Ablative Barrier - Lethal Damage


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Thank you, of course I pointed out that Forseti is agreeing with me. So I'm not sure what you mean by alone?


Wait, I agree with what exactly?

Dark Archive

Forseti wrote:
Wait, I agree with what exactly?
I think he said
Necronus wrote:
Forseti I agree, there is only damage, however the rule book refers to weapons doing lethal damage in a number of places.
and read
Forseti wrote:
Lethal damage isn't defined anywhere.

as agreement, though I'm not sure he read the rest of your post(s)... Which seem to refute his arguments.


I read his posts, Lethal Damage is an undefined term.

It is only used as a reference to weapons dealing lethal and nonlethal damage.

Proving that ablative barrier needs a FAQ or rewrite, since it references ambiguous terminology at best.

Forseti stated "Lethal damage is not a damage type."

"The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with nonlethal damage. " this is only mostly true.

The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with weapons dealing nonlethal or lethal damage.

This is far more accurate, as I have already linked numerous rules illustrating this conclusion.


necronus wrote:

"The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with nonlethal damage. " this is only mostly true.

The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with weapons dealing nonlethal or lethal damage.

This is far more accurate, as I have already linked numerous rules illustrating this conclusion.

No, you're wrong, it has nothing specifically to do with weapons.

Hot and cold environments, falling, and thirst and starvation are a few other topics that deal with both nonlethal and lethal damage, exactly in the manner my post described. Your statement is not far more accurate, it is in fact factually incorrect.


Combat: Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Combat: Under Non-Lethal: Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Combat: Grapple: Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

<><><><>

You can say many things, but saying I'm wrong in reference to weapons, is to deny RAW.


I was saying this is wrong:

"The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with weapons dealing nonlethal or lethal damage."

And it is.

Also, how does this work:

SRD wrote:

Falling

Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take lethal damage from a fall land in a prone position.

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

The bolded section demonstrates exactly what I posted before: the term lethal damage is only used to contrast regular damage from nonlethal damage.


"The term 'lethal damage' refers to weapons dealing lethal and non-lethal damage, as well as environments including falling, starvation, thirst."

The fact you said it had nothing to do with weapons is factually incorrect which is why I posted the rules with lethal damage directly pertaining to weapons.


necronus wrote:

"The term 'lethal damage' refers to weapons dealing lethal and non-lethal damage, as well as environments including falling, starvation, thirst."

The fact you said it had nothing to do with weapons is factually incorrect which is why I posted the rules with lethal damage directly pertaining to weapons.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with weapons. I said (quote) "it has nothing specifically to do with weapons."


I feel that us debating on our interpretation of what one another are saying is fruitless.

So let's try another tactic.

If Lethal damage is undefined, how does the ablative barrier work to you?

Grand Lodge

Lethal damage: damage that is not non lethal.

nonlethal damage: damage that will knock you out.

That's it.


d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/—. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.

Ok, first of all, we can agree that a lack of definition of the term "lethal damage" within the rules make this problematic. I propose that since lethal damage is primarily referenced only when dealing with physical attacks (or in otherwise physical situations pointed out, like starvation, falling, ect) that it should be used in this instance to also to reference physical attacks. I know common sense would dictate that any damage that is non-lethal, IS lethal, but sometimes you have to adjust perception within the rules structure of the game, not go by what out of game English rules or common sense would dictate.

At the very least, we need an official definition of "lethal damage" or an update/FAQ on the spell in question.

Second, you should look at the spell overall, instead of dissecting individual parts and taking them out of context. If you read the entire spell, the first thing it does is grant an armor bonus to AC. (On a side note, I assume that this is an enhancement bonus, I would appreciate clarification before people start trying to stack this with armor because it is "untyped"). That being said, it seems logical to me that any additional effects from the spell should apply to physical attacks (AC).

I can also see space for confusion here coming from fluff of the spells.

Quote:
Invisible layers of force surround and protect the target

Although it explains how the rules crunch parts of the spell work, these words should possibly be disregarded, as they appear to be just fluff. I think part of some above arguments above are assuming or otherwise affected by the assumption that "surrounding layers of force" should be able to intercept any type of attack.

