|
Mallecks, as GA has not posted on this for quite some time and it is his position of "Not HP because it isn't 'real' HP" stance that you are trying (badly) to defend, let me explain how Non Lethal is HP damage.
Looking at the core rule book...
Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal
nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being
exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take
nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much
you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal
damage number from your current hit points. It is not
“real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage
equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see
below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.
Now, notice something. When it equals or exceeds you CURRENT HP. Meaning, when you combine the damage you have taken from Lethal damage and the damage from Non Lethal damage, the character will pass out when that total exceeds his Max HP. Do you agree?
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total
maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all
further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
Meaning that the HP you tally is now off of the normal Lethal HP, which cycles through the Lethal tally before going below 0 itself and having the character start to die. Do you agree?
Healing Nonlethal 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.
So when a spell would heal Lethal damage, it heals Non Lethal damage as well. So healing X would heal X non lethal. (This does not double dip despite your claim on the Non Lethal healing spell) Do you agree on the 1 on 1 healing aspect ratio?
Non Lethal is a form of HP damage. It works with Power Attack. Also, don't forget the damage section....
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage
result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal
damage.
So normal weapon that deals normal damage is doing a point of Non Lethal damage. It. Still. Effects. Hit. Points.
Are you still confused at this point?
No, an attack dealing nonlethal damage would not benefit from Power Attack on based on the assumption that nonlethal damage is not Hit point damage.
It is not possible for nonlethal damage to damage hit points. In some situations, (Nonlethal overflow), it is treated as lethal damage, and thus no longer nonlethal damage.
When I treat Nonlethal overflow as lethal damage, I no longer treat it as nonlethal damage, because I don't normally treat lethal damage as nonlethal damage.
Hopefully that makes sense, I know we disagree on what "treats as" means. I treat it in all ways as lethal damage and you don't, but as long as the way you are "treating" nonlethal overflow as lethal damage is logically consistent, I don't see a problem with it.
That wasn't what I just said.
Which of these do you agree with:
1) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because it isn't "hit point damage".
2) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because the feat explicitly excludes nonlethal attacks.
Which one is more correct in your mind?
No, an attack dealing nonlethal damage would not benefit from Power Attack on based on the assumption that nonlethal damage is not Hit point damage.
Well, on the assumption that the moon is a cabbage, many things are possible.
Time to put this to bed; it's devolved into a very small number of participants who aren't going to change one another's opinions. We know what the majority interpretation of the rules are. We know we're not going to get designer input. We know who's on what side of the fence. So what's left to kill electrons over?
Mallecks -- There have been many issues with nonlethal not being hit point damage that have been discussed (main ones that come to mind are spells that would prevent lethal damage but not nonlethal damage and that Regeneration (Ex) can't heal nonlethal but Fast Healing (Ex) can.)
The two things that you're holding onto that would change are that you can't Power Attack with nonlethal and that healing spells may double the amount of healing if you've only taken nonlethal.
Are there any flaws you can find if you consider nonlethal damage to be hit point damage?
While I'm thinking about this, let's take a look at the Universal Monster Rules for Regeneration (Ex) again, shall we?
...Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation...
So only attacks that are hit point damage are healed. If nonlethal isn't hit point damage then nonlethal attack damage can't be healed by Regeneration (Ex). That's fine, I know that's been discussed already.
But then it goes on to say that it does not restore hit points lost from environmental things. Since environmental damage is typically nonlethal why would it say that it doesn't 'restore hit points lost'? Unless nonlethal is a form of losing hit points?You could almost argue that it would mean that you can't heal environmental damage once it's rolled over into lethal but it doesn't say anything that would prevent you from removing nonlethal environmental damage (because, even if the monster hasn't been damaged they would still be healing their regeneration and therefore removing an equal amount of nonlethal per round) therefore the nonlethal would never have a chance to roll over into lethal damage.
Mallecks, as GA has not posted on this for quite some time and it is his position of "Not HP because it isn't 'real' HP" stance that you are trying (badly) to defend, let me explain how Non Lethal is HP damage.
Looking at the core rule book...
