Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW

[E’Tallitnics]

Q 161 Does knocking a creature out prevent instant death from massive damage?

A161: No.

Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.

[No brains]

Re 161 To clarify what I meant, if a melee attack would deal enough damage to a creature to reduce it to 0hp and still have enough remaining damage to exceed the creature's maximum hp, would it matter if the attacker wanted to knock out the creature or not?

[terodil]

R161: Yes it would. (Emphasis below is mine.)

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.

So the moment the attacker knows her blow will be fatal she can “pull her punch” and instead render the creature unconscious.

A161. No it wouldn't.

A creature falling to 0 hp or below automatically falls unconscious. This rule says that when your damage causes this ('the instant the damage is dealt'), you can choose to not let it bleed out ("it becomes stable"), so it doesn't need to make death saving throws. The rule says nothing about negating excessive damage. The general rule of "taking damage at 0 hp" still applies: "If the damage equals or exceeds [the creature's] hit point maximum, [it suffers] instant death." (PHB p. 197).

This even matches common experience, for once. It is not uncommon that people try to knock somebody else out but their punch hits so unintendedly hard or in such an unfortunate location (it "crits") that the victim dies anyway.

[E’Tallitnics]

A161. No it wouldn't.

A creature falling to 0 hp or below automatically falls unconscious. This rule says that when your damage causes this ('the instant the damage is dealt'), you can choose to not let it bleed out ("it becomes stable"), so it doesn't need to make death saving throws. The rule says nothing about negating excessive damage. The general rule of "taking damage at 0 hp" still applies: "If the damage equals or exceeds [the creature's] hit point maximum, [it suffers] instant death." (PHB p. 197).

This even matches common experience, for once. It is not uncommon that people try to knock somebody else out but their punch hits so unintendedly hard or in such an unfortunate location (it "crits") that the victim dies anyway.

R161: Thank you for the correction! I’ve deleted that post.

[Myth27]

Q162 Is there a spell that makes you learn the information of or that creates a copy of a written non-magical document?

[Man_Over_Game]

No. The rules are very easy to understand here:

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed.

If you have a Climbing speed you use that. If you don't, you calculate it based on your movement speed. Even if your Climbing Speed is 0 ft (how?), you still have a climbing speed.

R 158

To clarify, I'm going to post exactly the rules I was referring to before:

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the GM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in rough water might require a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

So, if I have 20 Climbing speed and 60 Walking speed, my question is whether I can climb 20 feet (using my 20 Climbing speed), and use the remainder of my 40 Walking speed to climb at double the cost.

The concern here is whether depleting my 20 Climbing Speed (to now be 0) counts as not having a Climbing Speed, in relation to the bolded line in my quote.

[PhoenixPhyre]

R 158

To clarify, I'm going to post exactly the rules I was referring to before:



So, if I have 20 Climbing speed and 60 Walking speed, my question is whether I can climb 20 feet (using my 20 Climbing speed), and use the remainder of my 40 Walking speed to climb at double the cost.

The concern here is whether depleting my 20 Climbing Speed (to now be 0) counts as not having a Climbing Speed, in relation to the bolded line in my quote.

A 158
Speed is not depleted. Even after you've climbed 20 feet, you still have a climb speed of 20. But you've expended movement equal to your climb speed.

[Man_Over_Game]

A 158
Speed is not depleted. Even after you've climbed 20 feet, you still have a climb speed of 20. But you've expended movement equal to your climb speed.

R 158

Would this imply that someone with Climb Speed 20 and Walking speed 60 can only climb 20 feet,
But someone with only Walking Speed 60 can climb up to 30 feet?

[LtPowers]

This rule says that when your damage causes this ('the instant the damage is dealt'), you can choose to not let it bleed out ("it becomes stable"), so it doesn't need to make death saving throws.

R161

NPCs don't usually make death saving throws; only if the DM finds it appropriate to the situation. Normally, NPC opponents just die instantly at 0HP. The "knock unconscious" rule negates that effect.

For creatures (including PCs) that would normally need to make death saving throws, that is also negated because the "knock unconscious" rule makes the attacked creature stable. Either way, we're not talking about taking damage while at 0 HP; that imposes death save failures (and renders the creature no longer stable).