Of course, this is all supposition. Without having a clear cut definition of "lethal damage", I can only make guesses. I would like AB to affect all damage types, but given that this is a (primarily) second level spell, it seams like it would be to good/powerful to work like that, in addition to the AC bonus. That's more personal input than a statement of facts though


Well, the SRD tells me that fire deals lethal damage, and fire is generally also considered energy damage.

SRD wrote:
Extreme heat (air temperature over 140° F, fire, boiling water, lava) deals lethal damage.

That should be all that's necessary to disprove the notion that only weapons deal lethal damage.


Forseti:

SRD: Extreme heat (air temperature over 140° F, fire, boiling water, lava) deals lethal damage. Breathing air in these temperatures deals 1d6 points of damage per minute (no save). In addition, a character must make a Fortitude save every 5 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. Those wearing heavy clothing or any sort of armor take a -4 penalty on their saves. In addition, those wearing metal armor or coming into contact with very hot metal are affected as if by a heat metal spell.

Boiling water deals 1d6 points of scalding damage, unless the character is fully immersed, in which case it deals 10d6 points of damage per round of exposure.

>>>I would agree with you, except for the fact that as you have pointed out this is a time where it is converting nonlethal into lethal damage.<<<

In severe heat (above 110° F), a character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. Characters wearing heavy clothing or armor of any sort take a -4 penalty on their saves. A character with the Survival skill may receive a bonus on this saving throw and may be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well. Characters reduced to unconsciousness begin taking lethal damage (1d4 points per each 10-minute period).

So as you have pointed out beforehand this is an example of when non-lethal becomes lethal damage.

Still not a defined term.

Also the very next line states: Breathing air in these temperatures deals 1d6 points of damage per minute (no save).

So they are referencing that you take 1d6 untyped non-defined damage, so you suffer the damage with no resistances.


Please stop moving the goalposts. My post about fire was meant to disprove your assertion that only weapons deal lethal damage, and that energy damage can be lethal damage.


I couldn't move "the goalposts" if these were defined terms, so now it is full circle, and obviously needs clarification or FAQ update.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Please do not use the term "SRD" in reference to the Pathfinder rules; it is confusing, irritating, and simply wrong. The SRD is Wizards of the Coast's "System Reference Document", a collection of rich text formatted files that contain the D&D rules that have been designated as Open Gaming Content. The online Pathfinder RPG rules bear the name "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document", or, for short, PRD. Thank you.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

necronus, please try to use the QUOTE tag when quoting other people, it would make your posts far more readable. Thank you.


Developers have gone on record on several occasions that terms that are clear in the english language needn't be defined by the rules if the usual english meaning applies to the use of the term in the game.

Obviously that's the case with lethal damage.

Nuku wrote:
Lethal damage: damage that is not non lethal.

This works for every instance of the term "lethal damage" throughout the SRD. I can't imagine a developer is going to tell us anything else.

Take a look at the falling damage text I quoted earlier:

PRD wrote:

Falling

Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take lethal damage from a fall land in a prone position.

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

1) Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take lethal damage from a fall land in a prone position.

2) If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage.

3) Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage.

Point 1) states that people that fall take damage. Not lethal damage, but just "damage".

Point 2) states that a deliberate jump results in the same damage, except the first 1d6 is nonlethal. If the rest of the damage is the same, as stated, that would be a number of d6s worth of damage. Not lethal damage, just damage.

Still with me?

3) Someone falling 30 feet takes 3d6 damage. Check, that makes sense, that's what Point 1 clearly stated! Someone deliberately jumping down the same distance takes 1d6 nonlethal damage and 2d6 lethal damage. Errr... wait... 2d6 lethal damage? Why, when the rest of the damage, according to Point 2 would be the same, why is it suddenly lethal damage instead of just plain damage? This doesn't make sense! We need errata for the falling rules, stat!

Or maybe, just maybe, lethal damage really is intended to just be all damage that's not nonlethal, as the english language would suggest.


If people don't understand the difference from the SRD and PRD, they probably don't have anything constructive to offer. Thanks for taking your time to point out these criticisms, though. At least I now know you don't disagree with me.

Since, my formatting seems to be the only thing you can critique.


And this falling damage is soaked with DR, not SR, or Resistance.

