D&D 5E Can a spell be cast to cause non lethal damage?
- Thread starter MichaelArkAngel
- Start date
Tony Vargas
Legend
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...
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:
The Myopic Sniper
Hero
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.
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
Legend
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.
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.
Indeed. With those examples, I was merely attempting to establish the consistent use of terminology. Because I'm a pedant.
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
Legend
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.)
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
Victoria Rules
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.
Agreed.
Lanefan
Similar Threads
