Or rather, I need you all to confirm whether they are correct for I think I figured them out as I was typing them.
Toto frumento rapto, domi nihil erat quo mortem prohibere possent.
The entire grain having been seized, there was nothing at home by which they could prevent death.
(I was having trouble with the second clause with the one above)
Neque erat tantae multitudinis quisquam qui morari vellet.
Nor was there anyone from such a great crowd who wanted to delay.
Gratias vobis ago.
These are fine. Your ablative absolute could have been rendered in more idiomatic English, but you’ve clearly grasped the sense and structure of the sentences.
I’m tempted to ask what kind of ablative is expressed by quo, but I won’t. Except I just did by way of praeteritio… 
Good question. Now I want to know too. But Isn’t it just a relative pronoun introducing the subjunctive clause of description? I got those sentences from D’Ooge. It’s in the chapter that introduces the subjunctive of description. I’ve been translating the answers and posting them in the forum on D’Ooge’s textbook and bedwere has been adding them to the answer key here on textkit, but I got a little stuck here.
It is a relative pronoun introducing a clause of characteristic, but that does not preclude the fact that it is also an ablative of means. If, however, I am mistaken, I hope those with more expertise will point that out and explain it.
No, of course you are not wrong, and I was alluding to the other thread where nullo modo got a bit controversial.
Actually, I was just looking for confirmation as some of the uses of the subjunctive are one of my weak points. Not so much understanding the meaning -which I feel is the more important point- but identifying the type/ label for the usage.