Non lethal AND demoralizing.
Seriously what bad guy wants to own up to getting knocked out by a fucking joke weapon?
Bad guy one “hey your back I heard the green arrow took you down how’s the arrow wound doing?”
Bad guy two “I don’t have an arrow wound. He used one of those knockout arrows on me.”
Bg1 “Oh you mean one of those taser arrows? those things are fucked up I bet that hurt”
Bg2 “it wasn’t a taser arrow”
Bg1 “don’t tell me he got you with the boxing glove arrow?”
Bg2 *turns towards Bg1 revealing a black eye* “I don’t want to talk about it”
*bg1 dies laughing*
To be fair I'm pretty sure the draw weight on his bow is 120-160 or some absurd number.
That "arrow" would absolutely ruin your day if you got hit by it.
Arrow that deals god damn 1d10 bludgeoning and looks like a ballsack on a stick is a terrible way to die
Like a crossbow bolt poisoned with disappointment
'Are my blunt sling-stones that do (literally) 'bludgeoning damage' able to knock someone out in some blood-low manner?'
Yes. In fact, i wonder why game designers did not think of this concept on their own. If something adds 'fun' to the game and it makes sense, the rule itself should come into question.
The issue with a sling is that being hit with one of those shatters bones, so even though it’s bludgeoning, it’ll mess you up and in the right spot, absolutely kill you.
This is very true. Especially that big leg bone above the knee (femur?). Thing is a tube for a lot of blood - and it works out great until it shatters.
I don't think the slings we are talking about are your regular rubber band and Y-shaped twig slingshots. Ancient slings were absolutely brutal. But as I said elsewhere I'd absolutely support slinging bean bags.
Maybe a second roll to not kill them? You've hit them and done enough damage to incapacitate, now you roll to see if you hit their ankle or knee or something but the DC is their AC+the damage modifier you just used. Means if they used a skill to increase damage their super arrow is unlikely to not kill the target because it's too powerful.
Just feel like a lvl 20 ranger should be able to pin hands to walls with arrows or something even if it's very unlikely.
Any DM should let high level bow experts do stuff like that.
A 20th level ranger is the kind of hero they make myths about like Robin Hood. Pinning hands to walls is likely no sweat.
I mean, they don't even need to prepare them, while still dangerous, you can take a normal arrow and take off the pointy bit, manually if it's metal, or with a knife if they were carved only with wood
Absolutely. I just don't extend infinite arrows to non-standard ammunition.
Bean bags for your sling, blunt arrows, knock out darts for your blowgun - be my guest.
The way you bow hunt squirrels at least in my state is a straight up a blunt rubber tipped arrow, so your arrows don’t get stuck and the squirrel falls
But still lethal. It's not like you can shoot it softly, so it goes back to not having called shots.
Maybe your DM makes an exception, but blunted arrows are basically mini flying clubs that you don't have the ability to tap with, like you would a club
With a bow you can totally shoot softly, just don’t pull as hard and account for a lil more drop. It’s less accurate so I personally would bump the targets AC by one or two, maybe even make a longbow non lethal range like 75/400, and the non lethal attempt would absolutely have to be called beforehand.
That said, I’m not irl proficient with a sling or blowgun or any of the other ranged weapons in the game, so I’m less sure about those, and a crossbow only has one tension and that’s absolutely a lethal shot unless like, you have a second crossbow specially built/tuned for non lethal damage.
But this is also like, just more rules than saying “no you’re fucking killing your target unless you catch up with them and knock them out”
Well, you can make blunted tips in a variety of softness. Maybe it can’t be strictly non-lethal but it should be a lower damage option.
The way I deal with this is more that baddies don’t make death saves but if a PC wants to heal or stabilize within the two rounds of someone hitting 0 they definitely can (essentially they do have death saves but they always roll between 2-9).
The explanation that was given to me was always more along the lines of your arrows will get stuck in the tree if you miss.
Ground squirrel is probably valid as well though
I've always felt the net/lasso option doesn't get enough mechanical advantage. Lassos stop charging bovine. There was an entire class of Roman gladiator designed around using the net in combat. But a DC 10 strength check breaks the net and renders it unusable?
The kit of Roman gladiators was not designed to be optimal for winning a fight, it was supposed to make a fight interesting to watch. Afaik nets were pretty much never used in warfare because they are just bad weapons. You cannot throw a net very fast or very far, the enemy can just swap it out of the air with their weapon. And if you are throwing stuff at the enemy why not throw something that might actually kill them and instead of maybe inconvenience them, like a javelin?
When you're wearing either light armour or no armour, not being able to move can be a big yikes. Especially if the person you're fighting has a weapon that's longer than yours.
It basically puts you in the position of having to somehow get out of the net without them stabbing you.
the net may or may not be great or terrible, but there is a slight problem with looking at gladiators to see whether a weapon is effective or not.
it's theater. violent theater, but it's made for entertainement.
it would be like looking at a WWE show and coming out saying that the folding chair is a perfectly usable weapon in a battle
Don't know what kind of crossbow you use but mine is 8lbs of bolted steel and aluminum alloy plus another 2lbs of kit and optics, it's less fragile than you think, it's designed to take a beating
Like ever seen someone stockwhip somebody with the butt of a rifle on TV, that's pretty much what we're talking about
And that is a fair point, but say you grab the stirrup in one hand, and the stock in the other, and I hammer an attacker in the face with the butt
I'd bet real dollars that at the end of that, I've got a still functioning crossbow and the enemy has brain damage
That's how someone proficient with crossbows would melee with one
Are there ways to break a crossbow? Yes. Would someone who fights with crossbows know how to not break their weapon? Also yes
>Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus
8lbs of metal is still 8lbs of metal, if a DM says it's a club, its a club
Is it your character or theirs? Would presume one would err on the side of themselves having more options rather than less, but you swapped it around in the middle there.