Are you still with me?

Sure seems like lethal damage is damage soaked by DR.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

necronus, I disagree with almost everything you have been saying on this thread, but I have given up all hope that you could ever be convinced otherwise, even by the rules authors themselves. I just wanted to point out how you could make your posts more accessible. It really helps to know what is actually your post and what is a quote. But, please, feel free to ignore decades of established internet/forum etiquette.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

"Soaking" is not a game term, by the way.


Zaister, Thank you for your input. I will in the future try harder to format my posts in a manner that makes them more accessible and more readily understood.

I would accept a rule from the authors/creators and request that they clarify this, since I see a problem either with how Lethal Damage is interpreted or the spell itself, probably both.

Lastly, I got a good chuckle out of you using internet and etiquette in the same sentence. Oh, Zaister, you are a funny one. Next you will say people using the internet are reasonable. Ha ha. Oh you, so funny.


necronus wrote:

And this falling damage is soaked with DR, not SR, or Resistance.

Are you still with me?

Sure seems like lethal damage is damage soaked by DR.

What does any of that have to do with what I wrote about how the "falling" rules can be used to demonstrate that "lethal damage" is simply all damage that's not "nonlethal damage"?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
necronus wrote:
Zaister, Thank you for your input. I will in the future try harder to format my posts in a manner that makes them more accessible and more readily understood.

Thank you!

necronus wrote:
Lastly, I got a good chuckle out of you using internet and etiquette in the same sentence. Oh, Zaister, you are a funny one. Next you will say people using the internet are reasonable. Ha ha. Oh you, so funny.

Well, I know of at least one member of this group who doesn't seem to be.


"Soaking" is a commonly accepted gaming term that describes an action of damage being absorbed. Such words when spoken or written in reference to something taking place with in a game doesn't need a definition.

But if you don't understand what it means, www.google.com

Result: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/19090/origin-of-the-word-soak-for-av oiding-damage


necronus wrote:

And this falling damage is soaked with DR, not SR, or Resistance.

Are you still with me?

Sure seems like lethal damage is damage soaked by DR.

Nope, DR only works versus attacks not falling (read the DR section again).

Now Ablative barrier works as it says lethal damage.


1 + a doesn't = 2, Starbuck_II

Ablative barrier works vs falling damage, oh wait no it doesn't, the ground isn't attacking you there fore it can't soak the lethal damage, as stated earlier.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
necronus wrote:

"Soaking" is a commonly accepted gaming term that describes an action of damage being absorbed. Such words when spoken or written in reference to something taking place with in a game doesn't need a definition.

But if you don't understand what it means, www.google.com

Result: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/19090/origin-of-the-word-soak-for-av oiding-damage

I know what it means. I am just not happy with bringing in game terms from other games when the game we are talking about already has perfectly good terms of its own. When speaking about rules, I think, it helps to be concise.

Grand Lodge

I was about to say. You can't use DR against falling damage.

But, you can use ablative barrier! It's a pretty sweet spell.


At this point I don't understand why me throwing a rock at your face can be protected by DR.

However, you falling face first into the rock is not protected by DR.

That seems counter intuitive, but so do a lot of things coming from this rules forum.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necronus wrote:

I would accept a rule from the authors/creators and request that they clarify this, since I see a problem either with how Lethal Damage is interpreted or the spell itself, probably both.

Let me try one last time to explain this.

----- Example 0: Baseline -----
A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 fire damage and rolls 37 fire damage.

PRD wrote:


The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

Because the 10 goblins have no rules that interact with the fire damage, we can remove the word fire so it would now read:

A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 damage and rolls 37 damage.

PRD wrote:

Damage

If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.
PRD wrote:

Damage

Damage reduces a target's current hit points.

These tell me how to apply the damage, so 8 -37 = -29.

PRD wrote:

Hit Points

When your hit point total reaches 0, you're disabled. When it reaches –1, you're dying. When it gets to a negative amount equal to your Constitution score, you're dead.

The goblins are dead.

----- Assertion 1: Fire can kill without being damage ----

A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 fire damage and rolls 37 fire damage.

