There is a difference between having a separate tally and being a different kind of Damage. That is what I am asking, what kind of damage is it? If it isn't effecting HP, what is it for? How does one use it? Can it slice a tomato?
Personally, I would argue that nonlethal damage cannot, in fact, slice a tomato. Slicing a tomato is definitely lethal damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between having a separate tally and being a different kind of Damage. That is what I am asking, what kind of damage is it? If it isn't effecting HP, what is it for? How does one use it? Can it slice a tomato?In your opinion, there is a difference between a separate tally and a different kind of damage. What sorts of things would you say contribute to whether a damage is a different kind of damage?
When it is energy damage, like Fire or Cold damage, where typically the attack uses a touch attack and does not add the attackers Str mod (or equivalent). When it is damage to a stat, such as Con or Wis. Or gives the character points in an optional rule, such as Sanity. Those are different types of Damages.
Non Lethal does not do this, it effects HP. It is considered Damage, and reduces the amount of HP that the character will have to work with and still be standing. That it is compared to the HP damage and determined from there should not divorce Non Lethal Damage from HP completely.
Title of the thread.... "Is nonlethal damage considered Hit Point Damage?"
YES!!
|
|
There is a difference between having a separate tally and being a different kind of Damage. That is what I am asking, what kind of damage is it? If it isn't effecting HP, what is it for? How does one use it? Can it slice a tomato?Personally, I would argue that nonlethal damage cannot, in fact, slice a tomato. Slicing a tomato is definitely lethal damage.
So, using a Sap, or the flat of the blade, you squish it instead. Don't get any on you.
Target has 10 max hp. Has already taken 9 points of nonlethal. Sap wielder hits and does 2 points of damage.
Sap has done "nonlethal overflow."
Pick another weapon. Any weapon (that does damage).
Per RAW, the weapon type determines what damage is dealt.
Saps do 1d6 damage and the attack was nonlethal. Your damage roll result was 2, so the sap deals 2 points of nonlethal to the target.
Seems right to me.
The next example, you should do one with Power Attack
Oh no, we're not moving to that yet. First, you need to acknowledge that all weapons deal "nonlethal overflow" (if they deal damage). You said that no weapon does, and I just showed that that is a false statement.
You showed that the target took nonlethal overflow.
When I use the rule that determines how much damage a weapon deals, it is based on the weapon type. There are no special weapons that I know of that deal "nonlethal overflow" as a weapon quality. Weapons only do lethal or nonlethal damage, afaik.
Please provide an example where the weapon type deals "Nonlethal overflow."
Do you realize that "nonlethal overflow" is a shorthand we are using for something that nonlethal damage does? It isn't a thing on it's own, it's just something nonlethal does.
Do you REALLY understand this?
Come on guys we gotta pump these numbers if we are gonna take the spot for longest argument on these boards we still need 1100 to over take Succubus in a Grapple.
Just wanted to point out that plants aren't immune to nonlethal. So you can in fact slice a tomato with non lethal. If you do enough. Like..say..add power attack.
I also wanted to point out no one ever says to ME "thanks for having the courage to post."
But you're welcome anyways.
You've proven yourself already.
When he said "can it slice a tomato," I imagined a tomato with a chunk taken off. I agree, it would be possible to deal nonlethal slashing damage. However, anything more than just bruising the tomato would probably nonlethal.
So, nonlethal damage could bruise a tomato, but no more. Bruising doesn't directly kill a fruit, it just causes some cellular membranes to break down which could lead to infection (of the fruit).
And of course, if you do enough nonlethal damage (whether or not you believe it qualifies for power attack) you are going to end up with a dead tomato.
Do you realize that "nonlethal overflow" is a shorthand we are using for something that nonlethal damage does? It isn't a thing on it's own, it's just something nonlethal does.
Do you REALLY understand this?
We are talking about what the effect of an attack deals. This is a different concept than "nonlethal damage." It is not possible for the effect of an attack to deal "nonlethal overflow" damage. Also, being "nonlethal overflow" isn't something that nonlethal "does." Nonlethal damage is simply what it is and we change how we interact with it depending on the conditions.