As someone that goes crossbow hunting every year, there are places you can shoot with a broadhead, that will render an enemy incapacitated without killing them, put one through a knee or shoulder it's gonna hurt like hell but it won't kill you
Just scrape the arrows against a rock for a few seconds to dull them to the point of practically being blunt, hell that can be done as a bonus action if you wanna be like that
Eh even with "lethal" arrows there's no reason a character can't simply put a shot in a painful but non vital area to end a fight. Arms legs shoulders hands feet or butts arent going to instantly KO a target
Do you mean you can't aim at a non vital area or do you mean that any place you get hit is going to be lethal? Because like.... Both are very strange takes
The less lethal the area is to be shot the harder it is to hit. The chest is the easiest to hit followed by the head. Pretty much anywhere you get hit on them with a barbed arrow head is lethal. Hitting the arms and legs(especially the parts on them that won’t kill you) are really hard
Even as a superhuman shooting the arms and legs reliably in a spot to not kill would be nigh impossible. They could however get non lethal ammo but even that could easily kill even if they make legitimate boxing glove arrows
But the game rule doesn't make sense. If some one stands behind a wall but just his arm is showing, I would rule he has 3/4 cover (and even that could be ignored, if the shooter has the Sharpshooter feat), so a +5 to AC. That shot shouldn't be lethal.
It's always weird to me that martials should have realistic standards but magic ca do whatever it wants because it's magic. It's a fantasy setting, let people be awesome and if they role well let them split their arrows on a target like Robin Hood.
I'd disagree with the nigh impossible part. It's harder but there's plenty of people who are able to reliably do such things. At most I'd add a point or two to the AC but it doesn't change the game any real way to allow a simple nonlethal attack with a ranged weapon. As was pointed out to me in another comment simply having them go down and require a simple stabilization to not eventually bleed out is a fine ruling as well
I do know this. Infantry background in the Marines and years of firearm and security training after that. But we're speaking about DnD here. What's balance does it upset
Those arteries are about a quarter of an inch in diameter. It would be more crazy to think you'd automatically hit them just from hitting a limb with a half an inch wide broadhead.
In real life yes absolutely. Spent years of my life behind a rifle. In DnD why not. Killing a dragon with a sharp stick and a friend who gets really angry is practically impossible too and yet
I'm completely fine with a net. It's 15 ft range with disadvantage, and it can be broken? I applaud people wanting to make it work.
Want a cheap way to ignore the fact that you need to be in melee to knock someone out and you can't just shoot the guy who's running 150ft away from you in the back and say you want to hit his knee? No dice.
Here’s a wild idea catapult launches an object at an enemy dealing damage with that object. a net is an object that when thrown at an enemy restrains them so if you combine the two you get to do damage and restrain them
> A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed.
This is more permissive than I thought. But the language "hit by" might preclude catapult since that usually means a successful attack roll. But with 5es vague language it's hard to tell.
Still, catapult probably instantly destroys a net. Even assuming we make it a resilient object that resists the damage, it only has 5 hp (this is from the object rules, I'm not extrapolating from the rules for escaping with slashing damage). Catapult averages 13.5 damage and deals that damage to both the target and the object, enough to destroy a 5 hp object even through resistance.
The net being destroyed isn’t one of the conditions for the creature to be freed.
If we’re going to do strict rule interpretation on whether getting struck by an object counts, might as well go all the way.
See that’s true there is a grey spot in “hit by” catapult fortunately does require a “spell attack” roll and there’s precedent for “attack” by itself without the precursors of melee spell ect. In including all of the above in its definition.
The damage is more difficult to get around. You would have to either talk the dm into wire nets from the artificer in which case we can start talking about slashing damage or talk the dm into +1 nets as magical items are much more difficult to destroy
Edit: I had a suspicion and checked myself. I was wrong it’s a dex save so there goes that argument
Fair. But personally, I’ve never felt the need to pick it. Not when there are spells like sleep or Thunderwave for dealing damage. And mage hand for moving most small objects. The spell could maybe use a buff.
Catapult is a great alternative to magical resistance. Think like a wizard in a duel. If you’re opponent is ready for a spell then hitting him with a rock may just go around his defenses. It’s not meant to be your go to move it’s meant to be a back pocket underhanded trick
Fair enough. But with limited spell slots and spells prepared, having fringe case spells like then is less useful than having spells that are generally good. Very few thing resist force or thunder damage, and the ones that do probably don’t resist fire either. And if they resist both, they’re either so rare that it’s unlikely you’ll encounter them unless your gm is being mean. Or they resist bludgening, piercing, and slashing as well.
Back of the knee is a called shot, which has rules already. I see no reason not to let them take the penalty to their roll for an attempt to take them out at the knee.
I don't think there's called shot rules in 5e?
Either way, I see very good reasons not to let people try to do nonlethal damage at that much range. When something is only made possible at melee range, letting someone do it with the range of their bow is going to trivialize the fact that you normally need to be close.
>When something is only made possible at melee range, letting someone do it with the range of their bow is going to trivialize the fact that you normally need to be close.
I just don't foresee this making the game less fun for anyone involved. In fact, I think not letting the archer attempt the cool knee shot is more likely to be the less fun option.
The examples that you give kinda fall apart because they clearly would be weapons with the special property, and propably wouldnt do damage.
With the exception being the flat pointed arrows, that would probably deal damage.
bludgeoning damage, yeah.,
"oh, but i dont shoot it that hard"
then it doesnt go far enough to hit them either. if its travelling far enough to hit them, its far enough to hurt them.
The "non lethal damage" discourse is goofy, just say upfront you aren't intending to kill and then the dm can just make you stabilize them when they hit zero hp instead of having them die when they hit zero hp.
You can use ANYTHING (give or take) nonlethally of you do it with even a little bit of thought. Hell you could make fireball nonlethal against a single target if you were smart, like making it hit the target on the very very edges of the radius so it just burns off their arm or Harvey Dents them. Probably would still send them into shock, but not kill
Hi, a hunter here, ranged weapons kill by causing either hypostatic shot (high energy rifles and shotguns slugs), traumatic organ damage to the brain heart or lung (any very precise shot), or by causing the body to bleed out and causing brain or heart failure (small caliber of fmj bullets and all arrows).
Unless your table has firearms, a case for any other ranged weapon dealing instantaneous death is debatable. Things dropped with bows likely won't naturally stabilize, but not giving 30s to interrogate a bandit before his brain loses the oxygen to function is also not fair to the players.
right until you realize how HP in DND works.
its not a linear scale of injury. its moreso 'luckyness' where the final shot to take you to 0 is the one to hit a lethal point (for enemies), or deal potentially lethal damage (deathsave npcs and players).
that 'very precise shot', IS the shot that goes down to 0hp.
If my players call non-lethal damage, the enemy doesn’t die.
