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

[pemerton]

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.

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.

Well, something might be sufficient to cause death and not cause death because (eg) no one was exposed to it.

And something might even by reasonably described as sufficient to cause death and yet not cause death to someone exposed to it because some atypical countervailing factor came into play (eg the poison is lethal but the victim had taken a prophylactic/antidote; the atomic bomb is lethal, but the target was Superman; etc).

But for the reasons you give this is all completely tangential to the 4e (and 5e) rules. If by lethal we mean literally causing death then a fireball that doesn't kill its target was not lethal, end of story, with no need to distinguish lethal and non-lethal damage and no time travel involved. And if by lethal we mean sufficient to cause death under typical circumstances then it should be no surprise that some people survive - there circumstances obviously weren't typical! We still don't need a distinction between lethal/non-lethal damage and still no time travel is involved.

It baffles me that there's any debate here. The rule is completely straightforward: zero hp for a GM-side creature/character triggers a choice of result by the player of the successfully attacking character. That's one of the clearest rules ever found in a D&D rulebook!

 

[Hussar]

But, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you have to remember, all things 4e have cooties. It cannot possibly be that anything 5e has any even remote resemblance to anything 4e otherwise, that would contaminate the game and we cannot possibly have that. So, we see folks who will move heaven and earth to display the "obvious" differences between the games so as to justify years of widdling upon a system and then turning around and liking what is, for most parts, the same system.

If folks didn't then they'd have to admit that 4e was actually a quite good game, and that's impossible. It couldn't possibly be true because that would mean that folks may have been mistaken in their ardent dislike and repeated attacks on a game and its fans. Since that can't be true, then, it's obvious that 4e and 5e are totally different.

 

[Aldarc]

I would definitely be curious to see how a retroclone of 4e written with more natural language would be received by critics of 4e.

A good chunk of the problem that some vocal critics of 4e had may have been less about content and more about the delivery of the content. :shrug:

 

[Hussar]

I would definitely be curious to see how a retroclone of 4e written with more natural language would be received by critics of 4e.

A good chunk of the problem that some vocal critics of 4e had may have been less about content and more about the delivery of the content. :shrug:

Frankly, I look at 5e as mostly that. Mechanically, 5e is a pretty natural extension of 4e. Granted, there's some changes - not as many encounter level powers for example. But, since 5e isn't focused on the encounter as the base unit of play, but, rather, the day, it makes sense to strip out encounter level mechanics to a large degree.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I am aware of this. I used to box. It is very dangerous to go around punching people for this reason. Again, wasn't minimizing the effect of punching and kicking someone. Still it is rare, which is why we tend not to regard unarmed attacks as lethal, but would regard a knife or gun as lethal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Like I said, I was just responding to the argument that came up around the word lethal. I wasn't weighing in on the gaming contention it arose from. I just found it to be a strange linguistic argument.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Unless of course you use the dictionary definition of lethal I provided which shows very clearly, but apparently you don't read definitions you respond about either, that you don't need to die for something to be lethal.

 

[Maxperson]

The system in UA (Appendix Q?) is better, though it still makes a dozen orcs very strong for grappling.

Shouldn't a dozen orcs be very strong for grappling?

 

[Hussar]

Unless of course you use the dictionary definition of lethal I provided which shows very clearly, but apparently you don't read definitions you respond about either, that you don't need to die for something to be lethal.

Funny how you are apparently the only person reading your own definition to come to that interpretation. If something isn't lethal, it cannot kill you. If something is lethal, it will kill you. That's what lethal means. A gun is lethal because, by and large, it will kill people. That's commonly what is meant. However, it isn't necessarily true that all guns are lethal to all targets. A .22 caliber pistol is unlikely to be lethal to a healthy adult human. Possible, but, unlikely.

I would also point out that, depending on the country and your level of training, you certainly can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon when punching someone. Please don't confuse American laws with the rest of the world. Here in Japan, anyone with a black belt automatically gets charged with assault with a deadly weapon instead of common assault, for example.

But, in any case, the rest of us have moved on from your attempt to force your own idiosyncratic definitions on the discussion. Perhaps you could come and join us in our conversation, rather than trying to rehash what's already been discussed?

 

[Maxperson]

Funny how you are apparently the only person reading your own definition to come to that interpretation. If something isn't lethal, it cannot kill you. If something is lethal, it will kill you. That's what lethal means.

Unless of course you use the proper dictionary definition that says it doesn't have to kill. Words, they have multiple meanings. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will stop making these errors.

A gun is lethal because, by and large, it will kill people. That's commonly what is meant. However, it isn't necessarily true that all guns are lethal to all targets. A .22 caliber pistol is unlikely to be lethal to a healthy adult human. Possible, but, unlikely.

A .22 will kill people often enough to be considered lethal force if used against a human.

I would also point out that, depending on the country and your level of training, you certainly can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon when punching someone. Please don't confuse American laws with the rest of the world. Here in Japan, anyone with a black belt automatically gets charged with assault with a deadly weapon instead of common assault, for example.

You mean like I said in a post that you didn't read all the way?