D&D 5E Can a spell be cast to cause non lethal damage?

[The Human Target]

Sure, why not?

Though I'd say they needed to do something extra to get it to work, like succeed at an Arcana check or spend inspiration.

 

[cmad1977]

I'd say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MechaPilot]

I had this scenario just happen to the group I run on Saturday nights. They encountered a group of baddies with a hostage (being mind controlled and attacking as well) in tow, and the wizard wanted to cast a fireball that deals non lethal damage to protect the controlled hostage.

I know you can deal non lethal melee damage, but a spell? For the life of me I didn't find any information regarding this.

Somebody help me out here..please!!

The long and the short of it is this: It's up to each individual DM to make a judgement call.

Personally, I usually allow it. You can come up with a plausible reason for most spells, yes, even fireball.

Non-lethal Fireball: The creatures deftly evade the flames, singing their clothes and losing some facial and body hair in the process (perhaps even suffering some lasting burn scars, depending on how tough you want to be), but they are overcome by the smoke and hot air in the immediate area, falling unconscious.

 

[Shiroiken]

By RAW, I'd say no (melee attacks only), and most likely RAI. That said, I feel that it should be done on a case by case basis for the DM. For example, I have no problem with most Ranged Weapon Attacks dealing non-lethal damage (aiming for a leg or arm). I don't have a problem with Shocking Grasp or Spiritual Weapon dealing non-lethal damage, but some damage types don't lend themselves to non-lethal (acid, fire, necrotic, and poison all leap to mind), so I'd probably disallow a non-lethal Vampiric or Chill Touch for example (despite RAW).

I also require characters to state that the attack is non-lethal before the attack. This allows the target to know that the enemy isn't trying to kill them, leading to interesting RP opportunities during combat. Also the backwards time logic (choosing after the fact) just bugs the crap out of me.

 

[MechaPilot]

I also require characters to state that the attack is non-lethal before the attack. This allows the target to know that the enemy isn't trying to kill them, leading to interesting RP opportunities during combat. Also the backwards time logic (choosing after the fact) just bugs the crap out of me.

I'm fairly lenient in what I'll allow, but I entirely agree with you about declaring non-lethal intent beforehand.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Sure. Spend a bunch of down time researching the spell and he will eventually have a non-lethal version.

But, by the book, or as Crawford or Mearls would say, if the spell does not say you can do that, then you can't. But also by the book, you as the DM get to decide when NPCs get death saving throws or simply die at 0 HP. If he is an important NPC, then he should get the saving throws. And you as the DM can simply rule that this NPC succeeds at all the saves, if that will advance your plot the way you want. Or you can rule he does not make any of the saves, if his death helps your story more.

 

[Alatar]

Rule #1: Shoot the hostage.

 

[seebs]

Basic rules, page 76

Knocking a Creature Out
Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.

Some spells (e.g. Shocking Grasp) have a range of "touch" and require you to make a melee spell attack.

Since a melee spell attack is not a melee attack, I would rule that you can't knock someone out with a spell. I don't see a problem with a house rule that states that a melee spell attack is effectively the same as a melee attack.

I would say that a melee spell attack is a subtype of melee attack, and also a subtype of spell attack, but that it's definitely a melee attack.

 

[Oofta]

I would say that a melee spell attack is a subtype of melee attack, and also a subtype of spell attack, but that it's definitely a melee attack.

Yep, melee spell attack is one type of melee attack, just like unarmed strike or using natural weapons such as claws ... I was mistaken in my initial response.

It does still have to be a melee spell attack.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Now I'm hoping I'll have a player try to do something interesting like that just so I can make some sort of fun ruling.

 

[TerraDave]

This is one reason I don't like that rule.

There are several spells that can be used to take someone out of fight without causing damage. Use one of those!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I know you can deal non lethal melee damage, but a spell? For the life of me I didn't find any information regarding this.

You can deal non-lethal damage with a melee attack, per the rules (as has been stated), so no knocking people out with arrows or spells (unless that's how the spell works - cast Sleep instead of Fireball, for instance).

But, as the DM, you can always add or change rules or make specific rulings.

If the player could come with a creative, plausible (for the tone of campaign you're running - I've run campaigns where a Green-Arrow-style boxing-glove-arrow would've been just fine) to make a normally lethal attack less so, rule that it works, or call for a check and give it a chance of working as intended, but a risk of still being deadly...

 

[Alatar]

You can deal non-lethal damage with a melee attack, per the rules (as has been stated), so no knocking people out with arrows or spells (unless that's how the spell works - cast Sleep instead of Fireball, for instance).

Had the intent been to limit non-lethal damage to melee weapon attacks, excluding melee spell attacks, then the rule would have specified melee weapon attacks, which it does not do. The terms "melee weapon attack" and "melee spell attack" are used throughout the PHB, as is the umbrella term "melee attack."

For example, some Battle Master maneuvers are limited to melee weapon attacks. These include Riposte, Sweeping Attack and Lunging Attack. Other maneuvers, such as Disarming Attack, Distracting Strike and Precision Attack, specify only a weapon attack. Any weapon will do.

