D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Enrahim]

It may be that you are reading "destroyed" and "killed" as processes rather than states. Consider the rule for objects "An object reduced to 0 hit points is destroyed". For an object, "destroyed" is the state that results from being reduced to 0 hit points.

So for minions, destroyed is the state that they go to from taking any damage. Consider this question: once a creature is in the state "killed" can it be knocked unconscious? No, because it has already been killed. What the Knocking Creatures Unconscious rule does is allow players to choose between going to one or other of the unconscious or killed states. Not to undo killed.

With minions, players have no such choice because minions are destroyed by taking any amount of damage. That specific overriding general per the principle on PHB 11.

It appear you some place here jump from "destroyed" to "killed"? If you accept merely being killed can justify the label "destroyed" on a minion, what is the problem with also labeling merely being rendered unconscious "destroyed"? (Or labeling a minion with merely a broken wrist "destroyed", or labeling a minion with broken morale, fleeing, "destroyed")

That is I do not see the destroyed as overriding the general principle in the PHB, as it operates on a different and undefined term. And indeed if you consider it an override, I demonstrated above that as "destroyed" need to be understood in a different sense than the literal, that this override could actually go in the other direction, allowing a minion at 0 hp to get away with weaker consequences than going unconscious, rather than forcing them into more severe consequence territory.

 

[clearstream]

It appear you some place here jump from "destroyed" to "killed"? If you accept merely being killed can justify the label "destroyed" on a minion, what is the problem with also labeling merely being rendered unconscious "destroyed"? (Or labeling a minion with merely a broken wrist "destroyed", or labeling a minion with broken morale, fleeing, "destroyed")

That's not my jump. @Maxperson gave example text from the DMG showing them to be synonymous, and @Lanefan (I think it was) explained why. I accept their contention although it doesn't affect my arguments.

That is I do not see the destroyed as overriding the general principle in the PHB, as it operates on a different and undefined term. And indeed if you consider it an override, I demonstrated above that as "destroyed" need to be understood in a different sense than the literal, that this override could actually go in the other direction, allowing a minion at 0 hp to get away with weaker consequences than going unconscious, rather than forcing them into more severe consequence territory.

Supposing arguendo that we reject it as synonymous, then there is still a plain meaning of "destroyed" that applies equally well. If you decide instead to understand it "in a different sense than the literal" then it can mean whatever you like.

And how do you go about picking which words to give such special interpretation? Why not read the rest of the game text "in a different sense than the literal"? The choice seems led by the argument.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

RE: Hit points are meat. Last night's session, I had the joyous task of trying to explain how Vicious Mockery rendered a frantic deer dead/unconscious because the bard told him he couldn't swim.

RE: Killed vs. Dead vs. Destroyed. Does anyone here really play D&D this way at their table? Does any group sit down and parse each sentence in the rulebook on some sort of legal burden interpretation? How is whether or not you can KO a minion not just a GM interpretation situation rather than argued in court? Can you each be right in your ruling....for your own table?

 

[James Gasik]

I knew someone who refused to use spells that did acid damage because of having seen pictures of women who'd been subjected to acid attacks. And honestly, if RPGs actually dealt with scarring from burns or acid, or the effects of frostbite or actual poisons, or with what lightning or super-loud noises can do to a body, I'd have to agree. I have a feeling that the only D&D damage-dealing spells that don't violate some real-world human rights laws are the ones that deal force damage or bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage. And force is only a guess because we don't have any good analogies as to a real-world damage type.

Yeah, that's probably why the various damage types are so vestigial in 5e. If you actually considered what being hit by things like thunder or necrotic damage would do to you, it'd be a very different experience.

 

[Maxperson]

It may be that you are reading "destroyed" and "killed" as processes rather than states. Consider the rule for objects "An object reduced to 0 hit points is destroyed". For an object, "destroyed" is the state that results from being reduced to 0 hit points.

So for minions, destroyed is the state that they go to from taking any damage. Consider this question: once a creature is in the state "killed" can it be knocked unconscious? No, because it has already been killed. What the Knocking Creatures Unconscious rule does is allow players to choose between going to one or other of the unconscious or killed states. Not to undo killed.

The answer to that question is yes by the rules. You don't declare that you are rendering a creature unconscious until the DM says it's dead, then you get to unwind it and instead knock it out. If you had to declare in advance before the creature dies that you are knocking it out, then the answer to that question would be no.

In the fiction the creature never dies. In the rules it dies and then stops being dead and is unconscious instead.

 

[Maxperson]

RE: Hit points are meat. Last night's session, I had the joyous task of trying to explain how Vicious Mockery rendered a frantic deer dead/unconscious because the bard told him he couldn't swim.

RE: Killed vs. Dead vs. Destroyed. Does anyone here really play D&D this way at their table? Does any group sit down and parse each sentence in the rulebook on some sort of legal burden interpretation? How is whether or not you can KO a minion not just a GM interpretation situation rather than argued in court? Can you each be right in your ruling....for your own table?

No. I doubt many of us run games the same way we argue them here. That's part of the fun of these discussions. We can argue the minutia and what RAW means, while still playing it much differently in real life.

How I argue what RAW means is often different from how I run my game. I often disagree with the rules and change them.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless you take a damage type to which you are resistant, immune, or vulnerable. Or poison. You have to be contacted in those situations or it doesn't make sense.

Poison is the only one of those that needs contact in my opinion. Immune does no damage, so contact isn't really relevant to this discussion. Resistant and vulnerable can just cause more damage, speeding or slowing the creature's advance towards the 50% show of damage and the final hit that causes death.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

No. I doubt many of us run games the same way we argue them here. That's part of the fun of these discussions. We can argue the minutia and what RAW means, while still playing it much differently in real life.

That makes sense and I hope it's the truth for just about everyone here. I certainly have spent many hours here engaging in the same sort of debates.

Over time my view of what D&D (or any RPG system) is has really changed. I no longer view it as a concrete and important set of LAWS THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED and instead a bunch of suggestions for shared vocabulary amongst the players.

This change is so deep in my core that I find arguing about whether or not a minion can be KOed instead of just obliterated almost humorously nonsensical. Of course they can (or can't) as determined by the GM. Nothing else enters into the equation!

I get that for many these multiple hills to die on are for entertainment purposes, but for myself it obscures the more interesting philosophical debate which tells us about who we are as gamers in a more profound sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, that's probably why the various damage types are so vestigial in 5e. If you actually considered what being hit by things like thunder or necrotic damage would do to you, it'd be a very different experience.

Honestly, that'd be true of most attacks if people had seen serious wounds before. Exterior wounding of any account is--not pretty--at the best of times.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That makes sense and I hope it's the truth for just about everyone here. I certainly have spent many hours here engaging in the same sort of debates.

Over time my view of what D&D (or any RPG system) is has really changed. I no longer view it as a concrete and important set of LAWS THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED and instead a bunch of suggestions for shared vocabulary amongst the players.

This change is so deep in my core that I find arguing about whether or not a minion can be KOed instead of just obliterated almost humorously nonsensical. Of course they can (or can't) as determined by the GM. Nothing else enters into the equation!

I get that for many these multiple hills to die on are for entertainment purposes, but for myself it obscures the more interesting philosophical debate which tells us about who we are as gamers in a more profound sense.

Not to put too fine a point on it but--different people care about different things. News at 11.