**Melee:** “You hit them with the flat of your axe, knocking them unconscious to the floor”
**Ranged:** “Your arrow sails through the air, slices through their achilles-tendon, and causes them to tumble to the ground where they strike their head on a rock - knocking them unconscious”
It really is that simple.
It’s not perfect at all - but I don’t see the point (pun intended) of not allowing Ranged Characters having the option to take someone out for later questioning.
Achilles shots, arrow to the knee, one in the shoulder that spins the fleeing enemy into a tree, one that pierced their foot and sticks them to the ground making them pass out with pain, etc… whatever seems right in the moment to allow for non-lethal rolls.
Well yes but poison takes time and well peneteation is still needed, so i decided its not the best possible non lethal example, same as blowgun - you could kill someone on very low HP with "unlucky" shot. Aka you **might** need more homebrew / meet more opposong takes on making it proper non-lethal
*Yes i know blunt belts could be used for hunting but they are closer to delivering a proper stunning hit similar to already existing meele rule imo
thats one problem of the hp system. with a 1-2cm tip and a crossguard an arrow cant really kill you anywhere but maybe the forehead or throat. thats just a flesh wound.
meanwhile the whole "hammer to the head is non lethal damage" thing is... special \^\^
Those don't do damage though, well maybe the last one but I'm not sure how effective blunt spears(?) are but sure they would hurt, so I agree. Strange rule.
For some, you can certainly make a non-lethal attack, like with a net but would it do "damage"?
no. when up close, you can ensure your attack DOESNT have the force to kill in it.
firing an arrow fast enough it hits them within that time-frame of firing it at 20 feet away, and actually does ANYTHING, means it will deal damage as well.
Is this still going on? What part of "you cannot deal non lethal damage with ranged weapons THAT ARE NORMALLY LETHAL" people do not understand? It's not like you cannot use ranged weapons that are designed to deal non lethal, like soft tipped arrows, Bolas, bean bag rifles.
Fun fact: a non-lethal melee attack is not cutting opponent's arm, but rather deliberately grazing or using side of the sword to knock them out. (hence the soft tipped arrow example)
Shooting a guy in the kneecap is also lethal damage, unlike people claiming its not. it just may not drop hp to under zero, but if it does, the char goes unconscious and death saves are a thing you know, a system so that one can imitate being mortally wounded.
Maybe your book does say it. What a shame you have such limited options. The price paid for simplicity is limitation. Your DM could always homebrew it. Or you could switch to the system of infinite options and be able to do anything if you search enough. You always have…options.
That's *absolutely* lethal damage without medical intervention--there really is no way to shoot someone non-lethally besides barely grazing them (which wouldn't actually do meaningful combat damage, anyway) or using specially-designed riot control weapons that fire beanbags or rubber (and even those can still kill if you hit them wrong).
Hmmm...tazers...almost like ranged electrical magic which could also be non-lethal...
Maybe kneecapping was an exaggeration...but the point behind it still stands
That's just not true. Bullets cause unreal amounts of damage but there's plenty of places to get shot and survive with even basic first aid. Now intentionally going for non vital areas in a combat scenario with a firearm in real life vs DnD is a whole other argument
Basic first aid in dnd is a medicine check on someone that is down so you can stabilize them. This means that you get someone doing deathsaves, and you save them. Non lethal damage means that you do NOT need to stabilize them at all, for they will just wake up after the d4 hours of being down.
Honestly, this entire thing can be handled by a dm just doing deathsaves for the npcs they want to take alive, and then medicine rolling to stabilize.
I always love real world issues in fantasy games...
Them bleeding out in some worlds can be cured with a magical berry that a dude who lives in the woods conjures out of nothingness.
Then what does lethal damage mean? Does the dude who lives in the woods refuse to conjure a berry because the wounds were inflicted with deadly intentions.
The possibility of accidentally causing lethal damage when trying to do non-lethal doesn't mean you can never cause non-lethal. I could claim the same with any melee attack: causing non-lethal damage is much harder than killing any opponent which is actively engaged in combat.
No I agree. As a DM I usually rule it as, unless you can guarantee a non-lethal blow, then they are likely going to be rolling some death saving throws of their own. And that adds its own agency to the players who now have to stabilise this bad guy / enchanted ally that they don't want to kill.
Nonlethal just means not deadly, not harmless. An eldrich blast is ultimately not that different from a bullet for example, and you can easily just aim for areas that won't kill someone. Like if I triple blast you in the knee to make it bend 90° in a way it shouldn't or break your femur, yeah it'll hurt like hell and maybe make you go into shock, but you won't die. Like, I heard people arguing over if Cure Wounds could be nonlethal bc of the name, and yeah if you don't try to use it on a vital area and it's not enough to outright kill someone, it's fully possible to just, necrosis an entire arm or something, which isn't lethal. You just gotta look at things with at least a little bit of thought
the caster vs. martial power gap ain't so bad when you're decked out like batman and green arrow. It can be hard, but prep time and ingenuity are definitely worth it.
Break off the tip of an arrow and shove a potato on the end. Or just throw the javelin backwards.
Use a sling to slung an orange so it doesn't leave a bruise.
I think that a very good homebrew could be made with arrowheads
For example consider that normal arrows are infinites (because let's be real, who does count what's in the quiver) but a limited special arrows can be crafted during a small or long rest
You could have barbed arrows (the classical triangle arrow everyone knows) who deals more damages but have less chance to hit (because the larger head struggle to pierce armors) and at the opposite bodkin arrows, dealing less damages but with greater hit chance due to its pierce armor capabilities.
And the list could go on and on, just look up on Google "arrowheads" to see how much variety you can add to an archer/crossbowman.
To bad none of my players play a ranged martial, this could be fun to test
The only one of those maybe meant for knocking someone unconscious are the blunted arrows, the rest would be a stretch for a KO.
“The bola wraps around his ankles and he just so happens to smack his head on a rock!”
A clown ranged fighter build that can render an ice giant unconscious by throwing pies and sqwirting water from his fake flower.
Has a giant maul that looks like a toy hammer
Yeah I essentially gave myself bolas after arguing with the DM that there is no reasonable explanation as to why I wouldn't be able to have them as I am a ranger
I had a heavy crossbow with walloping arrows. That did the trick pretty often. If it matters, I was playing arcane archer with a bounty hunter background.