What an attack deals is based on the weapon type. Weapons do either lethal damage or nonlethal damage (maybe some specific ones that do ability damage or something) but I am unaware of any weapon that deals "nonlethal overflow."
Even if a weapon did "deal nonlethal overflow," I'm not currently convinced it would invalidate my position. As when conditions are checked at the damage roll, it is dealing "nonlethal overflow" and would thus qualify for Power Attack.
It could depend on the specific wording of the ability. If you provide the rules text of the weapon or ability that allows an attack to deal "nonlethal overflow" damage, then I will be able to make a determination.
Do you realize that "nonlethal overflow" is a shorthand we are using for something that nonlethal damage does? It isn't a thing on it's own, it's just something nonlethal does.
Do you REALLY understand this?
We are talking about what the effect of an attack deals. This is a different concept than "nonlethal damage." It is not possible for the effect of an attack to deal "nonlethal overflow" damage. Also, being "nonlethal overflow" isn't something that nonlethal "does." Nonlethal damage is simply what it is and we change how we interact with it depending on the conditions.
Holy s~*!. You are so lost. I don't even know where to begin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on guys we gotta pump these numbers if we are gonna take the spot for longest argument on these boards we still need 1100 to over take Succubus in a Grapple.
Was that actually an argument? I looked at the title and assumed it was nerdy, back-handed porn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It started a one and kinda devolved over the last several years.
Holy s@@~. You are so lost. I don't even know where to begin.
We should begin on what it means to "deal damage" as that is the current disagreement. I have provided text from RAW that defines that what an effect "deals" is based on the weapon, not how much a target takes.
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
I have provided many examples that demonstrate this concept.
Most recently, as per your request, I have used an example to demonstrate that damage dealt cannot be damage taken using a reference from the CRB.
The warded creature gains resistance to blows, cuts, stabs, and slashes. The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction. Once the spell has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per caster level (maximum 150 points), it is discharged
Target has a stoneskin effect active with 10 remaining points of damage before it will be discharged.
Irontruth's position that Damage dealt = damage taken:
1. Creature attacks Target with a melee attack using Power Attack and it deals 10 damage (8 + 2 from power attack.)
2. Target's Stoneskin prevents all 10 damage and is discharged.
3. Target takes zero damage.
4. Attack is no longer eligible as it did not deal hit point damage. (According to your interpretation of damage dealt = damage taken)
5. Go back and change result to 8 damage
6. Stoneskin retroactively becomes active again after already being discharged.
Mallecks' position that damage dealt and damage taken are two separate concepts:
1. Creature attacks Target with a melee attack using Power Attack and it deals 10 damage (8 + 2 from Power Attack)
2. Target's Stoneskin prevents all 10 damage and is discharged
3. Target takes zero damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a serious rule question. That was answered in the first couple of pages of the thread.
It then devolved, very well, into innuendo and double-entendres, then went a bit overt, and has sort of settled down into a casual bubbling of nerdy suggestiveness.
The warded creature gains resistance to blows, cuts, stabs, and slashes. The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction. Once the spell has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per caster level (maximum 150 points), it is dischargedTarget has a stoneskin effect active with 10 remaining points of damage before it will be discharged.
Irontruth's position that Damage dealt = damage taken:
1. Creature attacks Target with a melee attack using Power Attack and it deals 10 damage (8 + 2 from power attack.)
2. Target's Stoneskin prevents all 10 damage and is discharged.
3. Target takes zero damage.
4. Attack is no longer eligible as it did not deal hit point damage. (According to your interpretation of damage dealt = damage taken)
5. Go back and change result to 8 damage
6. Stoneskin retroactively becomes active again after already being discharged.
That isn't my position at all. You've graduated from making things up about the rules, to now making things up about my position.
You seriously need to just stop. Everything you're claiming is just b$@%&**~. Are you trolling? If this is how things are going to be, there's no point in continuing.
That isn't my position at all. You've graduated from making things up about the rules, to now making things up about my position.
You seriously need to just stop. Everything you're claiming is just b$@+!*+&. Are you trolling? If this is how things are going to be, there's no point in continuing.
This is the logical consequence of your position based on Power Attack and Nonlethal.
