter). If that damage drops a PC to zero hp than s/he has to make death saving throws (it's different from 5e but not wildly different). If that damage drops a GM-controlled NPC/creature to zero hp then the player of the character who delivered the damage gets to decide whether the result is death or unconsciousness.
The rule is clear. It's easy to use. In my experience, if players think that one particular choice would be silly or make no sense, then they will refrain from making that choice.
The rule doesn't produce "unrealistic" or even atypical-by-the-standards-of-D&D results, because we all agree that not everyone who gets caught in a fireball must die. And it has nothing to do with time travel.
Similar Threads