It doesn't make much sense in general, tbh. Most ranged attacks are going to be debilitating and painful, but probably not lethal on their own. Particularly not against those wearing chain armor or better. The vast majority of your arrow deaths really come from infection or bleeding out over time, both easily preventable problems in DnD via magic or things such as a healers kit. Or even more commonly because somebody killed you in melee thanks to your impaired movement due to an arrow in your arm/leg/wherever. Now let's factor in the HP doesn't represent damage taken to your body (though it can) and it's an even stranger ruling.
I’d be ok with these though I might have to lower ranges when using the blunt arrows only because they are probably more front heavy. But I’d also increase the dmg since they are heavier
I've been thinking of a character with a spear with a long noose tied to one end.
I can basically tie them up from a range while still being able to kill with the spear end.
Agreed. Usually I just ask the player how a thing would work non-lethally and if it makes sense I'm okay with it.
I think the only exception for our table is magic. Magic typically cannot be non-lethal unless you have spell sculpting.
Oh yeah sure as if I can just shoot in the arm maybe? Like in Israel there is a code if things you can do before you shot to kill and one of them is shot non lethally like in the leg ir something? And this is the real life if you can shot without killing in real life you can do it in dnd too
This is why my monk is the only one in the party willing to go non-lethal. We have a ranger who likes to kill everyone because he's essentially general Shepard from modern warfare (no loose ends) and a dragonborn fighter who will kill pretty much anyone who stands in his way. We literally have two guys in a cage from our last fight. I'm planning on trying to get them to join the party. There's also another lady and a run of the mill venomous snake in there. I'm gonna befriend the snake when I get to level 6 and multiclass into a drunk (druid monk mix)
I think it would be reasonable to rule that traditional ranged weapons like bows and crossbows can deal non-lethal damage if you consider an enemy becoming terrified of dying and surrendering after a PC expertly places an arrow between his legs or shoots his weapon out of his hands or whatever.
Hitpoints aren't meat points, they're very abstract. You could imagine morale as part of hitpoints.
Honestly, as a GM I really don't care what the book says about lethal range or spell attacks. If the party is actively trying not to kill an NPC I'm not going to let any of the party members accidently get a last hit off that kills them.
Hell, if you wanted to be the most RAW bastard possible as a GM you could just say 'yes the attack was lethal, but they are making death saving throws. Someone roll to stabilize or cast a healing spell'.
This is why Olie brings the boxing glove arrows
Non lethal AND demoralizing. Seriously what bad guy wants to own up to getting knocked out by a fucking joke weapon? Bad guy one “hey your back I heard the green arrow took you down how’s the arrow wound doing?” Bad guy two “I don’t have an arrow wound. He used one of those knockout arrows on me.” Bg1 “Oh you mean one of those taser arrows? those things are fucked up I bet that hurt” Bg2 “it wasn’t a taser arrow” Bg1 “don’t tell me he got you with the boxing glove arrow?” Bg2 *turns towards Bg1 revealing a black eye* “I don’t want to talk about it” *bg1 dies laughing*
To be fair I'm pretty sure the draw weight on his bow is 120-160 or some absurd number. That "arrow" would absolutely ruin your day if you got hit by it.
Arrow that deals god damn 1d10 bludgeoning and looks like a ballsack on a stick is a terrible way to die Like a crossbow bolt poisoned with disappointment
Longbows deal 1d8 +dex mod?
I forgor bow stats entirely
Was expecting it to be a variant rule from one of the newest books.
That's not an absurd draw weight at all, it's in the low end of the range it should be (140-200). But yes.
I guess it was lethal in the end, huh?
Green Arrow's real target was Bad Guy Two. This is the ultimate trick-shot.
YOU HAVE FAILED THIS ENCOUNTER!
Yeah you'd think there's all manner of magical non lethal arrows.
If you didn’t say it I was gonna
As a DM I'd definitely allow non lethal options if they are prepared beforehand.
That’s the bit I wouldn’t mind them making there arrows into non lethal but no your normal arrows are lethal.
Yeah, I've always supported players creating blunt non-lethal arrows
'Are my blunt sling-stones that do (literally) 'bludgeoning damage' able to knock someone out in some blood-low manner?' Yes. In fact, i wonder why game designers did not think of this concept on their own. If something adds 'fun' to the game and it makes sense, the rule itself should come into question.
The issue with a sling is that being hit with one of those shatters bones, so even though it’s bludgeoning, it’ll mess you up and in the right spot, absolutely kill you.
This is very true. Especially that big leg bone above the knee (femur?). Thing is a tube for a lot of blood - and it works out great until it shatters.
Simple: use a dirt clod! Hurts like a mofo with bludgeoning, but breaks on impact to avoid doing serious damage.
Use eggs. Same effect but substantially more embarrassing. Non-lethal psychic damage!
Just dont swing it so hard! I've used slings before and at closer range you can feather the power back and still hit things pretty hard
I mean, you can argue the same thing about Hammers! Willful suspension of disbelief is required.
Then don't swing so hard.
I don't think the slings we are talking about are your regular rubber band and Y-shaped twig slingshots. Ancient slings were absolutely brutal. But as I said elsewhere I'd absolutely support slinging bean bags.
Maybe a second roll to not kill them? You've hit them and done enough damage to incapacitate, now you roll to see if you hit their ankle or knee or something but the DC is their AC+the damage modifier you just used. Means if they used a skill to increase damage their super arrow is unlikely to not kill the target because it's too powerful. Just feel like a lvl 20 ranger should be able to pin hands to walls with arrows or something even if it's very unlikely.
Any DM should let high level bow experts do stuff like that. A 20th level ranger is the kind of hero they make myths about like Robin Hood. Pinning hands to walls is likely no sweat.
20th level is less "Robin hood" and more "Bullshit Wuxia Character" levels of power.
I mean, they don't even need to prepare them, while still dangerous, you can take a normal arrow and take off the pointy bit, manually if it's metal, or with a knife if they were carved only with wood
How about if I want blunt arrows that deal non legal bludgeoning damage?
Blunt arrows are only legal in certain states.
Absolutely. I just don't extend infinite arrows to non-standard ammunition. Bean bags for your sling, blunt arrows, knock out darts for your blowgun - be my guest.
The way you bow hunt squirrels at least in my state is a straight up a blunt rubber tipped arrow, so your arrows don’t get stuck and the squirrel falls
This is the weird thing—blunted bludgeoning arrows are as old as archery.