Now, notice something. When it equals or exceeds you CURRENT HP. Meaning, when you combine the damage you have taken from Lethal damage and the damage from Non Lethal damage, the character will pass out when that total exceeds his Max HP. Do you agree?Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal
nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being
exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take
nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much
you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal
damage number from your current hit points. It is not
“real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage
equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see
below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.
No. You do not combine the lethal damage with nonlethal damage. Lethal damage actually reduces your hit points. Nonlethal Damage is compared against your current hit points. Comparing two things does not mean one effects the other.
What about the "HP" statistic is changed by the comparison to the "nonlethal damage tally"?
Meaning that the HP you tally is now off of the normal Lethal HP, which cycles through the Lethal tally before going below 0 itself and having the character start to die. Do you agree?If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total
maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all
further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
No. Lethal damage doesn't tally. Lethal damage reduces your hit points. Nonlethal damage is tallied until it reaches a creature's max HP, then becomes lethal damage instead.
So when a spell would heal Lethal damage, it heals Non Lethal damage as well. So healing X would heal X non lethal. (This does not double dip despite your claim on the Non Lethal healing spell) Do you agree on the 1 on 1 healing aspect ratio?Healing Nonlethal 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.
If nonlethal damage were hit point damage, then a spell that heals only nonlethal damage would be a spell that heals hit point damage, and would be modified by the nonlethal healing rule. This is explicit. You can argue that there is a default assumption on "hit point damage" meaning lethal, but no one has provided a logically consistent interpretation on how that works. Right now it seems to be.. "Nonlethal damage is considered hit point damage when I want it to be, but not when I don't want it to be."
Yes, I agree there is a 1:1 ratio. A rule existing that effects two statistics in a manner that creates a 1:1 ratio between them in certain circumstances does not mean that they are both the same type of thing.
Non Lethal is a form of HP damage. It works with Power Attack. Also, don't forget the damage section....
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.So normal weapon that deals normal damage is doing a point of Non Lethal damage. It. Still. Effects. Hit. Points.
Are you still confused at this point?
You have provided no evidence that nonlethal damage effects the Hit Points of a creature. As far as i am aware, the HP statistic can only be effected by increasing or decreasing its value. Can you demonstrate that nonlethal damage decreases or increases a creature's HP? I feel that you may cite the nonlethal overflow rule that Irontruth and I have been discussing. When I "treat" the nonlethal as lethal damage, I no longer consider it nonlethal damage, as I don't normally consider lethal damage to be nonlethal damage. We may disagree on this interpretation, but there is no guidance on what it means to "treat" one thing as something else.
Well, on the assumption that the moon is a cabbage, many things are possible.
Time to put this to bed; it's devolved into a very small number of participants who aren't going to change one another's opinions. We know what the majority interpretation of the rules are. We know we're not going to get designer input. We know who's on what side of the fence. So what's left to kill electrons over?
I keep trying to include that my position assumes that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage. One reason is to keep everyone on the same page, as I have posts talking about either side of the issue or both sides simultaneously. Another reason is to avoid posts that just blatantly ignore my position and just say that I'm wrong on the account that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but it doesn't really help.
No matter which side of the issue you are on, you are making an assumption that nonlethal damage either is or is not hit point damage, as it is not defined as hit point damage in the rules.
That wasn't what I just said.Which of these do you agree with:
1) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because it isn't "hit point damage".
2) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because the feat explicitly excludes nonlethal attacks.
Which one is more correct in your mind?
Assuming nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, then 1) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because it isn't "hit point damage".
Mallecks -- There have been many issues with nonlethal not being hit point damage that have been discussed (main ones that come to mind are spells that would prevent lethal damage but not nonlethal damage and that Regeneration (Ex) can't heal nonlethal but Fast Healing (Ex) can.)
The two things that you're holding onto that would change are that you can't Power Attack with nonlethal and that healing spells may double the amount of healing if you've only taken nonlethal.
Are there any flaws you can find if you consider nonlethal damage to be hit point damage?
There aren't really "many issues" with my stance. People have provided spells/effects that would behave differently, and I have verified that they would indeed behave differently given my position.