Irontruth's Position on Power Attack assuming Nonlethal Damage is not Hit Point Damage.
Target has 10 HP and 9 nonlethal damage.
1. Creature uses Power Attack
2. Creature attacks Target with a nonlethal melee attack and is successful
3. Creature rolls damage and gets 8 damage (8 damage + 0 damage from power attack based on the assumption provided)
4. Creature takes 1 nonlethal and 7 lethal damage.
5. Attack is now eligible for Power Attack (based on your position that damage dealt is damage taken)
6. Attack retroactively is changed to 10 damage (8 + 2 damage from Power Attack because nonlethal overflow is lethal damage)
This is the same logic as the Stoneskin example.
Irontruth's Power Attack logic applied to stoneskin and lethal damage:
1. Creature attacks Target with a melee attack using Power Attack and it deals 10 damage (8 + 2 from power attack.)
2. Target's Stoneskin prevents all 10 damage and is discharged.
3. Target takes zero damage.
4. Attack is no longer eligible as it did not deal hit point damage. (According to your interpretation of damage dealt = damage taken)
5. Go back and change result to 8 damage
6. Stoneskin retroactively becomes active again after already being discharged.
That isn't my position at all. You've graduated from making things up about the rules, to now making things up about my position.
You seriously need to just stop. Everything you're claiming is just b$@+!*+&. Are you trolling? If this is how things are going to be, there's no point in continuing.
This is the logical consequence of your position based on Power Attack and Nonlethal.
Irontruth's Position on Power Attack assuming Nonlethal Damage is not Hit Point Damage.
Target has 10 HP and 9 nonlethal damage.
1. Creature uses Power Attack
2. Creature attacks Target with a nonlethal melee attack and is successful
3. Creature rolls damage and gets 8 damage (8 damage + 0 damage from power attack based on the assumption provided)
4. Creature takes 1 nonlethal and 7 lethal damage.
5. Attack is now eligible for Power Attack (based on your position that damage dealt is damage taken)
6. Attack retroactively is changed to 10 damage (8 + 2 damage from Power Attack because nonlethal overflow is lethal damage)This is the same logic as the Stoneskin example.
Irontruth's Power Attack logic applied to stoneskin and lethal damage:
1. Creature attacks Target with a melee attack using Power Attack and it deals 10 damage (8 + 2 from power attack.)
2. Target's Stoneskin prevents all 10 damage and is discharged.
3. Target takes zero damage.
4. Attack is no longer eligible as it did not deal hit point damage. (According to your interpretation of damage dealt = damage taken)
5. Go back and change result to 8 damage
6. Stoneskin retroactively becomes active again after already being discharged.
I think Power Attack works on ALL nonlethal damage.
Either you are misrepresenting me on purpose, or you don't understand. Since I've told you what my position is multiple times, I can only assume that you're choosing to lie at this point.
Since you're just making up whatever you want, and lying about what other people say, I think this is pretty much over.
The first example is your logic on what happens if nonlethal damage is not hit point damage. That is why I included the "assuming nonlethal damage is not Hit point damage" as part of that example.
The second example is the same logic applied to another situation that shows your interpretation of how Power Attack works has the same problem in other areas.
Nonlethal Example:
Target attacked and the target took lethal damage, therefore it should've been eligible for Power Attack.
Stoneskin Example:
Target attacked and the target took no lethal damage, therefore it should not have been eligible for Power Attack.
These problems don't exist if you follow the RAW, and use the rule I have cited from the damage section that says the damage of an attack is determined by the weapon type.
If you feel uncomfortable with discussing this with examples, please feel free to cite the rule being used to circumvent the normal rule to determine what damage an attack deals.
Uggh, what ever happened to the ordinary definition of hit point damage as 'any damage that is counted in hit points'? The reason for that terminology is just to exclude ability drain/ability damage/rounds of debuffs.
That would be way to simple
Uggh, what ever happened to the ordinary definition of hit point damage as 'any damage that is counted in hit points'? The reason for that terminology is just to exclude ability drain/ability damage/rounds of debuffs.
