Can the damage from a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil) be non-lethal?What is “Force” Damage?What are the mechanics of attacking with a Talisman of (Pure Good / Ultimate Evil)?Can massive damage knock out rather than causing instant death?Can you knock out Animated Armor and/or Zombies?What happens when you bring a creature down to 0 HP entirely by a “Sword of Wounding”, but choose to deal nonlethal damage?Can the Death Cleric's Channel Divinity stack with the Paladin's Smite?Can I disarm and immediately grapple with Tavern Brawler?How can I make trying to knock out an opponent dangerous?How can a disarmed foe be prevented from recovering the item?Can one still deal Non-Lethal Damage if they trigger the Automatic Kill feature?What are the mechanics of attacking with a Talisman of (Pure Good / Ultimate Evil)?Can the bonus action attack from Polearm Master be used to Disarm?

How do anti-virus programs start at Windows boot?

How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?

Why does Deadpool say "You're welcome, Canada," after shooting Ryan Reynolds in the end credits?

Why is "das Weib" grammatically neuter?

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?

Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths

Did CPM support custom hardware using device drivers?

Pinhole Camera with Instant Film

Rejected in 4th interview round citing insufficient years of experience

Function to parse .NET composite string format

What is the greatest age difference between a married couple in Tanach?

How is the Swiss post e-voting system supposed to work, and how was it wrong?

My adviser wants to be the first author

What is Thermal Runaway Protection?

Why are the outputs of printf and std::cout different

Humanity loses the vast majority of its technology, information, and population in the year 2122. How long does it take to rebuild itself?

Why doesn't the EU now just force the UK to choose between referendum and no-deal?

Is having access to past exams cheating and, if yes, could it be proven just by a good grade?

Schematic conventions for different supply rails

What is under these four white covers on the upper part of the Orion capsule?

Identifying the interval from A♭ to D♯

How to simplify this time periods definition interface?

Employee lack of ownership

Plot a function of two variables equal 0



Can the damage from a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil) be non-lethal?


What is “Force” Damage?What are the mechanics of attacking with a Talisman of (Pure Good / Ultimate Evil)?Can massive damage knock out rather than causing instant death?Can you knock out Animated Armor and/or Zombies?What happens when you bring a creature down to 0 HP entirely by a “Sword of Wounding”, but choose to deal nonlethal damage?Can the Death Cleric's Channel Divinity stack with the Paladin's Smite?Can I disarm and immediately grapple with Tavern Brawler?How can I make trying to knock out an opponent dangerous?How can a disarmed foe be prevented from recovering the item?Can one still deal Non-Lethal Damage if they trigger the Automatic Kill feature?What are the mechanics of attacking with a Talisman of (Pure Good / Ultimate Evil)?Can the bonus action attack from Polearm Master be used to Disarm?













7












$begingroup$


This is a direct follow-up to this other question of mine and assumes that, indeed, one may wield a Talisman of Pure Good (or a Talisman of Ultimate Evil) as an improvised weapon and apply both the regular melee damage from an improvised weapon plus the Talisman's radiant/necrotic damage if the creature is not of the right alignment.



The Player's Handbook states the following about 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.




Can one decide to strike a maligned foe non-lethally (and therefore knock them out instead of killing them) with a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil)?



My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    7












    $begingroup$


    This is a direct follow-up to this other question of mine and assumes that, indeed, one may wield a Talisman of Pure Good (or a Talisman of Ultimate Evil) as an improvised weapon and apply both the regular melee damage from an improvised weapon plus the Talisman's radiant/necrotic damage if the creature is not of the right alignment.



    The Player's Handbook states the following about 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.




    Can one decide to strike a maligned foe non-lethally (and therefore knock them out instead of killing them) with a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil)?



    My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure.










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      7












      7








      7





      $begingroup$


      This is a direct follow-up to this other question of mine and assumes that, indeed, one may wield a Talisman of Pure Good (or a Talisman of Ultimate Evil) as an improvised weapon and apply both the regular melee damage from an improvised weapon plus the Talisman's radiant/necrotic damage if the creature is not of the right alignment.



      The Player's Handbook states the following about 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.




      Can one decide to strike a maligned foe non-lethally (and therefore knock them out instead of killing them) with a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil)?



      My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure.