I don't necessarily agree with Regeneration's rule text conflicting with the nonlethal healing rule, but I was willing to just accept it to move the conversation forward, as it did not invalidate my position either way and my position is still logically consistent.
From what I remember right now, I technically only really have 1 issue with the "nonlethal damage is hit point damage" crowd. The issue of the default assumption.
There is at least one effect in the game that "deals hit point damage." Everyone agrees that a default assumption exists and that the default assumption is lethal damage. My problem is how the "default assumption" is handled.
Based on people's responses, it appears the "default assumption" means lethal damage when they think it should mean that (nonlethal healing rule), but "either nonlethal damage or lethal damage" other times (Power Attack). If we explore it enough, we may even create a situation where "hit point damage" means "both nonlethal and lethal damage."
This is logically inconsistent. If you have a default assumption, I don't see how you can keep nonlethal as eligible, as it isn't specifically included. If you don't have a default assumption, then what does "dealing hit point damage" mean and nonlethal healing effects are modified by the nonlethal healing rule?
Once the issue of the default assumption is solved, I can see if I can try to use an example to change your position, but I suspect it will be logically consistent in the end.
While I'm thinking about this, let's take a look at the Universal Monster Rules for Regeneration (Ex) again, shall we?
...Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation...So only attacks that are hit point damage are healed. If nonlethal isn't hit point damage then nonlethal attack damage can't be healed by Regeneration (Ex). That's fine, I know that's been discussed already.
But then it goes on to say that it does not restore hit points lost from environmental things. Since environmental damage is typically nonlethal why would it say that it doesn't 'restore hit points lost'? Unless nonlethal is a form of losing hit points?
You could almost argue that it would mean that you can't heal environmental damage once it's rolled over into lethal but it doesn't say anything that would prevent you from removing nonlethal environmental damage (because, even if the monster hasn't been damaged they would still be healing their regeneration and therefore removing an equal amount of nonlethal per round) therefore the nonlethal would never have a chance to roll over into lethal damage.
Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration.A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.
A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.
Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.
It is not possible to heal environmental nonlethal damage under any circumstances without correcting the environmental issue causing the nonlethal damage.
However, magical healing would heal the lethal damage from environmental damage. (It can heal the frostbite, but not warm the body. It can restore flesh lost due to self cannibalization, but not fill your stomach. etc.) Except, Fast Healing and Regeneration would not heal this damage.
I believe this is consistent with my position.
Assuming nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, then 1) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because it isn't "hit point damage".Irontruth wrote:
That wasn't what I just said.
Which of these do you agree with:1) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because it isn't "hit point damage".
2) Nonlethal is excluded from Power Attack because the feat explicitly excludes nonlethal attacks.
Which one is more correct in your mind?
So, nothing inherently excludes a nonlethal attack, just whether or not the attack does hit point damage.
When nonlethal damage exceeds the targets maximum hit points, the nonlethal damage is hit point damage. This change in how the damage is treated is an inherent quality of the damage itself. Not the target, not a spell, a feat, etc. The damage that the weapon dealt is hit point damage.
So, nothing inherently excludes a nonlethal attack, just whether or not the attack does hit point damage.When nonlethal damage exceeds the targets maximum hit points, the nonlethal damage is hit point damage. This change in how the damage is treated is an inherent quality of the damage itself. Not the target, not a spell, a feat, etc. The damage that the weapon dealt is hit point damage.
Well... whether or not the attack deals hit point damage. I don't really care about the results of the attack, just the qualities of the effect.
The "type of damage" the attack deals is an independent quality of the attack that exists independently of the target. This damage is not modified or adjusted by what happens to the target. I have provided the citations to determine what type of damage an attack deals, and no language exists that even suggests it would be otherwise.
I am unaware of any logically consistent position that allows for what you are saying. If you can provide a logically consistent position for how Power Attack would work in such a way, then I can assess my position based on it.
But there's no other criteria for whether or not Power Attack applies.
Either it is hit point damage, or it isn't.
If you have another criteria you would like to introduce, feel free to cite it. Nonlethal is not excluded because it is nonlethal. It is excluded because it doesn't do hit point damage (according to you).
Therefore, if it DOES do hit point damage, it must be included.