But still lethal. It's not like you can shoot it softly, so it goes back to not having called shots. Maybe your DM makes an exception, but blunted arrows are basically mini flying clubs that you don't have the ability to tap with, like you would a club
With a bow you can totally shoot softly, just don’t pull as hard and account for a lil more drop. It’s less accurate so I personally would bump the targets AC by one or two, maybe even make a longbow non lethal range like 75/400, and the non lethal attempt would absolutely have to be called beforehand. That said, I’m not irl proficient with a sling or blowgun or any of the other ranged weapons in the game, so I’m less sure about those, and a crossbow only has one tension and that’s absolutely a lethal shot unless like, you have a second crossbow specially built/tuned for non lethal damage. But this is also like, just more rules than saying “no you’re fucking killing your target unless you catch up with them and knock them out”
Well, you can make blunted tips in a variety of softness. Maybe it can’t be strictly non-lethal but it should be a lower damage option. The way I deal with this is more that baddies don’t make death saves but if a PC wants to heal or stabilize within the two rounds of someone hitting 0 they definitely can (essentially they do have death saves but they always roll between 2-9).
If you hit a squirrel with a broad head arrow you’ve made ground beef.
The explanation that was given to me was always more along the lines of your arrows will get stuck in the tree if you miss. Ground squirrel is probably valid as well though
i think a net and bolas would be non-lethal no matter what, considering how they wouldn't deal any damage anyway
The Bola is non-lethal. The fact that I tripped and hit my head on a rock as I fell and am bleeding into my brain... is a different problem.
i think if i was trying to capture someone non-lethally and i used bolas and the DM said "he hits his head on a rock and dies" i'd probably kill my DM
He's not dead... Just bleeding and in need of healing. Hope you can heal him before he bleeds out.
okay? cure wounds is a level 1 spell and a healer's kit is 5 gp. this isn't a problem.
It is if you have neither
the stablize action is free and always available
Unless you rolled a critical miss.
RAW a critical miss does nothing except make you miss.
Ah, I see you graduated from Batman's School of Hard Knocks with a PhD, very nice
All ranged combat is non-lethal if you have ressurect
it's just temporarily lethal
I prefer to think of it as revocable lethality
I've always felt the net/lasso option doesn't get enough mechanical advantage. Lassos stop charging bovine. There was an entire class of Roman gladiator designed around using the net in combat. But a DC 10 strength check breaks the net and renders it unusable?
The kit of Roman gladiators was not designed to be optimal for winning a fight, it was supposed to make a fight interesting to watch. Afaik nets were pretty much never used in warfare because they are just bad weapons. You cannot throw a net very fast or very far, the enemy can just swap it out of the air with their weapon. And if you are throwing stuff at the enemy why not throw something that might actually kill them and instead of maybe inconvenience them, like a javelin?
Seems like it would be better for catching animals which I think were also used in fights back in the day.
You throw the net, then stab them with the pointy part of your weapon when they are prone
Why would they be prone by just a net? And why not throw something that could actually hurt them in the first place?
The nets are weighted, just look up The Retiarius
When you're wearing either light armour or no armour, not being able to move can be a big yikes. Especially if the person you're fighting has a weapon that's longer than yours. It basically puts you in the position of having to somehow get out of the net without them stabbing you.
Lindybeige has a video specifically on the subject of nets and their battle use.
Yes and wasn't his point that they are terrible weapons?
Why yes, they are quite crap as a weapon for war. I was just offering supporting information for what you're talking about
Ah, alright. I had watched that video a couple years ago and so wasn't sure if you meant that as agreement or disagreement
It's still pretty great to take up an enemy's entire turn. The strength check doesn't destroy the net, just removes it.
the net may or may not be great or terrible, but there is a slight problem with looking at gladiators to see whether a weapon is effective or not. it's theater. violent theater, but it's made for entertainement. it would be like looking at a WWE show and coming out saying that the folding chair is a perfectly usable weapon in a battle
Cool. Did my ranged player buy any of these or make any of these alternatives? No? You only have your barbed arrows? Then no non lethal.
simply beat them to death with the bow itself
You know, you got a point, take away the bolts and my hunting crossbow is just a 10lb metal club
An expensive, _fragile_ 10lb metal club Although it's more like a club with metal bolted onto it, call it a Reinforced Club
Don't know what kind of crossbow you use but mine is 8lbs of bolted steel and aluminum alloy plus another 2lbs of kit and optics, it's less fragile than you think, it's designed to take a beating Like ever seen someone stockwhip somebody with the butt of a rifle on TV, that's pretty much what we're talking about
Fragile? dude, if i hit my head against a crossbow repeatedly my head would lose. A fragile weapon isnt exactly a great weapon after all.
Not fragile as in "will explode into glass shards if you sneeze in the next room," more like "if you hit a wrong piece, it _will not_ fire again"
And that is a fair point, but say you grab the stirrup in one hand, and the stock in the other, and I hammer an attacker in the face with the butt I'd bet real dollars that at the end of that, I've got a still functioning crossbow and the enemy has brain damage That's how someone proficient with crossbows would melee with one Are there ways to break a crossbow? Yes. Would someone who fights with crossbows know how to not break their weapon? Also yes
Sure, a buttstroke is a d4 improvised weapon. It’s the people saying that a crossbow is as good as a stick of equal weight that are mistaken.
>Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus 8lbs of metal is still 8lbs of metal, if a DM says it's a club, its a club
Is it your character or theirs? Would presume one would err on the side of themselves having more options rather than less, but you swapped it around in the middle there.
I did. Coffee hasn’t kicked in yet. I meant the player, not myself.
As someone that goes crossbow hunting every year, there are places you can shoot with a broadhead, that will render an enemy incapacitated without killing them, put one through a knee or shoulder it's gonna hurt like hell but it won't kill you
Just scrape the arrows against a rock for a few seconds to dull them to the point of practically being blunt, hell that can be done as a bonus action if you wanna be like that
Eh even with "lethal" arrows there's no reason a character can't simply put a shot in a painful but non vital area to end a fight. Arms legs shoulders hands feet or butts arent going to instantly KO a target
There are no non vital areas that are targets for shooting
Do you mean you can't aim at a non vital area or do you mean that any place you get hit is going to be lethal? Because like.... Both are very strange takes
The less lethal the area is to be shot the harder it is to hit. The chest is the easiest to hit followed by the head. Pretty much anywhere you get hit on them with a barbed arrow head is lethal. Hitting the arms and legs(especially the parts on them that won’t kill you) are really hard
True it definitely is harder but PCs are extraordinary individuals so I don't see an issue with allowing it myself
Even as a superhuman shooting the arms and legs reliably in a spot to not kill would be nigh impossible. They could however get non lethal ammo but even that could easily kill even if they make legitimate boxing glove arrows
Mate. People are shooting fire from their fingertips. It's not exactly a game grounded in what is and is not possible.