Many spell descriptions specify a melee spell attack. Examples are Bigby's Hand, Contagion and Inflict Wounds. A melee spell attack is a melee attack. If a melee spell attack is not a melee attack, then a melee weapon attack is not a melee attack either.

To quote the Sage Advice Compendium:

Is the intent that only melee weapon attacks can knock
foes unconscious, or can melee spell attacks as well? If
you reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack,
you can knock the creature out (PH, 198). That melee attack
isn’t restricted to weapons. Even a melee spell attack
can be used to knock a creature out.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I would try to whip up a few new spells where the other aspects of the spell match the desire for doing nonlethal damage if it something that is going to come up regularly. If it was a one time thing, yeah, "your fireball did nonlethal damage this time" works fine. If it becomes "lethal damage to the minion goblins and the drow warlock, but non lethal damage to the goblin leader and the orc assassin" every time it is used then you have effectively rewritten the spell with a flavor that doesn't really match what it is trying to convey.

It might be a neat set of subclass features or a feat for characters who want a more pacifist oriented character though that would take more work to balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Many spell descriptions specify a melee spell attack. Examples are Bigby's Hand, Contagion and Inflict Wounds. A melee spell attack is a melee attack.

Didn't mean to imply otherwise, the rules pretty clearly say 'melee attack' not 'melee weapon attack' or anything more specific.
Though...
'Many' is relative. Most spells don't use attack rolls, at all, not even most spells that inflict damage. Nor do all spells that use melee attack rolls inflict damage.
If you want to argue that the Rules as Written imply that using each of those spells to reduce a victim to 0 hps give you the option of rendering him unconscious, though, you probably shouldn't expect consistent results. Contagion doesn't do hp damage, so you wouldn't reduce someone to 0 hps via it's 'melee attack,' anyway. Inflict Wounds I wouldn't waste a lot of time trying to 'prove' you wrong, as DM, I'd just rule that you couldn't. I'd feel less inclined to rule that way when you're slapping someone around with a giant hand made of force. Another example, Shocking Grasp, I'd have no trouble with - 'shocking' someone unconscious seems fine in a way that incinerating or necrotizing them to unconsciousness doesn't.

Ultimately, spells are pretty darn versatile, there are spells that can deal with an enemy without killing him, already. Just prep one of those if it's something you think you might want to do.

 

[Uchawi]

I wish they added damage types and resistance to the game, versus generic non-lethal, damage resistance, etc. A little bit more detail would have gone a long way.

 

[Yunru]

I wish they added damage types and resistance to the game, versus generic non-lethal, damage resistance, etc. A little bit more detail would have gone a long way.

?

Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing, Radiant, Lightning, etc.

 

[Alatar]

'Many' is relative. Most spells don't use attack rolls, at all, not even most spells that inflict damage.

True that. I've been working on a build for a Death Cleric who is into inappropriate touching. To that end, I made a list of possible touch spells. For melee attack spells, I only came up with Inflict Wounds and Vampiric Touch, the latter being a domain spell. There are lots of range touch buff spells, however, so I'll have ample opportunity to molest my companions, which is really what it's all about.

Nor do all spells that use melee attack rolls inflict damage.

Indeed. With those examples, I was merely attempting to establish the consistent use of terminology. Because I'm a pedant.

Another example, Shocking Grasp, I'd have no trouble with - 'shocking' someone unconscious seems fine in a way that incinerating or necrotizing them to unconsciousness doesn't.

We tend to play it RAW, though my current character is on his 10th level with the same two weeks of rations. I expect that non-lethal necrotic attacks will be uncontroversial, should it ever come up. "I'm easing my victim up to death's door, stopping just short of sliding him across the threshold."

 

[Mad_Jack]

Yeah, necrotic energy is one of those types I could see doing non-lethal damage - at least on a touch spell. It's a lot like Vader doing a Force choke - a matter of deciding when to ease back on the throttle at the right time so you don't don't kill them. it's a finesse thing. And speaking of (non-capitalized) force, that's another damage type that I can see being carefully controlled on a single-target spell, although at the extremes you'd be verging into Green Lantern territory.

Elemental damage such as acid or fire in an area effect, though, that's a lot tougher to narratively justify. (Especially if you're attempting to only have it be non-lethal to one particular target.)

 

[Lanefan]

I also require characters to state that the attack is non-lethal before the attack. This allows the target to know that the enemy isn't trying to kill them, leading to interesting RP opportunities during combat.

There's a disconnect here.

The player stating to the DM that the next swing is non-lethal shouldn't automatically mean the player's character is saying the same thing to its opponent! Sure, the PC can certainly say something like "Look, I'm not trying to kill you here", or the foe can maybe figure out on its own that the PC is pulling her blows...but it shouldn't be automatic; nor should it be automatic that PCs always know if an opponent is pulling its blows for whatever reason e.g. slave market profit, or roast PC tastes better when they go in alive.

Also the backwards time logic (choosing after the fact) just bugs the crap out of me.

Agreed.

Lanefan