I'd taken it that adventurers league involves sticking to rules as written. Granted melee attacks can just knock out when the attacker chooses to, generally unless there's some text saying otherwise, ranged weapons can't do that, right?
So what do people think if that is happening at a table? Is it 'Use only RAW...awww, okay, ignore some small stuff if ya wanna'?
That's correct, the rules says you can Knocking a Creature Out with melee attacks only. A DM using damaging spells or ranged attacks to do so is houseruling. IMC I may sometimes allow it with certain bludgeoning, force, psychic or thunder damage from ranged attacks or spells for exemple.
PHB198 Knocking a Creature Out: Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.
Noon wrote:
your DM at your table can pretty much do what he want, if your DM want to allow a fighter Champion to multiclass with a fighter Eldritch knight, he can and if the player agree no one can stop him, but remember if you change DM (go to a diffrent store, go to a convention, the MD of the store change) those modification are good and can be change, here if yor DM want to let you do subdual damage with your spell/range attack that is great, but if you go in a convention remember that DM can say no your archer kill everything.
Sorxores wrote:
It's worth noting that enemies still 'bleed out' - that is usually hand waived when fighting lots of monsters (saves on die rolling) but if you defeat someting with a ranged attack or spell you can probably still run over there and stabilize him.
Our DM ruled that you can subdue with shocking grasp, since it is a melee spell and makes thematic sense... TASER HANDS!
shivafang wrote:
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
shivafang wrote:
I would allow it if the spell made sense and it made for the players enjoyment. slepp like spectral force could make a giant boxing glove I'd allow it. Raw is to ensure fair treatment at a table but we are also supposed to ensure players have a good time. Raw does not cover every possible outcome and sometimes it is ok to deviate, again for the purpose of everyone's enjoyment.
Veleria wrote:
I absolutely agree Nightwalker. I don't think this should be standard practice but we should be open to the odd case where RAW does not move the game forward ad be willing to improvise as long as it is not detrimental to the fun of the table.
nightwalker450 wrote:
I'm sorry, why are people authorising themselves to just start ignoring the instructions for the event?
It's not even people saying 'Eh, I'm just gunna do what I want'. I get that - that person atleast acknowledges what the instructions are when they go to ignore them.
It's like people granting themselves the capacity to ignore the instructions instead. Sorry, why do people feel they are in that position? You're following WOTC instructions...but you're not following WOTC instructions? You can't have it both ways unless really you didn't give a crap about their instructions to begin with (ie, you're not about the fun of the group - you're about your fun).
Because as a DM I am responsible to make sure players are having fun. I don't set out to bend rules but I am cognisant that D&D has so many possible interactions that I have to beopen to interpreting the spirit of the rules when the letter of the rules might detract from the experience.
In one game I did adjudicate that a player using ray of frost froze an enemy in place as they were trying to escape. they did sufficient damage to drop the enemy to zero but instead it became a roleplay encounter to get the enemy to surrender and to free them before fatal damage occured.
It's just ironic how people evangelicize a D&D edition, but have absolutely no faith that the rules, as is, can be fun by themselves.
Why not just try and run it as is, like you were told? And take note of shivafang's excellent comment that as GM you cand decide who dies instantly and who goes through death saving throws? And still be following the rules, which ever way you decide.
If your players are going to leave at the smallest amount of not getting what they want, you'll never have a fun game anyway. It'll all be walking on egg shells, for the rest of your life.
Because D&D is about cooperative storytelling. in te last 8 tables I ran of 5e this happened once and is not likely to happen again. Don't be afraid of being a storyteller. We are not automatons reading off the boxed text then saying roll initiative all day long. Read your player's cues and build the adventure to entertain. no one was going to leave or throw a fit, I used the events of the moment to create a roleplaying opportunity and it was a fun time to engage a player who was feeling rather unimportant as he spent his fancy wizard powers earlier in the day and was stuch at cantrips. when you see a player becoming disengaged, giving them a moment in the spotlight can draw them back in. It would be near impossible to draw you into that moment as D&D is a string of "you had to be there" stories but the point is that sometimes you as Gm are empowered to make a call that might go against raw but is the right call for the events at your table. Shutting out that possibility gives you one less tool in the DM toolbag.
Noon wrote:
Uthrac wrote:
I find that, given enough NPCs that don't have any information that's useful to the players, players eventually stop worrying about dealing subdual damage.
--
Pauper
Probably still see themselves as automatically being heroes as well.