A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Satyrn]

I think they should be able to knock out an NPC instead of killing him. I just think that they should be working towards that goal in advance with all the limitations that goes with it. Instead of using a fireball, use hold person or some other spell that will incapacitate. Let me know that if you connect with your blow(remember that in 5e RAW, only the blow that takes you to 0 really hits), you will be pulling it so as not to kill the NPC. It's not hard to alter the party tactics to try to capture the enemy. Using those tactics IS the player having say in how things go.

I have found this method to be more satisfying, too.

My players have taken a quest (very much in the sense of taking a quest in a video game) to retrieve live specimens of various dungeon critters. Their corpses are acceptable, but of much lesser value, both gold and XP wise.

If I was using 4e's rule that a player m could make his fireball knock a skag unconcious instead of killing it, this quest's risk of accidentally killing the prize wouldn't exist. Indeed, one of my very few house rules is axing 5e's rule about choosing to knock out an enemy instead of killing it with a melee weapon. And since I'm using 5e's default assumption that monsters don't get death saves, they need to use nets, lassos, sleep spells and the like.

Like you said, if the players want to knock out something out someone instead of killing him "they should be working towards that goal in advance with all the limitations that goes with it." In my game, it creates a fun moment every time the player dares to swing a sword (softening it up for a sleep spell, say) at a monster they're trying to snag.

 

[pemerton]

In his description there the fire is still doing lethal damage. It has just failed to kill the PC outright.

And in 4e, the fire is still doing "lethal damage" (which as far as I can see is just a synonym for damage). But it fails to kill the NPC outright. Just as Gygax suggests, the NPC is instead knocked unconscious.

The two scenarios are identical in this respect.

Fire should not allow that choice. Prior to the fireball hitting the target, the fire damage was lethal damage. After hitting the target and the player discovering that the target is now down, it's now non-lethal damage. Retroactively applying the change to fire is time travel.

I encourage you to re-read the rules, as you're not stating them correctly. For example, it's not true that prior to the fireball hitting the target, the fire damage was lethal damage. In 4e, prior to the fireball hitting the target, no damage (lethal or otherwise) has been dealt.

Here is the rule:

Prior to the fireball hitting the target, the target had taken no damage from the fireball. (Self-evidently.) When the fireball hit the target, the target suffered damage. When that damage dropped the target to zero hp, the player whose PC cast the fireball had a choice to make: death, or unconsciousness?

I don't think it's a very complicated rule. And it does not involve time travel at any point.

 

[Maxperson]

Dying in a game term sense, but not dying in the fiction. As shown by the rurst death save coming up a 20 -- back to 1 hp, only knocjed a bit loopy by the blow for just a brief moment. Dying means death occurs if no intervention happens, and we don't know this until 3 failures. Death saves don't, by RAW, have any meaning after 3 successes or failures have accrued -- they disappear and are tracked anew if needed.

Player 1: I'm down to 0 after that last hit.

DM: You are down and dying, but not really, you'll have to make a death save next turn.

Player 1: Player 2, would you please heal me right away?

Player 2: Why? Nothing is wrong with you in the fiction, so there's no reason to subject myself to more danger by healing you instead of taking out the enemy.

Player 1: But if I miss my death saves or get hit while I am down, I will be dead.

Player 2: Once you are dead something will be wrong with you, but until your PC dies nothing is wrong with you at all and you're just sleeping. Enjoy the nap. I hope it's not forever, but we won't have any idea that your PC is dying until he dies.

Player 1: ...


Sorry, but the dying is also happening in the fiction. That the PC can get lucky and regain consciousness does not stop that the hit was causing him to bleed out and death was a very real possibility.

 

[Maxperson]

And in 4e, the fire is still doing "lethal damage" (which as far as I can see is just a synonym for damage). But it fails to kill the NPC outright. Just as Gygax suggests, the NPC is instead knocked unconscious.

The two scenarios are identical in this respect.

I encourage you to re-read the rules, as you're not stating them correctly. For example, it's not true that prior to the fireball hitting the target, the fire damage was lethal damage. In 4e, prior to the fireball hitting the target, no damage (lethal or otherwise) has been dealt.

Here is the rule:

Prior to the fireball hitting the target, the target had taken no damage from the fireball. (Self-evidently.) When the fireball hit the target, the target suffered damage. When that damage dropped the target to zero hp, the player whose PC cast the fireball had a choice to make: death, or unconsciousness?

I don't think it's a very complicated rule. And it does not involve time travel at any point.

You aren't understanding the order.

Step 1: The wizard casts fireball. In doing so a ball of lethal fire is projected towards the enemy or a pea that will explode, depending on the edition.