Redelia, given your provided definition of hit point damage, would you agree that an ability that only heals nonlethal damage (Such as Calming Touch) would be a spell or ability that heals hit point damage?
Uggh, what ever happened to the ordinary definition of hit point damage as 'any damage that is counted in hit points'? The reason for that terminology is just to exclude ability drain/ability damage/rounds of debuffs.Redelia, given your provided definition of hit point damage, would you agree that an ability that only heals nonlethal damage (Such as Calming Touch) would be a spell or ability that heals hit point damage?
Only if the tires that fit my 2003 Subaru Outback fit all Subarus.
Only if the tires that fit my 2003 Subaru Outback fit all Subarus.
You will have to be more explicit with your analogy. I think it means that not all nonlethal damage is hit point damage, which would be ridiculous. That is the equivalent of saying not all fire damage is energy damage. So, I'm assuming that I am misunderstanding your point.
Did you mean:
All nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but not all hit point damage is nonlethal?
The wording 'a spell that cures hit point damage' can mean two different things. It could mean 'a spell that can cure any kind of hit point damage' or 'a spell which cures some hit point damage.' We could use the first as a shorthand for either the second or the third in English.
You didn't directly answer the question, but based on your response, I take it that you agree. An ability that heals nonlethal damage only is still an ability that heals hit point damage.
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
You can touch a creature as a standard action to heal it of 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point per cleric level. This touch also removes the fatigued, shaken, and sickened conditions (but has no effect on more severe conditions). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
What is your opinion on how the Calming Touch ability interacts with the Healing nonlethal damage rule? Based on your opinions so far, I would suggest that Calming Touch heals X nonlethal damage and it also removes an equal amount of X nonlethal damage (as per the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule).
Thoughts?
The first example is your logic on what happens if nonlethal damage is not hit point damage. That is why I included the "assuming nonlethal damage is not Hit point damage" as part of that example.
I don't think that is how the rules work at all. So as long as you insist that that is my position, you are trolling and there is literally nothing for us to discuss.
My position is that nonlethal damage IS hit point damage. Full stop.
I don't think that is how the rules work at all. So as long as you insist that that is my position, you are trolling and there is literally nothing for us to discuss.
My position is that nonlethal damage IS hit point damage. Full stop.
I'm talking about how you are using Power Attack. Power Attack only interacts with the damage roll, which is different than what the target takes.
Here are the two scenarios we have already covered:
1. The effect of the attack itself is to deal "nonlethal overflow" damage. As far as I know, this is not a thing that happens. Even if it did, it would qualify for use of Power Attack, because nonlethal overflow is treated as lethal damage.
2. The target takes the damage and then retroactively qualifies for Power Attack on the damage roll that caused the overflow. This is logically inconsistent as I have already shown.
Maybe you can explain why you are breaking the rule on what determines what damage an attack deals and suggesting that Power Attack interacts with what damage the target takes?
I don't think that is how the rules work at all. So as long as you insist that that is my position, you are trolling and there is literally nothing for us to discuss.
My position is that nonlethal damage IS hit point damage. Full stop.
I'm talking about how you are using Power Attack. Power Attack only interacts with the damage roll, which is different than what the target takes.
Here are the two scenarios we have already covered:
1. The effect of the attack itself is to deal "nonlethal overflow" damage. As far as I know, this is not a thing that happens. Even if it did, it would qualify for use of Power Attack, because nonlethal overflow is treated as lethal damage.
2. The target takes the damage and then retroactively qualifies for Power Attack on the damage roll that caused the overflow. This is logically inconsistent as I have already shown.
Maybe you can explain why you are breaking the rule on what determines what damage an attack deals and suggesting that Power Attack interacts with what damage the target takes?
My stance is that Power Attack applies to ALL nonlethal damage, because it is all hit point damage.
I need you to understand this. That is all I am claiming. Full stop. Nothing else. Do you understand? Are you capable of understanding this? Because if you can't, there is no point in moving forward. I can't talk to you about anything else until we clear this up.
I'm tired of you lying, and putting words in my mouth.
My stance is that Power Attack applies to ALL nonlethal damage, because it is all hit point damage.
