Is there a good (not totally optimized, but not making himself a deathtrap) way of making a character that will never kill by his own hand?
I think the best way would be either grappling-type subdual/tie up, or would a caster work better?
There's a number of options. Do you prefer a caster or martial type? Or a combo?
Also remember, you can cause nonlethal damage with any melee attack. You don't need to specialize in nonlethality to pull it off. See phb.198 Knocking a creature out
bards, illusionist, and life clerics can easily get away with never dealing damage.
potentially summoners and necromancers as well, depending on how far you want to seperate yourself.
and any melee character can simply knock things unconcious instead of killing. a raging frenzy pacifist barbarian/assassin is a fun contradiction. a pacifist monk might be a more belivable though.
I'm Batman. *Smoke Bomb*
I actually made a technical pacifist character once. Illusionist. Was Awesome.
Specializing in enchantments is another good way. Charms, suggestion, dominate, and other non-damaging control the enemy spells are good.
Contollers.... wall of X spells, Fogs, Hypnotic pattern, Fear, Silence, etc etc....
Why don't you try roleplaying instead of +roll playing?
Role playing won't stop a blood thirsty orc raid from murdering the villagers.
Monk's seem like they'd be perfect at knowing how to knock a creature out instead of killing it.
Nevvur wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
draegn wrote:
draegn wrote:
covertoperator wrote:
Treantmonklvl20 wrote:
draegn wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
I once made a cleric - Strength 3, Constitution 5, who was a non-combatant. She didn't attack anyone, she never used offensive magic, she never inflicted injury. She healed the PCs, and offered what advice she could, but she was uninvolved in actual combat herself. Challenging character, but fun. 
Yes. A good DM will know what the party is capable of before designing an encounter. Making an encounter that the party cannot win, unless he has some plot thing going on, is poor DMing.
Yunru wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I would agree that the OP could go with a monk easily. A cleric or paladin could be useful, too, though. In a recent adventure, our group’s cleric used revivify spell on an enemy to bring him back to life after a trap the group triggered while they had him captured took him out.
I certainly agree with Stormwind Fallacy that min-maxing and role-playing exist as a spectrum, not a binary either/or. Most gamers fall somewhere in the middle, but there will always be outliers on either end.
very easy. Subdual damage have no penalty in 5e (except for the main effect not killing the target) unlike 3 edition you don't get a penalty for dealing subdual damage with a lethal weapon.
So if you want you can build a fighter with the biggest greatsword you can find, enchant that greatsword with all the magic enchantment that you want, take the great weapon fighting style, great weapon master feat, 20 strenght, and you swing that sword up to 11 times per rounds, but when you deal damage you state it's subdual damage.
You will never kill a single person, and you will suffer no penalty compare to a regular fighter who attack to kill.
The only problem will be the creature immune to subdual damage, but I do not believe those creature existed in 5e yet, furtherore, they used to be undead and construct who woul dbe immune to subdual damage, so you are not technically killing them since they are not alive to begin with.
But only melee combatant can do this. spell and range weapon cannot cause subdual damage (except exception, like a magical enchanted arrow or a spell design to cause subdual damage)
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
I never reply to private messages, Draegn - I get a lot of them and many are about the same topics, and I can't simply link to answers I give privately. Besides, if you have something to say, why not say it publicly?
draegn wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
OP:
Anybody who uses status-condition spells (Sleep) or mechanical spells (Bless / Bane) can easily be a technical pacifist.
My group's Bard fits this description.
Anybody who uses a melee weapon always has the option to say "This guy gets KO'ed" IF you get the blow that lands him at <0 HP.
I could play my Monk or Paladin like this, if I wanted.
If you are not going to kill all the monsters, what ARE you going to do with them? This is a challenge to thought, not a provocation to argue. You can equip your character with a lot of rope and many gags since you will probably meet people who cannot be left running around loose and free behind you.
There is more than one way to be a pacifist, some of which are anti-fun. Giving your comrades lectures full of self-righteous indignation over the shedding of blood should be avoided, for instance. I would have no problem playing in a campaign with a high-born gentleman who believes that words should be employed first - and has the grace to get out of the way (quickly if need be) those times when the words fail to accomplish their purpose.
Some campaigns are more pacifist-friendly than others. A Royal Court intrigue campaign, for instance, might never need to see anybody be killed. But an Orc Invasion campaign is totally not the place for it.
Brjn this comes up with my players ("If you are not going to kill all the monsters, what ARE you going to do with them? ") monsters and/or oponents: there have had attempts to tame them to be steeds, sell them to the mines as slaves, prisoner exchange, subjects for magical experimentation, and religious conversion.
Original OP: How about a straight up monk? No reason that empty hand damage can't be used to subdue and not kill. I also like the idea of a fighter(battlemaster), a former general who sickened by war, becomes a monk and takes a vow never to kill again.
Now, having said that, since demons, devils and evil gods who in the general D&D universe created the evil races, and are therefore, evil by nature, how do you get around killing things that are by their nature evil? Evil in the typical setting is not hypothetical, or a matter of perspective. It's an actual force. For every exception you point to, I can point out that the exception is not the rule. You're not going to convert demons, letting one go isn't an option, imprisonment and banishment are possible but not aways. When the demon is about to slaughter the village, and your only option is to kill it it or maintain your pacifism and let others be killed, what do you do?
Gwaithador wrote:
My basic idea was a prissy show-off noble who just hates blood 'n' gore, because he's squeamish.
I purposely want to make him a little squishy.
One of two things: duelist or some sort of caster.
If he's a duelist, he should have really high attack rolls but do little damage, like the traditional 3.5 finessers who don't get Dex to Damage. If there's a good way to inflict statuses on a hit, I'll take that.
A person who took a vow never to kill would be really hard to play properly and still have fun, so I don't want to do that.
covertoperator wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
mattaddhall wrote:
.
Vicious Mockery does not actually kill anyone.
Rather it induces within the "target" so much doubt about
their ability to exist in a world without Self-Esteem classes.
Seriously, when you tell a Minotaur it's having a Bad Hair Day,
and it kills itself, it isn't your fault. Viciously Mock away.
Don't blame magic or gygax or yourself.
Play a character who's in denial.
"I didn't kill anyone! It was them! It was all their fault! They made me do it!"