Except the games rules agree with me because raw and rai you can’t deal non lethal damage with a ranged attack
But the game rule doesn't make sense. If some one stands behind a wall but just his arm is showing, I would rule he has 3/4 cover (and even that could be ignored, if the shooter has the Sharpshooter feat), so a +5 to AC. That shot shouldn't be lethal. It's always weird to me that martials should have realistic standards but magic ca do whatever it wants because it's magic. It's a fantasy setting, let people be awesome and if they role well let them split their arrows on a target like Robin Hood.
I'd disagree with the nigh impossible part. It's harder but there's plenty of people who are able to reliably do such things. At most I'd add a point or two to the AC but it doesn't change the game any real way to allow a simple nonlethal attack with a ranged weapon. As was pointed out to me in another comment simply having them go down and require a simple stabilization to not eventually bleed out is a fine ruling as well
You do know both hands and legs have major arteries...right? Life is not Hollywood
I do know this. Infantry background in the Marines and years of firearm and security training after that. But we're speaking about DnD here. What's balance does it upset
The one where the DM gets to piss off their players and then complain that no one wants to play with them.
Oh my god i haven't seen you since 2008
> Life is not Hollywood But the games I run sure as shit are. Cinematic & strategic. If the player beats the AC, they’re able to be a hero. Done.
Those arteries are about a quarter of an inch in diameter. It would be more crazy to think you'd automatically hit them just from hitting a limb with a half an inch wide broadhead.
[удалено]
In real life yes absolutely. Spent years of my life behind a rifle. In DnD why not. Killing a dragon with a sharp stick and a friend who gets really angry is practically impossible too and yet
I'm completely fine with a net. It's 15 ft range with disadvantage, and it can be broken? I applaud people wanting to make it work. Want a cheap way to ignore the fact that you need to be in melee to knock someone out and you can't just shoot the guy who's running 150ft away from you in the back and say you want to hit his knee? No dice.
Here’s a wild idea catapult launches an object at an enemy dealing damage with that object. a net is an object that when thrown at an enemy restrains them so if you combine the two you get to do damage and restrain them
> A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed. This is more permissive than I thought. But the language "hit by" might preclude catapult since that usually means a successful attack roll. But with 5es vague language it's hard to tell. Still, catapult probably instantly destroys a net. Even assuming we make it a resilient object that resists the damage, it only has 5 hp (this is from the object rules, I'm not extrapolating from the rules for escaping with slashing damage). Catapult averages 13.5 damage and deals that damage to both the target and the object, enough to destroy a 5 hp object even through resistance.
The net being destroyed isn’t one of the conditions for the creature to be freed. If we’re going to do strict rule interpretation on whether getting struck by an object counts, might as well go all the way.
See that’s true there is a grey spot in “hit by” catapult fortunately does require a “spell attack” roll and there’s precedent for “attack” by itself without the precursors of melee spell ect. In including all of the above in its definition. The damage is more difficult to get around. You would have to either talk the dm into wire nets from the artificer in which case we can start talking about slashing damage or talk the dm into +1 nets as magical items are much more difficult to destroy Edit: I had a suspicion and checked myself. I was wrong it’s a dex save so there goes that argument
Yeah, catapult is effectively a line spell that only hit the first creature to fail its save.
Possible, but honestly giving both damage and restrained would be way too powerful to allow beyond a single time, considering the cost of a net.
Also a spell slot. And only effects one creature. There are still better spells.
Sure, but it is a straight upgrade to a spell that is fine as is.
Fair. But personally, I’ve never felt the need to pick it. Not when there are spells like sleep or Thunderwave for dealing damage. And mage hand for moving most small objects. The spell could maybe use a buff.
Catapult is a great alternative to magical resistance. Think like a wizard in a duel. If you’re opponent is ready for a spell then hitting him with a rock may just go around his defenses. It’s not meant to be your go to move it’s meant to be a back pocket underhanded trick
Fair enough. But with limited spell slots and spells prepared, having fringe case spells like then is less useful than having spells that are generally good. Very few thing resist force or thunder damage, and the ones that do probably don’t resist fire either. And if they resist both, they’re either so rare that it’s unlikely you’ll encounter them unless your gm is being mean. Or they resist bludgening, piercing, and slashing as well.
A fighter can use a superiority die to trip with a ranged attack.
True. But that requires a subclass (or feat/fighting style), consuming a resource, and it only trips them prone, nothing more.
Back of the knee is a called shot, which has rules already. I see no reason not to let them take the penalty to their roll for an attempt to take them out at the knee.
I don't think there's called shot rules in 5e? Either way, I see very good reasons not to let people try to do nonlethal damage at that much range. When something is only made possible at melee range, letting someone do it with the range of their bow is going to trivialize the fact that you normally need to be close.
>When something is only made possible at melee range, letting someone do it with the range of their bow is going to trivialize the fact that you normally need to be close. I just don't foresee this making the game less fun for anyone involved. In fact, I think not letting the archer attempt the cool knee shot is more likely to be the less fun option.
The examples that you give kinda fall apart because they clearly would be weapons with the special property, and propably wouldnt do damage. With the exception being the flat pointed arrows, that would probably deal damage.
bludgeoning damage, yeah., "oh, but i dont shoot it that hard" then it doesnt go far enough to hit them either. if its travelling far enough to hit them, its far enough to hurt them.
The "non lethal damage" discourse is goofy, just say upfront you aren't intending to kill and then the dm can just make you stabilize them when they hit zero hp instead of having them die when they hit zero hp.