Step 2: The lethal fireball impacts the enemy dealing a lethal damage type to the victim. The first 37 points of damage consist of this lethal fire damage type since the victim isn't at 0 yet.

Step 3: The last 1 hit point goes away and the player has to decide AFTER the enemy hits 0, whether to keep the fire damage lethal and let it potentially kill the enemy, or mystically turn it into fluff bunny sauce and just knock out the enemy. If he does, he has to go back in time and turn the lethal fire non-lethal so that none of the damage is lethal now.

 

[Hussar]

You aren't understanding the order.

Step 1: The wizard casts fireball. In doing so a ball of lethal fire is projected towards the enemy or a pea that will explode, depending on the edition.

Step 2: The lethal fireball impacts the enemy dealing a lethal damage type to the victim. The first 37 points of damage consist of this lethal fire damage type since the victim isn't at 0 yet.

Step 3: The last 1 hit point goes away and the player has to decide AFTER the enemy hits 0, whether to keep the fire damage lethal and let it potentially kill the enemy, or mystically turn it into fluff bunny sauce and just knock out the enemy. If he does, he has to go back in time and turn the lethal fire non-lethal so that none of the damage is lethal now.

You realize that that order is not actually mandated by anything. That until you have completed the entire action, you cannot actually narrate anything, same as anything else in combat. So, this process sim approach to gaming, while perfectly valid, is not the only approach.

Additionally, you missed my point. It's not that there isn't a difference between knocking unconcious and knocking someone below zero, sure, there is potentially a differences. Only thing is, in practice, there really isn't much difference. What does a failed death save mean in the game fiction? Until there is that third failed death save, you cannot have taken lethal damage, since it's entirely possible to stand you on your feet without magic. There are feats which allow healing after all.

So, you could take your HP:-1 into negative damage, failed two death saves and still not have a single actual lethal wound upon you. And, until you fail that third death save, any description of lethal wounds is actually not supported by the mechanics. So, the fireball knocks you to negative HP-1, you fail two death saves and then stabilize, you actually were never in any threat of death since that's the only narrative that makes sense of the mechanics. It's not like your severed artery suddenly stopped bleeding for no reason. It's, your artery was never severed in the first place. That fire damage, while it looked bad, was never actually life threatening because, 24 hours later, you are entirely healed.

Like I said, it's endlessly fascinating to me to watch folks that disliked 4e suddenly approve of 5e, despite 5e having exactly the same problems that 4e did. If you didn't like how HP and damage worked in 4e, then there is really no reason to give 5e a pass, but, because of how the mechanics are presented, suddenly people sing the praises of 5e. It's an incredible feat that WotC has pulled off. Really mind blowing.

 

[Maxperson]

You realize that that order is not actually mandated by anything. That until you have completed the entire action, you cannot actually narrate anything, same as anything else in combat. So, this process sim approach to gaming, while perfectly valid, is not the only approach.

I narrate parts of actions all the time. I've literally said, "The fireball streaks from your hands and explodes around your enemies. Roll damage." The order I set forth is the order things happen in the fiction, and how things happen mechanically outside of the fiction.

It's not that there isn't a difference between knocking unconcious and knocking someone below zero, sure, there is potentially a differences. Only thing is, in practice, there really isn't much difference. What does a failed death save mean in the game fiction? Until there is that third failed death save, you cannot have taken lethal damage, since it's entirely possible to stand you on your feet without magic. There are feats which allow healing after all.

Again with the Strawman? Or is it that you didn't read what I said again? Damage can be of a lethal type without resulting in death.

So, you could take your HP:-1 into negative damage, failed two death saves and still not have a single actual lethal wound upon you.

But you got to that point by being attacked by a lethal damage type. Otherwise there would have been no death saves.

And, until you fail that third death save, any description of lethal wounds is actually not supported by the mechanics. So, the fireball knocks you to negative HP-1, you fail two death saves and then stabilize, you actually were never in any threat of death since that's the only narrative that makes sense of the mechanics.

This is objectively false. There was the threat of death from the very first death save, regardless of its outcome. You are missing the key word up there, so I bolded it for you. Stabilizing someone via skill or magic does not mean that the wound wasn't one that could have resulted in death. It just means that someone stopped death from happening by stabilizing you somehow, or you got lucky and rolled a natural 20.

Like I said, it's endlessly fascinating to me to watch folks that disliked 4e suddenly approve of 5e, despite 5e having exactly the same problems that 4e did.

Another objectively false statement. While it might have a few similar problems, it does not have exactly the same ones, since the class structure and class ability structure is not the same, and many had problems with those things in 4e. There are more differences than just those two.

You are really confused over why people disliked 4e and like 5e, and vice versa.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd also point out in 5e, if you play by RAW anyway, it's almost impossible to flat out kill anyone. You need to drill them to negative max HP in a single hit, or force 3 death saves (and, as such, impossible to do in a single hit with anything).