If nonlethal damage causes a loss of hit points, it qualifies as hit point damage.
Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
Mallecks, what's your justification for ignoring that Regeneration pretty much states that nonlethal is a loss of hit points? A loss of hit points is hit point damage, is it not?
But there's no other criteria for whether or not Power Attack applies.
Either it is hit point damage, or it isn't.
If you have another criteria you would like to introduce, feel free to cite it. Nonlethal is not excluded because it is nonlethal. It is excluded because it doesn't do hit point damage (according to you).
Therefore, if it DOES do hit point damage, it must be included.
If nonlethal damage causes a loss of hit points, it qualifies as hit point damage.
Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
Are you suggesting that if nonlethal damage CAN do hit point damage in certain circumstances, that it must always be treated as though it is? I am not sure that this is logically consistent.
In any case, I do not agree that nonlethal damage does hit point damage. Lethal damage does hit point damage. If the nonlethal damage is in excess of a character's HP, it is treated as lethal damage. In my opinion, this means it is no longer considered nonlethal damage, as I don't consider lethal damage to be nonlethal damage.
I know that you seem to have a different interpretation of "treats as" where some qualities of the original thing is maintained, but there is no guidance on what "treats as" means in the rules, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Even based on your interpretation that the damage becomes something between lethal and nonlethal damage, you still haven't demonstrated how Power Attack would interact with what damage the target takes and I'm not sure that it is even logically possible for Power Attack to do so, as the damage can't be considered to be in excess of the characters HP until after the damage is rolled, and Power Attack's bonus would already be provided (or not provided).
Mallecks, what's your justification for ignoring that Regeneration pretty much states that nonlethal is a loss of hit points? A loss of hit points is hit point damage, is it not?
Regeneration (Ex)
A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature’s descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.
The section I have bolded from regeneration is referring to the damage from the section I have bolded from an example environmental condition.
Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration.A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.
A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Characters that take an amount of nonlethal damage equal to their total hit points begin to take lethal damage instead.
Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.
According to the these rules for starvation and thirst, it is possible to heal the lethal damage of the environmental damage, but not the nonlethal. So, a CLW would heal the lethal damage, but none of the damage associated with the starvation would removed. Regeneration doesn't heal that damage.
Does this sufficiently answer the question? The "hit point damage" that is in the regeneration ability is specifically referring to the "heal-able" lethal damage.
But there's no other criteria for whether or not Power Attack applies.
Either it is hit point damage, or it isn't.
If you have another criteria you would like to introduce, feel free to cite it. Nonlethal is not excluded because it is nonlethal. It is excluded because it doesn't do hit point damage (according to you).
Therefore, if it DOES do hit point damage, it must be included.
If nonlethal damage causes a loss of hit points, it qualifies as hit point damage.
Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
Are you suggesting that if nonlethal damage CAN do hit point damage in certain circumstances, that it must always be treated as though it is? I am not sure that this is logically consistent.
In any case, I do not agree that nonlethal damage does hit point damage. Lethal damage does hit point damage. If the nonlethal damage is in excess of a character's HP, it is treated as lethal damage. In my opinion, this means it is no longer considered nonlethal damage, as I don't consider lethal damage to be nonlethal damage.
I know that you seem to have a different interpretation of "treats as" where some qualities of the original thing is maintained, but there is no guidance on what "treats as" means in the rules, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Even based on your interpretation that the damage becomes something between lethal and nonlethal damage, you still haven't demonstrated how Power Attack would interact with what damage the target takes and I'm not sure that it is even logically possible for Power Attack to do so, as the damage can't be considered to be in excess of the characters HP until after the damage is rolled, and Power Attack's bonus would already be provided (or not provided).
For damage to qualify for Power Attack, it has to satisfy 3 conditions:
1) Be a melee attack. (we're talking about a melee attack with a sap)
2) Not be a touch attack. (we're assuming its not a touch attack)
3) deal hit point damage. (The target lost hit points, which is the criteria that you have proposed for whether something is hit point damage)
A nonlethal attack with a weapon that exceeds the targets capacity for nonlethal damage satisfies all 3 requirements. The damage comes from the attack. The damage doesn't come from some unknowable source. We know where the damage originated. Nothing about the attack, or the damage, disqualifies it for Power Attack.