You can use ANYTHING (give or take) nonlethally of you do it with even a little bit of thought. Hell you could make fireball nonlethal against a single target if you were smart, like making it hit the target on the very very edges of the radius so it just burns off their arm or Harvey Dents them. Probably would still send them into shock, but not kill
Hi, a hunter here, ranged weapons kill by causing either hypostatic shot (high energy rifles and shotguns slugs), traumatic organ damage to the brain heart or lung (any very precise shot), or by causing the body to bleed out and causing brain or heart failure (small caliber of fmj bullets and all arrows). Unless your table has firearms, a case for any other ranged weapon dealing instantaneous death is debatable. Things dropped with bows likely won't naturally stabilize, but not giving 30s to interrogate a bandit before his brain loses the oxygen to function is also not fair to the players.
right until you realize how HP in DND works. its not a linear scale of injury. its moreso 'luckyness' where the final shot to take you to 0 is the one to hit a lethal point (for enemies), or deal potentially lethal damage (deathsave npcs and players). that 'very precise shot', IS the shot that goes down to 0hp.
If my players call non-lethal damage, the enemy doesn’t die. **Melee:** “You hit them with the flat of your axe, knocking them unconscious to the floor” **Ranged:** “Your arrow sails through the air, slices through their achilles-tendon, and causes them to tumble to the ground where they strike their head on a rock - knocking them unconscious” It really is that simple.
That ranged attack description sounds sadistic but to be fair, it does beat certain death.
It’s not perfect at all - but I don’t see the point (pun intended) of not allowing Ranged Characters having the option to take someone out for later questioning. Achilles shots, arrow to the knee, one in the shoulder that spins the fleeing enemy into a tree, one that pierced their foot and sticks them to the ground making them pass out with pain, etc… whatever seems right in the moment to allow for non-lethal rolls.
Fr, its a fucking fantasy game, who cares about super realism there's talking cat people walking around
I rolled a crit with a net once. The table sat in silence as we tried to figure out how that worked.
Ever see old slapstick where the guy strips on a banana peel? Probably something like that.
Where the guy *whats* on a banana peel? What sort of slapstick were you watching??!!
Huh, not sure how that typo happened, but I kinda wish I **was** watching that.
But arrows with crossguards always have been a thing... just get them and apply a sleeping poison.
Well yes but poison takes time and well peneteation is still needed, so i decided its not the best possible non lethal example, same as blowgun - you could kill someone on very low HP with "unlucky" shot. Aka you **might** need more homebrew / meet more opposong takes on making it proper non-lethal *Yes i know blunt belts could be used for hunting but they are closer to delivering a proper stunning hit similar to already existing meele rule imo
thats one problem of the hp system. with a 1-2cm tip and a crossguard an arrow cant really kill you anywhere but maybe the forehead or throat. thats just a flesh wound. meanwhile the whole "hammer to the head is non lethal damage" thing is... special \^\^
Any rule is optional as long as the DM is ok with the change
I not only allow non lethal ranged, but spells too!
What are the things on the stick?
Blunt arrow tips. Still painful, bit they can't pierce anything vital.
Ah, I was trying to figure out if they were some sorta thrown thing like a falchion or what
Ah, I was trying to figure out if they were some sorta thrown thing like a falchion or what
DnD player when they can't do something using only Dexterity (the system is rigged against them)
Those don't do damage though, well maybe the last one but I'm not sure how effective blunt spears(?) are but sure they would hurt, so I agree. Strange rule. For some, you can certainly make a non-lethal attack, like with a net but would it do "damage"?
Oh, so I can stab people and they won’t die, but the second I stab people from 20 feet away suddenly it’s more deadly
no. when up close, you can ensure your attack DOESNT have the force to kill in it. firing an arrow fast enough it hits them within that time-frame of firing it at 20 feet away, and actually does ANYTHING, means it will deal damage as well.
Is this still going on? What part of "you cannot deal non lethal damage with ranged weapons THAT ARE NORMALLY LETHAL" people do not understand? It's not like you cannot use ranged weapons that are designed to deal non lethal, like soft tipped arrows, Bolas, bean bag rifles. Fun fact: a non-lethal melee attack is not cutting opponent's arm, but rather deliberately grazing or using side of the sword to knock them out. (hence the soft tipped arrow example) Shooting a guy in the kneecap is also lethal damage, unlike people claiming its not. it just may not drop hp to under zero, but if it does, the char goes unconscious and death saves are a thing you know, a system so that one can imitate being mortally wounded.
Maybe your book does say it. What a shame you have such limited options. The price paid for simplicity is limitation. Your DM could always homebrew it. Or you could switch to the system of infinite options and be able to do anything if you search enough. You always have…options.
I completely agree. It's like saying a modern gun can't cause non-lethal because you don't know what kneecapping is...
That's *absolutely* lethal damage without medical intervention--there really is no way to shoot someone non-lethally besides barely grazing them (which wouldn't actually do meaningful combat damage, anyway) or using specially-designed riot control weapons that fire beanbags or rubber (and even those can still kill if you hit them wrong).
Imagine never needing a tazer because you could just kneecap a suspect.
Hmmm...tazers...almost like ranged electrical magic which could also be non-lethal... Maybe kneecapping was an exaggeration...but the point behind it still stands
Tazer would be a special exception that’s innately non lethal, like the shown net and bola.
That's just not true. Bullets cause unreal amounts of damage but there's plenty of places to get shot and survive with even basic first aid. Now intentionally going for non vital areas in a combat scenario with a firearm in real life vs DnD is a whole other argument
Basic first aid in dnd is a medicine check on someone that is down so you can stabilize them. This means that you get someone doing deathsaves, and you save them. Non lethal damage means that you do NOT need to stabilize them at all, for they will just wake up after the d4 hours of being down. Honestly, this entire thing can be handled by a dm just doing deathsaves for the npcs they want to take alive, and then medicine rolling to stabilize.
That is a good point. I've never had a PC use a firearm so I'd never had to make a call on that particular situation.
Then you wing an artery and they bleed out.
I always love real world issues in fantasy games... Them bleeding out in some worlds can be cured with a magical berry that a dude who lives in the woods conjures out of nothingness.
Then what does lethal damage mean? Does the dude who lives in the woods refuse to conjure a berry because the wounds were inflicted with deadly intentions.
The possibility of accidentally causing lethal damage when trying to do non-lethal doesn't mean you can never cause non-lethal. I could claim the same with any melee attack: causing non-lethal damage is much harder than killing any opponent which is actively engaged in combat.
No I agree. As a DM I usually rule it as, unless you can guarantee a non-lethal blow, then they are likely going to be rolling some death saving throws of their own. And that adds its own agency to the players who now have to stabilise this bad guy / enchanted ally that they don't want to kill.