I need you to understand this. That is all I am claiming. Full stop. Nothing else. Do you understand? Are you capable of understanding this? Because if you can't, there is no point in moving forward. I can't talk to you about anything else until we clear this up.
I'm tired of your lying ass putting words in my mouth.
I understand your position. I am specifically referring to how you are using Power Attack to say I am not following its rule text.
You are saying that nonlethal overflow is eligible for Power Attack, the attack deals nonlethal overflow, therefore, Power Attack's rules were violated.
I have covered the only two possible ways this can happen.
1. A weapon deals "nonlethal overflow" damage.
2. Power Attack works off what damage the target takes.
so either...
1. Weapon types exist that specifically deal "nonlethal overflow" damage. (If this exists, I would agree that it benefits from Power Attack.)
2. Damage dealt = damage taken. This causes logical inconsistencies, as I have demonstrated.
3. Some other yet-to-be-explained interpretation of Power Attack that you have yet to reveal.
The topic has lasted a while, but I'm pretty sure you originally started with the damage dealt = damage taken interpretation. Then recently, you were suggesting it was possible that for weapons to deal "nonlethal overflow" damage.
I suppose, as Butt_Luckily suggested, it would be ideal for you to explain why you think Power Attack's rule is being broken again. However, I feel you will quote the same rules you've been quoting that show excess nonlethal damage is hit point damage, and therefore, qualifies for Power Attack.
And if you do this, I will agree 100% that "nonlethal overflow" would qualify for Power Attack. Unfortunately, you do not demonstrate that Power Attack interacts with "nonlethal overflow." Power Attack modifies the damage roll, not the damage taken.
So, after you quote the same rules, and then I agree with it, I'm going to ask you....
Why are you breaking the RAW rule that determines the damage an attack deals?
Uggh, what ever happened to the ordinary definition of hit point damage as 'any damage that is counted in hit points'? The reason for that terminology is just to exclude ability drain/ability damage/rounds of debuffs.That would be way to simple
And it would make sense.
And it would fit the rules contextually.
And with that definition no one could possibly misunderstand how it works.
But this thread is way more fun....
Uggh, what ever happened to the ordinary definition of hit point damage as 'any damage that is counted in hit points'? The reason for that terminology is just to exclude ability drain/ability damage/rounds of debuffs.That would be way to simpleAnd it would make sense.
And it would fit the rules contextually.
And with that definition no one could possibly misunderstand how it works.
But this thread is way more fun....
Well, there is a hiccup with the Nonlethal Healing Rule, but otherwise, I think it is logically consistent.
There's been too much going back and forth as to what the actual argument is about... Can we take a minute to clarify what the actual issues are?
Let's see if I have this right:
Mallecks:
-Nonlethal isn't hit point damage which means you can't power attack with it and means that when a CLW heals hit point damage it heals lethal and removes an equal amount of nonlethal. This also makes it so that Calming Touch only heals/removes nonlethal once.
(This doesn't seem to cause an issue with the exception that when someone takes too much nonlethal it becomes lethal so it could be argued that power attack should apply. Mallecks disagrees with this because the attack was nonlethal even though the target took lethal.)
Irontruth:
-Nonlethal is hit point damage which means you can power attack with it. When you CLW it heals lethal or nonlethal and removes as much nonlethal as it removed lethal (no double-dipping). Calming Touch only removes nonlethal once (because no double-dipping).
Do I have this right?
My stance is that Power Attack applies to ALL nonlethal damage, because it is all hit point damage.
I need you to understand this. That is all I am claiming. Full stop. Nothing else. Do you understand? Are you capable of understanding this? Because if you can't, there is no point in moving forward. I can't talk to you about anything else until we clear this up.
I'm tired of your lying ass putting words in my mouth.
I understand your position. I am specifically referring to how you are using Power Attack to say I am not following its rule text.
I'm using Power Attack exactly how it is written. Feel free to cite a rule that says I'm not.
I'm using Power Attack exactly how it is written. Feel free to cite a rule that says I'm not.
Well, you refuse to go into detail about how you actually use it. Since you have not provided any alternative explanation, I can only infer how you use Power Attack based on how you think it invalidates my position.
So, this is the rule you are breaking.