Since you're assertions seems to be that fire damage is not to be treated the same way as damage, so it becomes

A 10th level wizard casts a fireball at 10 goblins (with 8 hp and 18 con) that does 10D6 fire and rolls 37 fire.

If this were true, you'd be able to point out something similar to

Hypothetical Necessary Proof Possibility 1 wrote:

Fire

Fire reduces a target's current hit points.

or maybe something like

Hypothetical Necessary Proof Possibility 2 wrote:
Dealing Fire: Certain attacks deal fire. When you take fire, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the fire number from your current hit points. It is not “real” damage. Instead, when your fire equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.

Can you do this? I don't think so, but hey I could be wrong. Please include a link to it in the PRD if you do.

---- Assertion 2: Lethal is a damage type like fire. -----

PRD wrote:


The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

Lethal is quite clearly not listed in this list. It is not like fire.

If you want to continue this assertion, please find an expanded list that shows lethal included in the number of descriptors AND information about how it interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

---- Assertion 3: Lethal is a damage type like bludgeoning. -----

PRD wrote:


Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.

Lethal is quite clearly not listed in this list of damages either. It is not like bludgeoning.

If you want to continue this assertion, please find an expanded list of weapon damages that shows 'L for lethal' included in with the others AND at least one weapon that deals L instead of B, P, or S damage.

----- Assertion 4: Well if lethal isn't any of those, what is it? -----

I think Forseti said it best when he said,

Forseti wrote:
The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with nonlethal damage. The term is only used in those contexts to signify that something that might cause nonlethal damage under some circumstances can cause regular damage under other circumstances. The word 'lethal' is only used to emphasize this contrast.

If you want to persist with this assertion as incorrect, you would need to find 3 examples of 'lethal' being used completely independently of 'non-lethal'. Heck, I'd take just 1 such example.

----- My conclusion -----

Each of your multiple assertions have been systemically refuted by members of this thread and the PRD.

PRD wrote:
Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage.

is exactly identical to

Alternate Text wrote:
Additionally, the first 5 points of damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage.

Since you were the original poster in this thread Necronus, I hope this helps you.

----- P.S. Fireballs are still not attacks. -----

PRD wrote:
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Yes, fireballs are attacks.

I find it an odd place to mention channel energy though. Since channel energy is a Supernatural Ability, perhaps this alludes to more than just spells.


This is why lethal damage needs to be defined.

Or

The spell needs to go through an errata.

Or

There needs to be a FAQ involving the spell/damage

or

Ablative Barrier works against all damage, however a character can not benefit from any other form of resistance or DR.

Example, you resist 5 fire and have ablative barrier up. Ablative barrier wouldn't work against fire damage. It would against all other types of damage.

Grand Lodge

All damage is lethal unless it is defined as not lethal.

Fireball, let's say 20 damage. Hits a guy with fire resist 5, cool. It becomes 15 damage (Which is lethal, because it's not non lethal), 5 becomes non lethal, he takes 10 lethal and 5 non lethal damage. End story.

There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity.


Nuku, you are quoting an interpretation of the rules.

It doesn't state that anywhere.

This is a Rules Forum, RAW only.

You could, however, state "All damage should be lethal unless it is considered non-lethal, that is what I believe is implied within the book."

Fireball states it does Fire Damage. Not fire lethal damage.

You are interpreting rules and stating them as facts.

Protection from fire doesn't stack with Resist Fire.

Multiple forms of DR do not stack with one another.

The game is built around the principle you can't stack protections.

Yet you think, no big deal, lets allow this spell to stack with all the others.

Oh, and you feel like stating opinions as facts.

Nice job.

Grand Lodge

Ablative provides no DR against lethal attacks. You seem stuck on that. Find the word 'DR' in it that applies to lethal damage.


Oh I'm sorry, the spell provides DR, if there was a descriptor for DR, this spell would have it.

You seem to be ignoring that.


Zaister wrote:
Please do not use the term "SRD" in reference to the Pathfinder rules; it is confusing, irritating, and simply wrong. The SRD is Wizards of the Coast's "System Reference Document", a collection of rich text formatted files that contain the D&D rules that have been designated as Open Gaming Content. The online Pathfinder RPG rules bear the name "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document", or, for short, PRD. Thank you.

d20pfsrd.com

There are several web sights with reference documents for Pathfinder. The one I listed above is the one I assume people are referencing whenever they say srd. There is no need to be snippy with someone just because they use a different srd than you do.


necronus wrote:
You could, however, state "All damage should be lethal unless it is considered non-lethal, that is what I believe is implied within the book."