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      This is a direct follow-up to this other question of mine and assumes that, indeed, one may wield a Talisman of Pure Good (or a Talisman of Ultimate Evil) as an improvised weapon and apply both the regular melee damage from an improvised weapon plus the Talisman's radiant/necrotic damage if the creature is not of the right alignment.



      The Player's Handbook states the following about 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.




      Can one decide to strike a maligned foe non-lethally (and therefore knock them out instead of killing them) with a Talisman of Pure Good (or Ultimate Evil)?



      My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure.







      dnd-5e magic-items combat improvised-weaponry






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      V2Blast

      24.6k383155




      24.6k383155










      asked 7 hours ago









      Gael LGael L

      9,037341169




      9,037341169




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8












          $begingroup$

          No



          Your quote specifically states a "melee attack," but the damage from the Talisman occurs after (when they touch it), so it isn't an attack.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            27 mins ago


















          7












          $begingroup$

          Any melee attack can be a knock-out blow.



          You've quoted the complete rules on the matter. The type of damage is not relevant, only the source of the attack - melee or ranged. Both a melee weapon attack and a melee spell attack are melee attacks.



          Another user asked What is "Force" Damage? In that case, they were asking how to describe wounds, but I made a key point in my answer:




          Until a source of damage interacts with something with resistance, immunity, vulnerability, or some other ability that cites an interaction with a type of damage, the damage type is functionally meaningless.




          In D&D5E, you can just as easily fire-damage somebody into unconsciousness (via Flame Blade, a melee spell attack) or shock them into submission (via Shocking Grasp), as you can beat them within an inch of their life. You cannot Lightning Bolt or Fire Bolt somebody without the risk of killing them, because neither of those two spells involves a melee attack (one is a save, the other is a ranged spell attack).



          The Talisman may not be an attack at all.



          While it isn't written that way, I suspect the intention of that passage is when an unworthy character touches the talisman willingly. If you're allowing that feature to be used offensively, by pressing it against the unworthy, you're dipping into homebrew territory anyway.



          If you're allowing a character to make a melee attack with a Talisman, then yes, it would work as you describe. A melee attack is a melee attack, and by the rules can be used as a knock-out blow.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            57 mins ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            53 mins ago


















          5












          $begingroup$

          No



          If touching someone with the amulet causes damage, using it as an improvised attack will also cause the damage.



          However, the damage from the touch is not melee attack damage. If you crit, the damage dice aren't doubled. It is damage that happens as a consequence of the hit, not melee attack damage.



          You can no more make a decision to knock a target out by touching them with the amulet than you can make a decision to knock someone out from the fall damage your melee+push 10 attack did as they fell off a cliff.



          Only melee attack damage has the property that you can knock someone out with it.



          Another similar case where this doesn't happen is poison damage -- the poison damage is caused by taking the melee hit, but it isn't part of the melee attack damage. Its damage dice aren't doubled on a crit.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            29 mins ago










          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "122"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143133%2fcan-the-damage-from-a-talisman-of-pure-good-or-ultimate-evil-be-non-lethal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8












          $begingroup$

          No



          Your quote specifically states a "melee attack," but the damage from the Talisman occurs after (when they touch it), so it isn't an attack.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            27 mins ago















          8












          $begingroup$

          No



          Your quote specifically states a "melee attack," but the damage from the Talisman occurs after (when they touch it), so it isn't an attack.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            27 mins ago













          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          No



          Your quote specifically states a "melee attack," but the damage from the Talisman occurs after (when they touch it), so it isn't an attack.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No



          Your quote specifically states a "melee attack," but the damage from the Talisman occurs after (when they touch it), so it isn't an attack.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 7 hours ago









          NoOneIsHereNoOneIsHere

          602416




          602416











          • $begingroup$
            You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            27 mins ago
















          • $begingroup$
            You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
            $endgroup$
            – NoOneIsHere
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            27 mins ago















          $begingroup$
          You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          You're ignoring the parameters supplied before the quote. In the context of this question, the Talisman itself is being used as a weapon and the damage does apply to the attack.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          1 hour ago












          $begingroup$
          @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
          $endgroup$
          – NoOneIsHere
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          @T.J.L. what I'm trying into the I say here is that the damage comes after the attack.
          $endgroup$
          – NoOneIsHere
          1 hour ago












          $begingroup$
          And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          1 hour ago





          $begingroup$
          And the querent is saying they have already decided that is not the case. They have decided it is part of the attack. This answer might be viable for the linked question, but here it is ignoring the explicitly provided context.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          1 hour ago













          $begingroup$
          @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
          $endgroup$
          – NoOneIsHere
          1 hour ago





          $begingroup$
          @T.J.L. I see. I still think the answer is fine.
          $endgroup$
          – NoOneIsHere
          1 hour ago













          $begingroup$
          @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
          $endgroup$
          – D.Spetz
          27 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          @T.J.L. OP said "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item." Which to me makes it sound like it is not a foregone conclusion. This answer clearly addresses that concern.
          $endgroup$
          – D.Spetz
          27 mins ago













          7












          $begingroup$

          Any melee attack can be a knock-out blow.



