Shouldn't be able to but can. Or can I?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

So far I'm a 3rd level bloodrager, I worship Sarenrae and took the blades of mercy trait so I didn't get the -4 to non lethal attack tolls and I get +1 non lethal damage. It doesn't say I can't do it but there were some questions asked when I raged as to whether that should be possible.

Can I rage and still be in the right frame of mind to hit nonlethally while raging?

I hope I can because I like the extra damage and knocking enemies out is more fun and helps you find out information easier than talking to a dead guy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That one most probably comes down to GM's Call I'm afraid.

Grand Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

You absolutely can.

Rage is not a form of temporary mental retardation, and only restricts what it says it does.

You can Fight Defensively, Ready an Action, Drink a Potion, take the Total Defense Action, or even deal Precision Damage(like Sneak Attack), if you have it.

Never rage stupid, unless you want to.

No rule, and no DM, can, or will, make you choose ineffectual tactics.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a DM call.


From the ACG

Quote:

While bloodraging,

a bloodrager cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or
Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate,
and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

So the question becomes, and it is subject to GM ruling IMO, does dealing nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon require concentration? I would rule that it does.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's absolutely ludicrous,

That falls in the same thought line of being unable to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, even though you have Improved Unarmed Strike, because "duuuurrrrrh, thinkin' hard".

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hell, that implies you suddenly can use weapons the way you were trained to use them.

Does not Blade of Mercy imply that there was some training, to fight in a way that deals nonlethal?

Can one not Rage, and use Weapon Finesse, or a Bastard Sword in one hand, even if you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

By the way, this is a Rules Question.

Flagged to be moved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, you should be able to deal non-lethal damage while blood-raging.

It is not a 'skill' and there is nothing in the rules indicating that it requires concentration to use a weapon in this way.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the flavor of your blood rage being more of a spiritual awakening wherein Sarenrae takes hold of you and guides your hand to deliver merciful blows. I also don't see anywhere in raw that would prevent dealing non-lethal while raging. I don't think it requires much concentration to turn your sword sideways.


Have to agree with everyone else here. I don't see what requires so much concentration and patience to hit someone hard with the blunt side of something.

"Patience or concentration" to me is something more like being able to find your way out of a Maze spell (which is not an Intelligence based skill, but it is an Intelligence based check, so it does at least have a basis there).


Andrew Roberts wrote:
Have to agree with everyone else here. I don't see what requires so much concentration and patience to hit someone hard with the blunt side of something.

Its kind of counter intuitive. you're holding and swinging the weapon the wrong way. (sometimes to "where's the wrong part of an axe to hit someone with? levels.) In the interests of less murder hoboing I'd let it work but I can see a DM saying no.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
Have to agree with everyone else here. I don't see what requires so much concentration and patience to hit someone hard with the blunt side of something.
Its kind of counter intuitive. you're holding and swinging the weapon the wrong way. (sometimes to "where's the wrong part of an axe to hit someone with? levels.) In the interests of less murder hoboing I'd let it work but I can see a DM saying no.

I would agree normally attempting non-leathel to be counter intuitive thus the -4 to hit penalty. As this trait negates that penalty then I would consider it to overcome that instinct.

I have no training but have swung some of my prop and toy weapons as I bet most of us have and yes swinging them sideways to hit with the flat part isn't natural thus I see this as the character taking time to learn to do it correctly, more so when they feel it is what the god the worship would want them too..


Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?


Dorothy Lindman wrote:

Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?

No. HULK SMASH WITH PUNY TABLE is easier when you're raging.


Dorothy Lindman wrote:

Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?

Improvised weapons always deal lethal damage. Characters are just treated as being non proficient with them without the correct feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jessex,
Remind me never to get in a pillow fight at your house...


If you can reasonably sunder things strategically (my bloodrager's great example: "You showed off a holy symbol to channel negative and it knocked out my animal companion?" *SUNDER!*), I don't see a problem with non-lethal damage, especially if you have resources invested in dealing non-lethal damage (feats, traits, etc.).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can totally rage and do non-lethal damage. The bigger question is should you do this in a low tier scenario. I've seen it happen more than once that a raging barbarian in a 1-5 scenario ended up killing with non-lethal damage.

Sovereign Court

p-sto wrote:
You can totally rage and do non-lethal damage. The bigger question is should you do this in a low tier scenario. I've seen it happen more than once that a raging barbarian in a 1-5 scenario ended up killing with non-lethal damage.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There are no situations in which non-lethal damage can be more deadly than lethal damage.


Not so much an issue of the non-lethal damage being more deadly as it's an issue of barbarian's doing too much damage. If you're intention is to keep the level 1 commoners who are swarming you alive then it's probably best to forgo the rage and power attack.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Talon Stormwarden wrote:
p-sto wrote:
You can totally rage and do non-lethal damage. The bigger question is should you do this in a low tier scenario. I've seen it happen more than once that a raging barbarian in a 1-5 scenario ended up killing with non-lethal damage.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There are no situations in which non-lethal damage can be more deadly than lethal damage.