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
The weapon type determines the damage that is dealt.
Power Attack's bonus damage is not granted to effects that do not deal hit point damage.
How do we know whether or not an attack deals hit point Damage? It is based on the weapon type.
If the weapon is dealing 1d6 Non-lethal damage, then that is the effect of the attack. The targets HP is not a factor.
I agree, the target's HP is not a factor. The weapon deals nonlethal damage, and one of the characteristics of nonlethal damage is that it is hit point damage.
Either:
1) It's all HP damage, all the time.
2) Whenever it exceeds the targets nonlethal threshold, it is hp damage. It is still nonlethal damage, but it is also hp damage.
The target loses HP's, this is an effect caused by the weapon. Therefore Power Attack applies.
I've laid out this process MANY times.
All I'm asking from you, is one rule, ONE RULE, that tells us this process is wrong. Can you provide that rule? If you can provide a rule that tells us that process isn't true, then you are right.
We don't need examples, we don't need processes. We need rules.
Provide the RULE. If you want to claim that the game works a certain way, prove it by citing the RULES.
|
|
There's been too much going back and forth as to what the actual argument is about... Can we take a minute to clarify what the actual issues are?
Let's see if I have this right:
Mallecks:
-Nonlethal isn't hit point damage which means you can't power attack with it and means that when a CLW heals hit point damage it heals lethal and removes an equal amount of nonlethal. This also makes it so that Calming Touch only heals/removes nonlethal once.
(This doesn't seem to cause an issue with the exception that when someone takes too much nonlethal it becomes lethal so it could be argued that power attack should apply. Mallecks disagrees with this because the attack was nonlethal even though the target took lethal.)Irontruth:
-Nonlethal is hit point damage which means you can power attack with it. When you CLW it heals lethal or nonlethal and removes as much nonlethal as it removed lethal (no double-dipping). Calming Touch only removes nonlethal once (because no double-dipping).Do I have this right?
That is the general gist of it. Mallecks and Galient Armor thinks that Non Lethal is nothing, so as nothing it can't be used for anything... or something.
I agree, the target's HP is not a factor. The weapon deals nonlethal damage, and one of the characteristics of nonlethal damage is that it is hit point damage.
Either:
1) It's all HP damage, all the time.
2) Whenever it exceeds the targets nonlethal threshold, it is hp damage. It is still nonlethal damage, but it is also hp damage.The target loses HP's, this is an effect caused by the weapon. Therefore Power Attack applies.
I've laid out this process MANY times.
All I'm asking from you, is one rule, ONE RULE, that tells us this process is wrong. Can you provide that rule? If you can provide a rule that tells us that process isn't true, then you are right.
We don't need examples, we don't need processes. We need rules.
Provide the RULE. If you want to claim that the game works a certain way, prove it by citing the RULES.
Sure. This is the rule.
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Power Attack doesn't provide its bonus damage to attacks that do not deal hit point damage. How do we know whether or not the attack does hit point damage? It is based on the weapon type, not what the target takes.
Please provide the rule that you are using that circumvents this rule or otherwise explains why Power Attacks works off damage the target takes.
I agree, the target's HP is not a factor. The weapon deals nonlethal damage, and one of the characteristics of nonlethal damage is that it is hit point damage.
Either:
1) It's all HP damage, all the time.
2) Whenever it exceeds the targets nonlethal threshold, it is hp damage. It is still nonlethal damage, but it is also hp damage.The target loses HP's, this is an effect caused by the weapon. Therefore Power Attack applies.
I've laid out this process MANY times.
All I'm asking from you, is one rule, ONE RULE, that tells us this process is wrong. Can you provide that rule? If you can provide a rule that tells us that process isn't true, then you are right.
We don't need examples, we don't need processes. We need rules.
Provide the RULE. If you want to claim that the game works a certain way, prove it by citing the RULES.
Sure. This is the rule.
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.Power Attack doesn't provide its bonus damage to attacks that do not deal hit point damage. How do we know whether or not the attack does hit point damage? It is based on the weapon type, not what the target takes.
Please provide the rule that you are using that circumvents this rule or otherwise explains why Power Attacks works off damage the target takes.