          You've quoted the complete rules on the matter. The type of damage is not relevant, only the source of the attack - melee or ranged. Both a melee weapon attack and a melee spell attack are melee attacks.



          Another user asked What is "Force" Damage? In that case, they were asking how to describe wounds, but I made a key point in my answer:




          Until a source of damage interacts with something with resistance, immunity, vulnerability, or some other ability that cites an interaction with a type of damage, the damage type is functionally meaningless.




          In D&D5E, you can just as easily fire-damage somebody into unconsciousness (via Flame Blade, a melee spell attack) or shock them into submission (via Shocking Grasp), as you can beat them within an inch of their life. You cannot Lightning Bolt or Fire Bolt somebody without the risk of killing them, because neither of those two spells involves a melee attack (one is a save, the other is a ranged spell attack).



          The Talisman may not be an attack at all.



          While it isn't written that way, I suspect the intention of that passage is when an unworthy character touches the talisman willingly. If you're allowing that feature to be used offensively, by pressing it against the unworthy, you're dipping into homebrew territory anyway.



          If you're allowing a character to make a melee attack with a Talisman, then yes, it would work as you describe. A melee attack is a melee attack, and by the rules can be used as a knock-out blow.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            57 mins ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            53 mins ago















          7












          $begingroup$

          Any melee attack can be a knock-out blow.



          You've quoted the complete rules on the matter. The type of damage is not relevant, only the source of the attack - melee or ranged. Both a melee weapon attack and a melee spell attack are melee attacks.



          Another user asked What is "Force" Damage? In that case, they were asking how to describe wounds, but I made a key point in my answer:




          Until a source of damage interacts with something with resistance, immunity, vulnerability, or some other ability that cites an interaction with a type of damage, the damage type is functionally meaningless.




          In D&D5E, you can just as easily fire-damage somebody into unconsciousness (via Flame Blade, a melee spell attack) or shock them into submission (via Shocking Grasp), as you can beat them within an inch of their life. You cannot Lightning Bolt or Fire Bolt somebody without the risk of killing them, because neither of those two spells involves a melee attack (one is a save, the other is a ranged spell attack).



          The Talisman may not be an attack at all.



          While it isn't written that way, I suspect the intention of that passage is when an unworthy character touches the talisman willingly. If you're allowing that feature to be used offensively, by pressing it against the unworthy, you're dipping into homebrew territory anyway.



          If you're allowing a character to make a melee attack with a Talisman, then yes, it would work as you describe. A melee attack is a melee attack, and by the rules can be used as a knock-out blow.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            57 mins ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            53 mins ago













          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          Any melee attack can be a knock-out blow.



          You've quoted the complete rules on the matter. The type of damage is not relevant, only the source of the attack - melee or ranged. Both a melee weapon attack and a melee spell attack are melee attacks.



          Another user asked What is "Force" Damage? In that case, they were asking how to describe wounds, but I made a key point in my answer:




          Until a source of damage interacts with something with resistance, immunity, vulnerability, or some other ability that cites an interaction with a type of damage, the damage type is functionally meaningless.




          In D&D5E, you can just as easily fire-damage somebody into unconsciousness (via Flame Blade, a melee spell attack) or shock them into submission (via Shocking Grasp), as you can beat them within an inch of their life. You cannot Lightning Bolt or Fire Bolt somebody without the risk of killing them, because neither of those two spells involves a melee attack (one is a save, the other is a ranged spell attack).



          The Talisman may not be an attack at all.



          While it isn't written that way, I suspect the intention of that passage is when an unworthy character touches the talisman willingly. If you're allowing that feature to be used offensively, by pressing it against the unworthy, you're dipping into homebrew territory anyway.