Sure, you can knock them out, but, you can then stabilize anyone with a simple check.

Is it different than straight up stating that fireballs can just knock someone out? Sure, maybe, but, again, in play, there's no practical difference. It's virtually impossible to outright kill anyone with more than about 15 HP or so with a fireball.

Does that count for NPCs too? In 4e monsters don't get this benefit (and it is smaller, only negative bloodied, but that is still a lot, PCs are rarely killed outright).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

But you got to that point by being attacked by a lethal damage type. Otherwise there would have been no death saves.

Sorry, which edition are we speaking about? Because, in 5e, there is no such thing as "lethal damage type". There is just damage. Full stop.

This is objectively false. There was the threat of death from the very first death save, regardless of its outcome. You are missing the key word up there, so I bolded it for you. Stabilizing someone via skill or magic does not mean that the wound wasn't one that could have resulted in death. It just means that someone stopped death from happening by stabilizing you somehow, or you got lucky and rolled a natural 20.

Couple of points. Yup, I agree, there was a threat of death, which I mentioned as potential differences. But, since you didn't actually die, unless you are retroactively changing the wounds, (thus the whole Schrodinger's wound thing), then that wound couldn't have been lethal because, well, you didn't die. Note, you do not need a 20 to not die. Three successful checks and you are stabilized (oh, look another 4e rule). It's entirely possible to stabilize 100% on your own, and you can 100% heal from that in 24 hours. There is no possible way that any wound that doesn't actually kill you to be serious. Not in 5e. Not when all wounds heal within 24 hours. Shockingly, just like 4e.

Another objectively false statement. While it might have a few similar problems, it does not have exactly the same ones, since the class structure and class ability structure is not the same, and many had problems with those things in 4e. There are more differences than just those two.

You are really confused over why people disliked 4e and like 5e, and vice versa.

LOL. You can translate 5e characters into 4e Essentials characters almost verbatim. Requires virtually no changes at all. But, of course, 5e fans don't want to hear that. Like I said, I'm not confused at all. I stand in awe of WotC's ability to change people's minds with just a few well placed phrases. There are far, far more similarities between 4e and 5e than differences, yet, folks will swear up and down that they are totally different games. It's amazing really.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

They are inflicting a lethal damage type regardless. That you get lucky, skillfully dodge, hide behind a pillar, etc., leaving you with 9 hit points out of 45, does not mean that the fire is not a lethal damage type.

OK, 'realistic', if it means anything, must reasonably mean that something is 'closer to the way it works in reality'. Is there such a thing as a 'lethal damage type' in reality? Is there any such thing as 'non-lethal damage' in reality? I think not! I think any sort of damage to the human body is some increment of the way to destroying that body, and thus potentially lethal. It might require 10,000 slaps from a toddler to kill you, but I'm betting after the first few thousand you'd start to feel it (I guess it might depend on the time frame of administration). Obviously sometimes things do kill you and sometimes they don't, and things which are more damaging are probably more likely to exceed that threshold, but pretty much anything that does any damage at all can kill you, eventually.

So, I can't find an argument for any 'realism' in your position Max. It seems no more or less realistic than when some game participant (any one, which doesn't matter) can decree a specific attack to produce lethal or sub-lethal results. So, what is really being objected to?

 

[Maxperson]

OK, 'realistic', if it means anything, must reasonably mean that something is 'closer to the way it works in reality'. Is there such a thing as a 'lethal damage type' in reality? Is there any such thing as 'non-lethal damage' in reality? I think not! I think any sort of damage to the human body is some increment of the way to destroying that body, and thus potentially lethal. It might require 10,000 slaps from a toddler to kill you, but I'm betting after the first few thousand you'd start to feel it (I guess it might depend on the time frame of administration). Obviously sometimes things do kill you and sometimes they don't, and things which are more damaging are probably more likely to exceed that threshold, but pretty much anything that does any damage at all can kill you, eventually.

So, I can't find an argument for any 'realism' in your position Max. It seems no more or less realistic than when some game participant (any one, which doesn't matter) can decree a specific attack to produce lethal or sub-lethal results. So, what is really being objected to?

Reasonableness is the key. If I hit someone with a pillow, even if some fluke happens and they die, I'm not going to be charged with Assault With a Deadly Weapon. If I stab someone with a knife I will. If something can reasonably be expected to cause death, it would be lethal force. Just look at police use of force. Shooting someone with beanbags is not considered to be lethal force, despite them occasionally killing someone. Shooting them with a gun is lethal force, despite the fact that many people survive. I'm applying the similar standards to the game, which makes it more realistic.