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

[Shiroiken]

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.

I'll agree that it shouldn't be automatic to know the attack is non-lethal, but that's what Insight and Perception are for. As for why, one of the most terrifying moments for our Dragon Sorceress was the moment after she realized the Minotaur she was fighting was only attempting to subdue her. The player freaked out considerably

 

[Alatar]

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.)

I agree. I think limiting non-lethal to one-on-one melee makes sense.

As for calling it after the fact, I just accept that as a game mechanic.

 

[Li Shenron]

The Sage Advice is clear, but I don't follow it, because it means you can knock someone out with a torch or a switchblade (or claws), which doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't pass a basic "sanity check", we just overrule it.

 

[Yunru]

The Sage Advice is clear, but I don't follow it, because it means you can knock someone out with a torch or a switchblade (or claws), which doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't pass a basic "sanity check", we just overrule it.

Just hit the with the butt...

Hehe "butt"

 

[Satyrn]

The Sage Advice is clear, but I don't follow it, because it means you can knock someone out with a torch or a switchblade (or claws), which doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't pass a basic "sanity check", we just overrule it.

You could describe the claw attack as deep enough to cause the foe to collapse in pain, and bleeding out, falling unconciously. A wound bad enough to drop but not kill. And the attacker, satisfied with that result, walks away without digging the claws in for a last, fatal twist.

But I will also agree with what you're saying - it's weird that a character intent on subduing a foe would use a normally fatal attack to do so. I find this to be story consideration, though, and why I also agree with the others here who say that the decision to not kill maybe ought to be made and declared before the attack is resolved - so everyone at the table can share in the same story of the party attempting to take the foe alive.

But I'm also fine with deciding after the attack is resolved. The story just becomes different. In this case, the party, at the climax of the fight, chooses to spare the foe's life.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

One of the things I was thinking of in general that can resolve distaste for the retroactive effect applications in 5e, is to conceptually break up the sequence of an action and its effects to see how it works. (That is a horrible sentence, but I don't care enough to change it.)

1) Before you attack: Anything you have to declare here, is stuff that you are thinking about before you ever start swinging your weapon.
2) When you make an attack: This is when you first start maneuvering for that strike.
3) When you hit: This is before your weapon makes contact with your foe, but when you can see what the outcome is going to be. Swords are in air, people are parrying, and you can see, "I've got him!"
4) When you take damage: This point is when the weapon is hitting the armor, or getting very close, but still hasn't drawn blood. Similar to the previous one, just further along the way.
5) After damage has been applied: This is really when the sword cleaves into the flesh--the point where no class features are going to jump in and remove the damage without explicit magic. Everything up to that point can be zoomed into with a slow motion camera.

Some class features have even more options including things like, "after you see the result of the die, but before the DM tells you whether you hit or miss." They just represent zooming in even closer on the details (the example would be between 2 and 3).

I ran some Battle Master maneuvers through my mind that way and it seemed to work out pretty well conceptually.

 

[Li Shenron]

You could describe the claw attack as deep enough to cause the foe to collapse in pain, and bleeding out, falling unconciously. A wound bad enough to drop but not kill. And the attacker, satisfied with that result, walks away without digging the claws in for a last, fatal twist.

But I will also agree with what you're saying - it's weird that a character intent on subduing a foe would use a normally fatal attack to do so. I find this to be story consideration, though, and why I also agree with the others here who say that the decision to not kill maybe ought to be made and declared before the attack is resolved - so everyone at the table can share in the same story of the party attempting to take the foe alive.

But I'm also fine with deciding after the attack is resolved. The story just becomes different. In this case, the party, at the climax of the fight, chooses to spare the foe's life.

I actually like when the players decide something different than just killing, so on one hand I'd like to encourage it, but then I am at odds with this rule. Part of me would like to treat the weapon as improvised when not used in the way it was built for. Alternatively you can always allow an unarmed strike for knocking the foe out.

 

[guachi]

I guess my memory is faulty as I would have said "spells can't cause non lethal damage" but if the rules say "melee attack" then melee spell attacks can surely cause non lethal damage.

I guess a shocking grasp is like tasing someone in that case.

 

[sydbar]

There can be a feat where you can deal non lethal damage, just like there was in 3.5. I actually made 3.5 mage that acted as a bounty hunter and took the feat that allowed you to deal non lethal damage with damage dealing spells!

 

[MechaPilot]

There can be a feat where you can deal non lethal damage, just like there was in 3.5. I actually made 3.5 mage that acted as a bounty hunter and took the feat that allowed you to deal non lethal damage with damage dealing spells!

I'm sorry but requiring a feat to do non-lethal with a spell is a huge requirement. Feats are a very limited resource, and they're already competing with stat bumps as it is.