          If you're allowing a character to make a melee attack with a Talisman, then yes, it would work as you describe. A melee attack is a melee attack, and by the rules can be used as a knock-out blow.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Any melee attack can be a knock-out blow.



          You've quoted the complete rules on the matter. The type of damage is not relevant, only the source of the attack - melee or ranged. Both a melee weapon attack and a melee spell attack are melee attacks.



          Another user asked What is "Force" Damage? In that case, they were asking how to describe wounds, but I made a key point in my answer:




          Until a source of damage interacts with something with resistance, immunity, vulnerability, or some other ability that cites an interaction with a type of damage, the damage type is functionally meaningless.




          In D&D5E, you can just as easily fire-damage somebody into unconsciousness (via Flame Blade, a melee spell attack) or shock them into submission (via Shocking Grasp), as you can beat them within an inch of their life. You cannot Lightning Bolt or Fire Bolt somebody without the risk of killing them, because neither of those two spells involves a melee attack (one is a save, the other is a ranged spell attack).



          The Talisman may not be an attack at all.



          While it isn't written that way, I suspect the intention of that passage is when an unworthy character touches the talisman willingly. If you're allowing that feature to be used offensively, by pressing it against the unworthy, you're dipping into homebrew territory anyway.



          If you're allowing a character to make a melee attack with a Talisman, then yes, it would work as you describe. A melee attack is a melee attack, and by the rules can be used as a knock-out blow.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 5 hours ago

























          answered 6 hours ago









          T.J.L.T.J.L.

          33.1k5115173




          33.1k5115173











          • $begingroup$
            @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            57 mins ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            53 mins ago
















          • $begingroup$
            @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            1 hour ago











          • $begingroup$
            A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
            $endgroup$
            – T.J.L.
            57 mins ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
            $endgroup$
            – Theo Brinkman
            53 mins ago















          $begingroup$
          @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          1 hour ago





          $begingroup$
          @Yakk I don't see the need. The querent has already declared (in the question) that using the amulet as an attack deals the damage. That last paragraph reiterates that declaration. The paragraph before indicates it may be wrong, but I'm not going to argue strongly against something the querent has already indicated as fact. There is a linked question that discusses whether it is, or is not, which makes that part of the debate out-of-scope on this question.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          1 hour ago













          $begingroup$
          A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
          $endgroup$
          – Theo Brinkman
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          A melee attack with the talisman would deal damage appropriate to the corresponding type of improvised weapon. That is the damage which could be made non-lethal. Like the poison on a poisoned weapon, the talisman's 'on touch' effect is not the melee attack itself. The reasoning in this answer is not bad, it is simply incomplete. Yakk's answer below fills in the missing pieces.
          $endgroup$
          – Theo Brinkman
          1 hour ago












          $begingroup$
          @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          57 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          @TheoBrinkman The querent's parameters indicate he has already decided otherwise. Once again, I'm not going to refute or argue the querent's declarations. There is a separate question that covers that debate.
          $endgroup$
          – T.J.L.
          57 mins ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
          $endgroup$
          – Theo Brinkman
          53 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          no the querent's parameters indicate he has already decided that the object can be an improvised weapon, not that the damage dealt by touching it is 'melee weapon damage'. If that had been decided that already, the question would have been completely unnecessary. In fact, the final paragraph of the question indicates the question has not made that assumption yet. "My hesitation relies on the fact that the radiant/necrotic damage from the Talisman does not directly come from the melee attack, but rather from the item. I think it might still work, but I am unsure."
          $endgroup$
          – Theo Brinkman
          53 mins ago











          5












          $begingroup$

          No



          If touching someone with the amulet causes damage, using it as an improvised attack will also cause the damage.



          However, the damage from the touch is not melee attack damage. If you crit, the damage dice aren't doubled. It is damage that happens as a consequence of the hit, not melee attack damage.



          You can no more make a decision to knock a target out by touching them with the amulet than you can make a decision to knock someone out from the fall damage your melee+push 10 attack did as they fell off a cliff.



          Only melee attack damage has the property that you can knock someone out with it.



          Another similar case where this doesn't happen is poison damage -- the poison damage is caused by taking the melee hit, but it isn't part of the melee attack damage. Its damage dice aren't doubled on a crit.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            29 mins ago















          5












          $begingroup$

          No



          If touching someone with the amulet causes damage, using it as an improvised attack will also cause the damage.



