I think anyone who would swing a sword at someone's leg or shoulder in an attempt to be non-lethal would be a crazy person. This is a game mechanic that pretty much REQUIRES metagame thinking.
Expert swordsmen did that. They didn't always want to kill their opponents. First blood and not to the death. Sound familiar?
I don't think it would ever be reasonable to assume that hacking someones shoulder rather than their head would simply render them unconscious.
Then don't hack. More than one way to use a sword.
Someone who is near the fire tending to it, perhaps crouched down to do so, will very likely be able to pull a piece of wood from the fire and use it as a club. There is no reason for a character not to be able to do so. Or, no reasonable reason, I should say.
You really think it's unreasonable for all the wood in a fire to be on fire?
For me, I would think of a piece of firewood as a club. A club that also happen to be on fire. I'd let the PC make an attack with it....maybe say that they take 2 points of fire damage as a result, or some other minor consequence, and then let things play out. Perhaps the burnt end shatters upon striking its target, and then the club cannot be used again. Seems reasonable. There are lots of ways to go with it that could be decided on the spot.
A club is specially balanced and shaped for easy use. A random stick has low odds of being able to function well as a club.
Not "in hand" but "at hand". Again, twisting the words. It would be more at hand than a weapon, which is the logic behind grabbing it in lieu of the weapon. PERFECTLY REASONABLE LOGIC from the character's perspective.
Why would a stick in the fire be more at hand that the sword worn on the waist?
Come on, man. If a new player who had no idea about fire vulnerability of trolls decided that his character would grab a log out of a fire and swing it at the troll, there is no way even you would consider that cheating. So therefore, the experienced player is limited in the options available to him compared to those available to the new player.
I would point out to the new player that his sword would be more a more effective weapon. The new player would most likely not follow through with the attempt to use the inferior fire stick. The fire stick is still the inferior weapon against the troll by the way. The troll is far more likely to kill and eat the PC while he plinks away at it with a stick than if he just beat it down with a much more damaging sword.
Ah, so you would impose the game mechanics onto the situation.
Heavens no. The mechanics are already present. Stick a hand in a fire and you take damage.
He may or he may not. If he did, it would likely be sheathed or otherwise stowed. Which means something near to hand would be quicker to grab. So a character very well may reasonably do that....unless the player's knowledge of turns and initiative and weapon damage dice came into that decision.
Picking up a dropped weapon is no more efficient than pulling one out of the sheath. Grabbing the stick out of the fire is the equivalent of picking up a dropped weapon. The only way it could be quicker is if it was already in hand.
The lore? Are you kidding? Do we need lore for animals that actually exist?
Every edition of D&D thinks so. They supply lore for animals.
Having wolves be afraid of fire would not be a house rule....
Fear and morale are mechanics. Show me the existing rule that says wolves in D&D are afraid of fire.
But an archer can shoot a shoulder rather than a heart. Or a leg.
Incorrect. An archer can shoot AT a shoulder rather than the heart. Once the arrow is in flight, though, the archer cannot control the arrow OR the moving target, so the arrow can and often does strike where the archer didn't aim. A sword, however, can be altered in mid swing to take the movement of the target into account.
No person swinging a sword at another would ever be certain that he could land a non-lethal blow. There would always be the risk of killing the target outright, or in causing a wound that proved lethal over time.
Not if you know where the major arteries and veins are and work to avoid them.
Generally, a sword strike to the leg doesn't knock someone out so much as cause them to bleed massive amounts. Not unless you're playing a game. And generally, no one would expect it to, unless they were characters who knew the game rules.
Sure it does. Blood loss often causes loss of consciousness.
Your interpretation of the bit on page 235 to me seems very off. It in no way implies any behavior at all as cheating. I think you have a conclusion you have already drawn, and you are then reading into the description and seeing it as justifying your conclusion.
If it's not cheating, then why the directive to discourage and curb the behavior?