It can if you have something like Sap Master which adds additional damage when you deal non-lethal.


Jessex wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:

Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?

Improvised weapons always deal lethal damage. Characters are just treated as being non proficient with them without the correct feats.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking about improvised weapons for the people who said doing nonlethal damage required concentration because you're not using the weapon as it was designed. If that's true, then using improvised weapons should also require concentration, since that's not how they were designed to be used.

Fun fact: While looking this up, I just noticed that you can also do lethal damage with a nonlethal weapon at the same -4 penalty. I did not know that.


Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:

Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?

Improvised weapons always deal lethal damage. Characters are just treated as being non proficient with them without the correct feats.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking about improvised weapons for the people who said doing nonlethal damage required concentration because you're not using the weapon as it was designed. If that's true, then using improvised weapons should also require concentration, since that's not how they were designed to be used.

Fun fact: While looking this up, I just noticed that you can also do lethal damage with a nonlethal weapon at the same -4 penalty. I did not know that.

Which actually strengthens my argument that it represents concentration. Because it surely does represent things like more carefully aiming the sap or whip.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can you imagine the kind-hearted NG PC, not wanting to murder someone, but the DM basically says "Nope. Murder only" followed by a "I noted that your character may need an alignment shift"?

You really want to be that DM?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not concentration.

Don't be that guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can you imagine the kind-hearted NG PC, not wanting to murder someone, but the DM basically says "Nope. Murder only" followed by a "I noted that your character may need an alignment shift"?

You really want to be that DM?

I find it incredibly annoying that when some players think the rules are in their favor they insist RAW! but the moment it looks like things might not go the way they like they start insisting that rules must be interpreted in a way that is favorable to them despite there being clear room for disagreement.

I also find bullying a less than convincing argument style.

In this case I think the simple fact that the class is supposed to be a berserker and is restricted from doing a suite of things that take careful action also makes using normally lethal weapons nonlethally to be a problem. I suggest that if this actually concerns anyone playing a bloodrager that they should start carrying a sap.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, let's take a step back for a bit and let cooler heads prevail...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are suggesting that combat feats, traits, and abilities, are unavailable to use, in a combat focused state, granted by a combat focused class.

That's pretty big.

Would you allow the Bludgeoner feat to function?

Dark Archive

There isn't anything preventing some degree of care or concern for life if it part of the character's personality. This is not the 3.5 Frenzied Berserker or The Hulk where you have zero self control. You may be seeing red enough that you can't do math, but that does not mean you're blindly ping ponging around the battlefield heedless of danger eviscerating things with no choice on the matter.

Scarab Sages

Patience is undefined in the game, but keep in mind that concentration is a game term. Concentration requires a standard action. So if, for example, a Rage Prophet were to cast Detect Magic, then use Rage on the next round, they would not be able to spend their standard action to concentrate on maintaining Detect Magic. I think it's reasonable to think that's the kind of thing the rule is referring to. I'm not sure doing non-lethal damage is considered an ability. It's more like one of the combat rules.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, let's get a baseline, of what you believe constitutes "concentration", in regards to the restrictions of Rage/Bloodrage.

Which of the following actions in combat, do you believe, fall into this category?:

1) Aid another.

2) Drink a potion or apply an oil.

3) Light a torch with a tindertwig.

4) Stabilize a dying ally using the Heal skill.

5) Load a crossbow.

6) Open or close a door.

7) Withdraw.

8) Deliver coup de grace.

9) Perform a Combat maneuver.

10) Use the Combat Expertise feat.

11) Use the Total Defense Action.

12) Deliver Precision Damage.

13) Use a Command Word activated Magic Item.

14) Ready an Action.

15) Use the Weapon Versatility feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does stopping a bloodrage require concentration?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If altering one's grip, or changing how they make their attack is something that cannot be done in Rage/Bloodrage, then there is a huge problem.

Grand Lodge

Ironically, I could see a better argument for disallowing ready during rage than for disallowing blade of mercy.

After all, "I wait till they do X before I do Y" is almost the definition of patience.

I'm still not going to disallow it, but I at least can see an argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A GM who disallowed use of Blade of Mercy during a rage would be pulling stuff out of their you-know-where.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bloodrage isn't rage. If you read through the text, it is releasing the intrinsic power of their bloodline. There is no reason to believe that a bloodrager must get angry in order to bloodrage.

As others have pointed out, Concentration is a game term. It is required to cast spells, maintain some spells, and can be disrupted by being damaged. Please show me where getting damaged prevents you from using a lethal weapon in a non-lethal way and that would be a step towards showing it takes Concentration (the way the game defines it) to do this.

I can see no reason to believe it takes more patience to hit someone for non-lethal damage than it does for lethal damage.


The game requires you to take a to hit penalty or pay a feat or trait tax to hit for non lethal damage. That represents something. Anyone who thinks about it knows that some of that is making a conscious effort to do something different than the usual, i.e. concentration.

The Exchange

Jessex wrote:
The game requires you to take a to hit penalty or pay a feat or trait tax to hit for non lethal damage. That represents something. Anyone who thinks about it knows that some of that is making a conscious effort to do something different than the usual, i.e. concentration.