Dude. We know it’s hit point damage because it’s not ability damage, ability drain, energy damage, a spell effect or any other kind of damage. It’s a physical weapon attack and physical weapon attacks do hit point damage. It is immaterial to power attack whether that hit point damage is lethal or non-lethal because it’s all hit point damage. When you power attack, you take a penalty to attack and get a bonus to damage if you are dealing hit point damage but not if you are dealing ability damage, ability drain, energy damage, a spell effect or any other type of damage. Stop overcomplicating things. You are overcomplicating the rules and overcomplicating what Irontruth has explained as his position over and over and over and over and over. Enough already.
I agree, the target's HP is not a factor. The weapon deals nonlethal damage, and one of the characteristics of nonlethal damage is that it is hit point damage.
Either:
1) It's all HP damage, all the time.
2) Whenever it exceeds the targets nonlethal threshold, it is hp damage. It is still nonlethal damage, but it is also hp damage.The target loses HP's, this is an effect caused by the weapon. Therefore Power Attack applies.
I've laid out this process MANY times.
All I'm asking from you, is one rule, ONE RULE, that tells us this process is wrong. Can you provide that rule? If you can provide a rule that tells us that process isn't true, then you are right.
We don't need examples, we don't need processes. We need rules.
Provide the RULE. If you want to claim that the game works a certain way, prove it by citing the RULES.
Sure. This is the rule.
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.Power Attack doesn't provide its bonus damage to attacks that do not deal hit point damage. How do we know whether or not the attack does hit point damage? It is based on the weapon type, not what the target takes.
Please provide the rule that you are using that circumvents this rule or otherwise explains why Power Attacks works off damage the target takes.
Are you arguing that the damage that causes hit point loss in a nonlethal attack comes from some source other than the weapon?
Because the rules clearly state that nonlethal that exceeds maximum hit points is hit point damage. So, the weapon IS dealing hit point damage, even in your model.
And don't forget, the rules also state:
All weapons deal hit point damage.
That seems pretty clear to me.
Because the rules clearly state that nonlethal that exceeds maximum hit points is hit point damage. So, the weapon IS dealing hit point damage, even in your model.
This will, sadly, come back as "the weapon is dealing nonlethal damage, the target is taking lethal."
Do we have something that solidly shows that damage dealt and damage taken can sometimes be interchangeable? (I thought we did but I can't find it now.)
Show me in the rules where it says that that difference exists.
That's all I want. Show me in the rules.
Because the rules clearly state that nonlethal that exceeds maximum hit points is hit point damage. So, the weapon IS dealing hit point damage, even in your model.This will, sadly, come back as "the weapon is dealing nonlethal damage, the target is taking lethal."
Do we have something that solidly shows that damage dealt and damage taken can sometimes be interchangeable? (I thought we did but I can't find it now.)
No because any example you provide would have to be iron-clad or it will simply "not disprove" the theory since he already has a few nebulous snippets of rules text he is using to support his argument. From the get go unless the PDT or a clear unambiguous piece of text side against GA and Mal we are wrong.
I believe its from the equipment section.
Page 140, in the Weapons section, first sentence of the second paragraph.
It's not a new quote. It probably came in on page 2 or 3, or maybe page 5-6 of the previous thread (this discussion has spanned multiple threads so far, but we successfully let one die).
He's going to claim that it doesn't prove anything, because other weapons say they do nonlethal. Though if you go back far enough, Mallecks will argue that specific rules do not trump general rules, so in his opinion that was not a valid argument at one time. Basically we're at the point where he has to scour through feats and spells from splat books to prove his point (except they don't). He can't address the core issues, so he tries to expand the issue in order to distract from what how he is wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WHY IS THIS THREAD NEARLY 650 POSTS.
WHY IS THIS THREAD NEARLY 650 POSTS.
650 is actually pretty low if you look at some of the longer threads out there.
YOU ARE A REASONABLE FELLOW FOR POINTING THAT OUT AND I APPRECIATE IT.
What specifically is the sticking point for this question though? I dont understand why they cant just ask the question they want to know and instead seemingly try to pussyfoot around it to get the answer they want.
DING