The actual question is whether the text (quoted by E’Tallitnics) negates the clause about massive damage ("Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.") To me, by saying "rather than deal a killing blow", it does. It's a specific exception to the general rule (both general rules, actually: the one about NPCs dying when they hit 0 HP and the one about massive damage).


Powers &8^]

[LtPowers]

R 158

Would this imply that someone with Climb Speed 20 and Walking speed 60 can only climb 20 feet,
But someone with only Walking Speed 60 can climb up to 30 feet?

R158

That seems like a relatively rare case, but yes, by RAW that would be correct. I'm fairly certain it's not what's intended, though; either the character should be able to choose which speed to use to climb with (choosing between climbing 30 feet, or climbing 20 and then being able to walk another 40), or the character should be able to deduct additional climbing distance from his walking speed, at the usual ratio.


Powers &8^]

[Kadesh]

Do you have a move speed?
Yes
You use that. If not, half move speed.

Very, very simple.

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you have a move speed?
Yes
You use that. If not, half move speed.

Very, very simple.

I don't think it's very, very simple in this case.

If someone climbs up to their maximum climbing speed, is that person eligible to spend their normal walking speed at twice the rate to climb further?

[terodil]

R161

NPCs don't usually make death saving throws; only if the DM finds it appropriate to the situation. Normally, NPC opponents just die instantly at 0HP. The "knock unconscious" rule negates that effect.

For creatures (including PCs) that would normally need to make death saving throws, that is also negated because the "knock unconscious" rule makes the attacked creature stable. Either way, we're not talking about taking damage while at 0 HP; that imposes death save failures (and renders the creature no longer stable).

The actual question is whether the text (quoted by E’Tallitnics) negates the clause about massive damage ("Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.") To me, by saying "rather than deal a killing blow", it does. It's a specific exception to the general rule (both general rules, actually: the one about NPCs dying when they hit 0 HP and the one about massive damage).]

1. The PHB states: "Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 HP, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws." -- This is clearly descriptive, not normative, and furthermore describes a deviation ("rather than"). It thus has no bearing on the rules; it certainly isn't one.

2. We are indeed talking about taking damage while at 0 HP. Damage that exceeds the remainder of a creature's HP is half the reason why we have the rule about massive damage in the first place (the other half being the case where a creature already at 0 HP gets hit *again*, this time with massive damage). If your statement were correct in that damage exceeding the remaining HPs were not "damage at 0 hp", the ancient red dragon would need *two* attacks to kill a level 1 nobody (or a fluffy bunny for that matter), because the first attack would only send it to 0, making the remaining 48 damage vanish in a puff of smoke (and making the nobody/bunny unstable, but that's irrelevant).

3. The writers could easily have worded the situation like they did for certain class and monster abilities: 'You can choose to fall to n HP instead.' They didn't use such a wording, neither did they say anything about excessive damage being negated.

You are reading something into this passage that isn't there. There are no specific rules to override the general rule here, so that rule stands: Massive damage can kill a creature -- even if the attack was intended to "knock out".

Edit: Just to visualise: Imagine a giant using his club trying to knock a bunny out (because said giant has a pet bunny at home that is very lonely, so he's trying to catch it a friend to play with). I'd like to see how that'd work out. Or well... I'd rather not. Poor bunny.

[Kadesh]

I don't think it's very, very simple in this case.

If someone climbs up to their maximum climbing speed, is that person eligible to spend their normal walking speed at twice the rate to climb further?

No.

Letters.

[Arkhios]

No.

Letters.

Instead of 'Letters' you could've said: 'Unless they use the Dash Action, which specifically gives you extra movement on your turn, at the cost of being unable to do anything else with your Action.'

Anyway, MOG: Different modes of movements do not stack; if anything, they overlap if/when relevant.

[Misterwhisper]

Q162

If I am holding (not wielding, simply holding) multiple daggers/darts in my left hand and have multiple attacks and I attempt to throw them with my right hand is taking the dagger from my left hand to my right to throw them considered “object interaction”?

I will make a thrower work one way or another dang it.

[Arkhios]

Q162

If I am holding (not wielding, simply holding) multiple daggers/darts in my left hand and have multiple attacks and I attempt to throw them with my right hand is taking the dagger from my left hand to my right to throw them considered “object interaction”?

I will make a thrower work one way or another dang it.