Terms that are clear from their meaning in the English language don't need a rules definition.

Wouldn't you agree that, outside of the game, something is either lethal or non-lethal? Are there other options? No.

If the english language is sufficient to infer a word's meaning in the rules, that word needs no specific definition in the rules. There's an enormous amount of words in the rules without an official definition. Are you going to go berserk over all of them?


Just to point out something I think everyone is missing -

Resist (energy type) (amount)
provides protection against energy based attacks.

Damage reduction (DR) / (what overcomes a particular DR)
Provides protection against physical attacks.

while both eneregy an physical attacks deal "lethal" damage, it is clear that they are different. I've already made up my mind on this subject, but keep these facts in mind as you continue you arguments.

Grand Lodge

Which is great, but Ablative barrier does not reduce any damage, at all. It is neither resistance, nor reduction. It is a damage conversion.

Trying to apply DR or Resistance rules to it seems silly, since it is neither of those. I'm not sure what point you're driving at, Elven. You take some lethal damage, it becomes non lethal. It doesn't care what type of lethal damage. Swords, fireballs, falling cats. Invisible bands take the hit for you, cushioning small bits of an otherwise lethal smack, blast, slice, or acid to the face. It's awesomely dynamic, but can only convert five points per strike, and only so many points per casting. Great spell, but not game breaking.

Also, not that confusing from where I'm standing.

Dark Archive

I stated exactly what you would need to find in the RAW and show me to validate your interpretations. You have chosen not to do so.

Mirror, Mirror; on the wall... wrote:

Necronus, you are quoting an interpretation of the rules.

The rules do not support your opinion anywhere.

This is a Rules Forum, RAW only.

...

Oh, and you feel like stating opinions as facts.

Nice job.


I state my opinions on a subject that can not be proved by either party.

Lethal damage is undefined, and the majority of it being used is describing weapon damage.

The only find otherwise, was under environmental damage.

No one has come forth with any sort of clear definition showing spell damage is anything more than just damage, or damage of a certain type, such as fire damage.

Show in the book were it defines spell damage as lethal.

How is lethal damage even a thing? A fireball acts differently on a building than a slashing weapon.

Yet they both do lethal? Nonsense.

Forseti wrote:
Terms that are clear from their meaning in the English language don't need a rules definition.

A fireball does Fire Damage. That is clear that it not only does damage, but the type is fire. You resist it with Fire Resistance or Fire Immunity, and it does more damage if you are Vulnerable to Fire.

I'm sorry, where does it state anything about this being lethal damage?

Oh I know, you are saying that it is assumed, since it isn't actually written anywhere.

That's always the best policy assuming.


It's lethal damage, because it isn't nonlethal damage, as per the english language.

Now let's turn the tables for a moment: find me a rule that says weapons deal lethal damage.


Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.


That's not what I asked. That first quote just says that if a weapon deals lethal damage, it can, by accepting a penalty, be used to deal nonlethal damage.

It does not establish that weapons deal lethal damage. That rule does nothing unless you can find weapons that are defined as dealing lethal damage. So, find some!


Thanks for agreeing with me, there are no defined rules involving this and needs some clarity, FAQ or Errata.


I don't agree with you, if you haven't noticed. The instances in which the term "lethal damage" appears are easily and unequivocally interpreted by simply following the conventions of the english language. In such cases, the rules can be said to be perfectly clear.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necronus wrote:


Show in the book were it defines spell damage as lethal.

Okay I accept your challenge.

PRD wrote:


Merciful Spell — Spell inflicts nonlethal damage instead of lethal

This can be found at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedFeats.html#_merciful-sp ell under the description of feats.

So... What excuse are you going to use to ignore this evidence? Are you going to say "It's not part of the rules because it's a feat description?" Yup, it is and that makes it part of the rules.

Honor.

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ablative Barrier - Lethal Damage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.