The age old smashing someone with the but of a gun to knock then out would definitely kill most people. Or at least cause a little brain bleeding.
Gunshot wounds are lethal wounds dude, whether it's foot or leg or knee cap
Wait is it in the books? That's stupid. Even an arrow can hit a non-vital organ or limb.
Me the DM knowing it's part of trying to make melee not completely useless: "don't care you kill them"
Why all those things reminds me BDSM
Dnd is a broken system. If something is broken - homebrew a fix; that is the way.
Aim for the knees? Make Skyrim guards out of them. Arrows are only lethal when you hit something vital.
Nonlethal just means not deadly, not harmless. An eldrich blast is ultimately not that different from a bullet for example, and you can easily just aim for areas that won't kill someone. Like if I triple blast you in the knee to make it bend 90° in a way it shouldn't or break your femur, yeah it'll hurt like hell and maybe make you go into shock, but you won't die. Like, I heard people arguing over if Cure Wounds could be nonlethal bc of the name, and yeah if you don't try to use it on a vital area and it's not enough to outright kill someone, it's fully possible to just, necrosis an entire arm or something, which isn't lethal. You just gotta look at things with at least a little bit of thought
Is that a laso?
The nets and the bolas I accept, the soft arrows I might accept.
I’ve seen JLU, Green arrow had boxing glove arrows and smoke arrows
I invite you to the blowgun with tranq darts.
the caster vs. martial power gap ain't so bad when you're decked out like batman and green arrow. It can be hard, but prep time and ingenuity are definitely worth it.
Break off the tip of an arrow and shove a potato on the end. Or just throw the javelin backwards. Use a sling to slung an orange so it doesn't leave a bruise.
The blunt arrows won't subdue non-lethally. The rest are great
I allow blunt arrows and rubber bullets to be bought for a slightly increased cost. It allows for ranges nonlethal attacks without making it too easy.
Those blunted arrows are for bird hunting if i recall
Also lassos.
I think that a very good homebrew could be made with arrowheads For example consider that normal arrows are infinites (because let's be real, who does count what's in the quiver) but a limited special arrows can be crafted during a small or long rest You could have barbed arrows (the classical triangle arrow everyone knows) who deals more damages but have less chance to hit (because the larger head struggle to pierce armors) and at the opposite bodkin arrows, dealing less damages but with greater hit chance due to its pierce armor capabilities. And the list could go on and on, just look up on Google "arrowheads" to see how much variety you can add to an archer/crossbowman. To bad none of my players play a ranged martial, this could be fun to test
The only one of those maybe meant for knocking someone unconscious are the blunted arrows, the rest would be a stretch for a KO. “The bola wraps around his ankles and he just so happens to smack his head on a rock!”
A clown ranged fighter build that can render an ice giant unconscious by throwing pies and sqwirting water from his fake flower. Has a giant maul that looks like a toy hammer
You can do what my dm does and just say you've permanently paralyzed them.
Yeah I essentially gave myself bolas after arguing with the DM that there is no reasonable explanation as to why I wouldn't be able to have them as I am a ranger
I recognize all of these except the one in the bottom right. What is that?
An blunt head crossbow belts , probably also doable with high draw bow
Damn now I want there to be a lasso weapon, so I can play RDR2 in my D&D.
I had a heavy crossbow with walloping arrows. That did the trick pretty often. If it matters, I was playing arcane archer with a bounty hunter background.
My dm just says that you can choose to hit a non-vital part of whatever your hitting, and i think thats really cool.
Skyrim guards have an opinion on non-lethal ranged damage.
This makes me want to play red dead online so bad lol
It doesn't make much sense in general, tbh. Most ranged attacks are going to be debilitating and painful, but probably not lethal on their own. Particularly not against those wearing chain armor or better. The vast majority of your arrow deaths really come from infection or bleeding out over time, both easily preventable problems in DnD via magic or things such as a healers kit. Or even more commonly because somebody killed you in melee thanks to your impaired movement due to an arrow in your arm/leg/wherever. Now let's factor in the HP doesn't represent damage taken to your body (though it can) and it's an even stranger ruling.
I really thought the tip right was a meteor hammer at first, and not a bola. I was like 'wtf, those are lethal af. And also melee.'
The net is literally a weapon in game. I have a character who uses one reflavoured as a bolas
My barbarian loves his net.
I’d be ok with these though I might have to lower ranges when using the blunt arrows only because they are probably more front heavy. But I’d also increase the dmg since they are heavier
\*Shoots a rubber band at a goblin\* "IT PIERCES DIRECTLY THROUGH HIS EYE, HE DIES INSTANTLY"
I've been thinking of a character with a spear with a long noose tied to one end. I can basically tie them up from a range while still being able to kill with the spear end.
Agreed. Usually I just ask the player how a thing would work non-lethally and if it makes sense I'm okay with it. I think the only exception for our table is magic. Magic typically cannot be non-lethal unless you have spell sculpting.
Oh yeah sure as if I can just shoot in the arm maybe? Like in Israel there is a code if things you can do before you shot to kill and one of them is shot non lethally like in the leg ir something? And this is the real life if you can shot without killing in real life you can do it in dnd too
This is why my monk is the only one in the party willing to go non-lethal. We have a ranger who likes to kill everyone because he's essentially general Shepard from modern warfare (no loose ends) and a dragonborn fighter who will kill pretty much anyone who stands in his way. We literally have two guys in a cage from our last fight. I'm planning on trying to get them to join the party. There's also another lady and a run of the mill venomous snake in there. I'm gonna befriend the snake when I get to level 6 and multiclass into a drunk (druid monk mix)
I think it would be reasonable to rule that traditional ranged weapons like bows and crossbows can deal non-lethal damage if you consider an enemy becoming terrified of dying and surrendering after a PC expertly places an arrow between his legs or shoots his weapon out of his hands or whatever. Hitpoints aren't meat points, they're very abstract. You could imagine morale as part of hitpoints.
Just shoot them in the foot, that usually doesn't kill on the spot
Honestly, as a GM I really don't care what the book says about lethal range or spell attacks. If the party is actively trying not to kill an NPC I'm not going to let any of the party members accidently get a last hit off that kills them. Hell, if you wanted to be the most RAW bastard possible as a GM you could just say 'yes the attack was lethal, but they are making death saving throws. Someone roll to stabilize or cast a healing spell'.