A162. I believe there is no RAW answer to this, but I think it would be similar to drawing and nocking an arrow before shooting. So, technically I see no reason to not allow throwing multiple daggers if you have multiple attacks. Besides, I don't see where's the harm anyway. A dagger deals 1d4 damage, and has a very short range when thrown.

[Kadesh]

Instead of 'Letters' you could've said: 'Unless they use the Dash Action, which specifically gives you extra movement on your turn, at the cost of being unable to do anything else with your Action.'

Anyway, MOG: Different modes of movements do not stack; if anything, they overlap if/when relevant.

Even then, no.

Letters.

[Arkhios]

Even then, no.

Letters.

Did you even read the whole post? My point was that using Dash is the RAW way to accomplish what MOG asked.

Also, that was unnecessarily bitter and petty.

[Kadesh]

Using the Dash Action does not allow you to move at half your movement rate when climbing if you have a climb speed.

[LtPowers]

1. The PHB states: "Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 HP, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws." -- This is clearly descriptive, not normative, and furthermore describes a deviation ("rather than"). It thus has no bearing on the rules; it certainly isn't one.

2. We are indeed talking about taking damage while at 0 HP. Damage that exceeds the remainder of a creature's HP is half the reason why we have the rule about massive damage in the first place (the other half being the case where a creature already at 0 HP gets hit *again*, this time with massive damage). If your statement were correct in that damage exceeding the remaining HPs were not "damage at 0 hp", the ancient red dragon would need *two* attacks to kill a level 1 nobody (or a fluffy bunny for that matter), because the first attack would only send it to 0, making the remaining 48 damage vanish in a puff of smoke (and making the nobody/bunny unstable, but that's irrelevant).

3. The writers could easily have worded the situation like they did for certain class and monster abilities: 'You can choose to fall to n HP instead.' They didn't use such a wording, neither did they say anything about excessive damage being negated.

You are reading something into this passage that isn't there. There are no specific rules to override the general rule here, so that rule stands: Massive damage can kill a creature -- even if the attack was intended to "knock out".

Edit: Just to visualise: Imagine a giant using his club trying to knock a bunny out (because said giant has a pet bunny at home that is very lonely, so he's trying to catch it a friend to play with). I'd like to see how that'd work out. Or well... I'd rather not. Poor bunny.

R161

1. I agree it has no bearing; you were the one that raised the topic of death saving throws. My point is that whether the creature would make death saving throws or simply die instantly at 0HP is irrelevant to the application of the "knock unconscious" rule.

2. No, we are not talking about taking damage at 0HP. In the massive damage case, when the creature drops to 0, the damage has already been taken. The only question is whether the excess damage exceeds the creature's maximum HP. That excess damage is not applied to the creature; the creature doesn't take it again after reaching 0HP. It's just a number that is compared to the creature's maximum HP to determine another effect. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "would need *two* attacks"; the massive damage rule is quite clear that it would only take one.

3. I'm not sure what your proposed parallel wording would look like, but the 5e designers aren't known for their consistency of phrasing anyway. All we can do is look at the text of the rule. And the rule says that "the instant the damage is dealt" the attacker can choose to knock the creature unconscious "rather than deal a killing blow". Death from massive damage is a killing blow, and is a state that is only evaluated after the damage has been dealt. So the attacker deals damage -- at that instant, he can decide to knock unconscious rather than kill the creature. Since the massive damage is what would kill the creature.... what else would be negated if not the massive damage?

Re: your Edit: This is RAW, not "how should 5e best model reality?". In reality, it should be very difficult to knock anyone out without killing her, but they put in a simple rule that allows it in order to make for better storytelling. The alternative (see earlier editions) was more realistic but a lot more frustrating.


Powers &8^]

[terodil]

2. No, we are not talking about taking damage at 0HP. In the massive damage case, when the creature drops to 0, the damage has already been taken.

Partially taken. You seem to read somewhere that the remaining part of the damage gets negated. Where?

The only question is whether the excess damage exceeds the creature's maximum HP. That excess damage is not applied to the creature; the creature doesn't take it again after reaching 0HP.

I'm not arguing to have the creature take the excess damage twice, just once, which might trigger death from massive damage; whereas you are not having the creature take any of the excess damage at all, thus preventing the massive damage rule from operating in any case where the creature was not already at 0 HP and thus unconscious before the attack in question. Or am I not understanding your argument correctly?