I disagree.

I actually don't think it does...

Grand Lodge

Jessex, you have just implied that everyone other than you in this thread doesn't think about things.

Grand Lodge

Jessex wrote:
The game requires you to take a to hit penalty or pay a feat or trait tax to hit for non lethal damage. That represents something. Anyone who thinks about it knows that some of that is making a conscious effort to do something different than the usual, i.e. concentration.

Therefore you cannot use power attack, because you are doing something differently from normal.

Also, everyone who uses an exotic weapon must take a to hit penalty or pay a feat or trait tax to hit with it. Therefore raging barbarians cannot use exotic weapons.

Barbarians also cannot target opponents in melee with ranged weapons. Or opponents who have soft cover granted by allies.

Grand Lodge

Jessex wrote:


In this case I think the simple fact that the class is supposed to be a berserker

Actually they aren't. That was the case way back in AD&D when the class first started (and if I recall correctly if all the enemies went down they had a tendency to go after their friends.)

Now they are just enraged, not berserk.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What you imagine, is actually a specific Barbarian archetype.

The Wild Rager.

That's the foaming mouth, blind, murderous rage, that might even have you attack your friends, that you seem to confuse with Rage/Bloodrage.

You realize you can be a Lawful Good Bloodrager?

You can even have levels in Paladin.

Go ahead. Tell the Paladin he can't deal nonlethal.


Jessex wrote:
The game requires you to take a to hit penalty or pay a feat or trait tax to hit for non lethal damage. That represents something. Anyone who thinks about it knows that some of that is making a conscious effort to do something different than the usual, i.e. concentration.

Go back and read BBTs list. There are so many things that a rager is not prevented from doing that are far more contrary to this interpretation of concentration that I would really take a step back and question how I am interpreting 'concentration'. If you disagree with half of the things on that list I hope you warn your players before they play a rager.

Raging is not a completely mindless state. you can still function and choose whether to use most of the feats and abilities you have. you can still function strategically and that includes choosing whether to subdue someone.

As an aside, killing a low level NPC with non-lethal damage is not impossible or even improbable. 10 con, 8 hp requires 26hp of non-lethal damage. A 1st level 18 strength, power attacking, raging barbarian needs roughly a 9+ on his greataxe damage, or an untimely crit.

Scarab Sages

Oh and I shall now point out after having reread the bloodrager descriptions that it clearly states the Bloodrager can concentrate to cast spells from the bloodrager list.. Just to further mess with this debate.. lol


Having searched through the Core rule book on "concentration", it is apparent that when an ability requires "concentration" the character provokes an attack of opportunity or can be disrupted from continuing to use the ability requiring a concentration check. Doing non-lethal damage does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not require a concentration check when someone tries to disrupt the attack.


Yuri Sarreth wrote:
Oh and I shall now point out after having reread the bloodrager descriptions that it clearly states the Bloodrager can concentrate to cast spells from the bloodrager list.. Just to further mess with this debate.. lol

And that is an explicit exception.

As to the rest, A -4 penalty to hit is something. What is it? Until that is dealt with I will say it is at least the character concentrating on doing something. You can thank BBT's bullying for that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming at this from another angle:

Page 32 Core Rule Book:

Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. ... While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

Page 15 Advanced Class Guide:

Bloodrage (Su): The bloodrager’s source of internal power grants him the ability to bloodrage. ... While bloodraging, a bloodrager cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

Page 186 Core Rule Book:

Supernatural Abilities (Su): Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability’s description). Its use cannot be disrupted,does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Note that Bloodrage is a Supernatural Ability and Rage is an Extraordinary Ability and that the general rule for both is that they do not require concentration. However, Bloodrage and Rage specifically call out "any ability that requires patience or concentration" as being impossible while raging. Since the general rule indicates that Rage and Bloodrage do not require concentration, only the things specifically called out as being impossible are not to be permitted.

Page 191 Core Rule Book:

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.

Having perused Chapter 8 of the Core Rule Book, it is apparent that "use of a melee weapon" is an "action" and not an "ability". Since Bloodrage and Rage only prevents use of an ability that requires patience or concentration, Bloodrage and Rage do not prevent using a melee weapon to do non-lethal damage because using a melee weapon to do non-lethal damage is an action not an ability.

Edited for formatting.

Grand Lodge

I would like to thank Pink Dragon for citing sources. If we all did this these threads would be much clearer.

For what it is worth I agree with Blackbloodtroll AKA "Mr 30,000 plus posts" on this one.

A raging barbarian should be allowed to attack non-leathal, and love Walter's in game role playing.


Pink Dragon wrote:

Coming at this from another angle:

This is contradictory so I'll simply explain what is wrong and move on.

The rage ability specifically says ability that requires concentration but all the defined abilities specifically do not require concentration, as you helpfully proved by rules text. So that is clearly not what the rules text in the rage description means. So all that in your post was complete nothing.

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shouldn't be able to but can. Or can I? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.