          However, the damage from the touch is not melee attack damage. If you crit, the damage dice aren't doubled. It is damage that happens as a consequence of the hit, not melee attack damage.



          You can no more make a decision to knock a target out by touching them with the amulet than you can make a decision to knock someone out from the fall damage your melee+push 10 attack did as they fell off a cliff.



          Only melee attack damage has the property that you can knock someone out with it.



          Another similar case where this doesn't happen is poison damage -- the poison damage is caused by taking the melee hit, but it isn't part of the melee attack damage. Its damage dice aren't doubled on a crit.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            29 mins ago













          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          No



          If touching someone with the amulet causes damage, using it as an improvised attack will also cause the damage.



          However, the damage from the touch is not melee attack damage. If you crit, the damage dice aren't doubled. It is damage that happens as a consequence of the hit, not melee attack damage.



          You can no more make a decision to knock a target out by touching them with the amulet than you can make a decision to knock someone out from the fall damage your melee+push 10 attack did as they fell off a cliff.



          Only melee attack damage has the property that you can knock someone out with it.



          Another similar case where this doesn't happen is poison damage -- the poison damage is caused by taking the melee hit, but it isn't part of the melee attack damage. Its damage dice aren't doubled on a crit.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No



          If touching someone with the amulet causes damage, using it as an improvised attack will also cause the damage.



          However, the damage from the touch is not melee attack damage. If you crit, the damage dice aren't doubled. It is damage that happens as a consequence of the hit, not melee attack damage.



          You can no more make a decision to knock a target out by touching them with the amulet than you can make a decision to knock someone out from the fall damage your melee+push 10 attack did as they fell off a cliff.



          Only melee attack damage has the property that you can knock someone out with it.



          Another similar case where this doesn't happen is poison damage -- the poison damage is caused by taking the melee hit, but it isn't part of the melee attack damage. Its damage dice aren't doubled on a crit.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          YakkYakk

          7,3111041




          7,3111041







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            29 mins ago












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
            $endgroup$
            – D.Spetz
            29 mins ago







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
          $endgroup$
          – D.Spetz
          29 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          +1 For mentioning crits and poison. There is a difference between making a melee attack with an object which does damage, and the object having an inherent property that also does damage. Can you hit someone with the Talisman? Sure, it acts like a tiny flail and does 1d4 damage. That can be as non-lethal as you want, but the big radiant burst that comes after has nothing to do with it.
          $endgroup$
          – D.Spetz
          29 mins ago

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143133%2fcan-the-damage-from-a-talisman-of-pure-good-or-ultimate-evil-be-non-lethal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Best approach to update all entries in a list that is paginated?Best way to add items to a paginated listChoose Your Country: Best Usability approachUpdate list when a user is viewing the list without annoying themWhen would the best day to update your webpage be?What should happen when I add a Row to a paginated, sorted listShould I adopt infinite scrolling or classical pagination?How to show user that page objects automatically updateWhat is the best location to locate the comments section in a list pageBest way to combine filtering and selecting items in a listWhen one of two inputs must be updated to satisfy a consistency criteria, which should you update (if at all)?

          Вунгтау (аеропорт) Загальні відомості | Див. також | Посилання | Навігаційне меню10°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.0833310°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.083337731608Vinh AirportVinh airport facelift improves serviceвиправивши або дописавши їївиправивши або дописавши їїр

          Тонконіг бульбистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Екологія | Господарське значення | Примітки | Див. також | Література | Джерела | Посилання | Навігаційне меню1114601320038-241116202404kew-435458Poa bulbosaЭлектронный каталог сосудистых растений Азиатской России [Електронний каталог судинних рослин Азіатської Росії]Малышев Л. Л. Дикие родичи культурных растений. Poa bulbosa L. - Мятлик луковичный. [Малишев Л. Л. Дикі родичи культурних рослин. Poa bulbosa L. - Тонконіг бульбистий.]Мятлик (POA) Сем. Злаки (Мятликовые) [Тонконіг (POA) Род. Злаки (Тонконогові)]Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Description from Flora of China) [Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Опис від Флора Китаю)]Poa bulbosa L. – lipnice cibulkatá / lipnica cibulkatáPoa bulbosa в базі даних Poa bulbosa на сайті Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Global Biodiversity Information Facility» (GBIF)Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Euro + Med PlantBase» — інформаційному ресурсі для Євро-середземноморського розмаїття рослинPoa bulbosa L. на сайті «Плантариум»