Since the massive damage is what would kill the creature.... what else would be negated if not the massive damage?

Becoming unstable from hitting 0 HP, for one, which, depending on the DM, might mean instant death for random mooks.

The only thing the rule prevents is the creature becoming unstable, i.e. having to make death saving throws. For reference:

The creature falls unconscious and is stable.

The rule does not negate any damage, whether massive or not. If you still want to maintain the opposite, please point at the text that says so. This is a discussion about RAW.

Edit: Maybe an example is in order. Creature has 10 HP out of 50 HP max, incoming damage is X, attacker tries to knock victim out.

X<10 : creature lives, not unconscious.
X=10 : creature lives, unconscious, stable. === KO rule prevented death*.
X>10, X<60 : creature lives, unconscious, stable. === KO rule prevented death*.
X>=60 : creature dies from massive damage. === KO rule does not negate damage, so victim is killed. A dead, but stable creature is still dead.

*: As you pointed out, some DMs would have creatures die immediately without any saving throws. In this case, the KO rule prevented a guaranteed death. In the other case, the KO rule prevented a potential death from failing three death saving throws.

[Erys]

Maybe it is time to take Q161 to its own thread.

[No brains]

Re 161
I guess my question wasn't so simple. In case there's further debate, I've started a dedicated thread on the subject.

[Arkhios]

Using the Dash Action does not allow you to move at half your movement rate when climbing if you have a climb speed.

It appears I may have misread some of the MOG's question, and given partially misleading information as was proven. The latter part of my response still applies: Different Movement Modes do not stack for your turn and they are not interchangeable. They only overlap with each other, when relevant.

For example, if you have a Climb Speed of 30 ft. you don't get this 30 ft. in addition to your normal walking speed. In other words, you can't trade your walking speed for more climb speed.
Alternatively, if you have a Flying Speed of 60 ft. you can move up to 30 ft. on ground (or Climb 30 ft. using your Climb Speed), and then fly the remaining 30 ft.

However, you can use the Dash Action to gain extra movement, even with a Climb Speed, because it isn't restricted to any specific movement mode. After all, it's 'extra movement' at the cost of your Action, while standard movement doesn't take any actions. As was pointed out elsewhere, "movement != speed".

[Man_Over_Game]

It appears I may have misread some of the MOG's question, and given partially misleading information as was proven. The latter part of my response still applies: Different Movement Modes do not stack for your turn and they are not interchangeable. They only overlap with each other, when relevant.

For example, if you have a Climb Speed of 30 ft. you don't get this 30 ft. in addition to your normal walking speed. In other words, you can't trade your walking speed for more climb speed.
Alternatively, if you have a Flying Speed of 60 ft. you can move up to 30 ft. on ground (or Climb 30 ft. using your Climb Speed), and then fly the remaining 30 ft.

However, you can use the Dash Action to gain extra movement, even with a Climb Speed, because it isn't restricted to any specific movement mode. After all, it's 'extra movement' at the cost of your Action, while standard movement doesn't take any actions. As was pointed out elsewhere, "movement != speed".

With that interpretation, though:

Someone with Climb Speed 10 and Walking Speed 30 can climb up to 10 feet.
Someone with Walking Speed 30 can climb up to 15 feet.

By having a Climbing Speed, that character is worse at climbing.

_{This is a rare case, but is possible with something like a Tabaxi with a Boots of Speed (which double walking speed).}

[Kadesh]

That is not "an interpretation" but quite literally what the rules say. Feel free to houserule otherwise.

[AHF]

Seems appropriate that some creatures would be much better at walking or running than climbing. Like a hippo for example.

[Man_Over_Game]

Seems appropriate that some creatures would be much better at walking or running than climbing. Like a hippo for example.

At the same time, though, climbing with a climb speed generally doesn't require Athletics checks, but climbing without a climb speed does.

So the hippo with a climb speed can climb better than a courier without a climb speed, but the hippo can't climb as far?

[Gadzooks]

Q163
If I was a level 2 Druid and a Level 1 Barbarian, can I wild shape into an animal and then rage or alternatively rage and then wild shape? The wild shape rules seem to say that you lose all abilities when you wild shape, and it also says you can concentrate on a spell. So does it mean you can rage then wild shape or is it only for spells, or am I just completely wrong and you retain you abilities when wild shaped?