YOU ARE CLAIMING that there is a fourth criteria. So far you've claimed that weapons deal damage based on attack type (even though you agree the the type of attack lethal/nonlethal is not actually a disqualifying criteria), and that the target and attacker don't treat the damage the same (which you haven't shown to be true).
If there is a fourth criteria that I'm not meeting, tell me what page it is on.
For damage to qualify for Power Attack, it has to satisfy 3 conditions:
1) Be a melee attack.
2) Not be a touch attack.
3) deal hit point damage.A nonlethal attack with a weapon that exceeds the targets capacity for nonlethal damage satisfies all 3 requirements.
1. You aren't demonstrating that at the time of the damage roll (when Power Attack happens) that it is even possible for the nonlethal damage to be considered in excess of the target's HP. They haven't taken the damage yet.
2. Even if you somehow provided a logically consistent position that allowed the damage to be in excess of the creature's HP before the damage was rolled, then I would treat the damage as lethal damage, and it would qualify for Power Attack.
However, I do not know that such an interpretation of Power Attack exists, and, even if it did, it still doesn't invalidate my position.
For damage to qualify for Power Attack, it has to satisfy 3 conditions:
1) Be a melee attack.
2) Not be a touch attack.
3) deal hit point damage.A nonlethal attack with a weapon that exceeds the targets capacity for nonlethal damage satisfies all 3 requirements.
1. You aren't demonstrating that at the time of the damage roll (when Power Attack happens) that it is even possible for the nonlethal damage to be considered in excess of the target's HP. They haven't taken the damage yet.
2. Even if you somehow provided a logically consistent position that allowed the damage to be in excess of the creature's HP before the damage was rolled, then I would treat the damage as lethal damage, and it would qualify for Power Attack.
However, I do not know that such an interpretation of Power Attack exists, and, even if it did, it still doesn't invalidate my position.
Where does it say that I have to do it "at the time of rolling"? Page number please.
Also, I can do it "at the time of rolling".
Player: Does a 24 hit?
GM: Yes.
Player: Okay, that's 1d4+3, and another 2 points if he takes hit point damage.... rolled a 3, so it's 6, or 8 if he loses hit points.
GM: He can take 3 more nonlethal, so that becomes 3 points of lethal, plus the 2 for it having been lethal.
Done, I've now added in the conditional numbers "at the time of rolling".
Where does it say that I have to do it "at the time of rolling"? Page number please.
Whenever a roll is required, the roll is noted as “d#,” with the “#” representing the number of sides on the die. If you need to roll multiple dice of the same type, there will be a number before the “d.” For example, if you are required to roll 4d6, you should roll four six-sided dice and add the results together. Sometimes there will be a + or – after the notation, meaning that you add that number to, or subtract it from, the total results of the dice (not to each individual die rolled). Most die rolls in the game use a d20 with a number of modifiers based on the character’s skills, his or her abilities, and the situation. Generally speaking, rolling high is better than rolling low. Percentile rolls are a special case, indicated as rolling d%. You can generate a random number in this range by rolling two differently colored ten-sided dice (2d10). Pick one color to represent the tens digit, then roll both dice. If the die chosen to be the tens digit rolls a “4” and the other d10 rolls a “2,” then you’ve generated a 42. A zero on the tens digit die indicates a result from 1 to 9, or 100 if both dice result in a zero. Some d10s are printed with “10,” “20,” “30,” and so on in order to make reading d% rolls easier. Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
Power Attack provides a +2 on melee damage rolls.
So, when you make the melee damage roll, you would roll the dice appropriate for the weapon and you add +2 to the result of the die roll.
Also, I can do it "at the time of rolling".
Player: Does a 24 hit?
GM: Yes.
Player: Okay, that's 1d4+3, and another 2 points if he takes hit point damage.... rolled a 3, so it's 6, or 8 if he loses hit points.
GM: He can take 3 more nonlethal, so that becomes 3 points of lethal, plus the 2 for it having been lethal.Done, I've now added in the conditional numbers "at the time of rolling".
Please provide the citation for Power Attack working off of what damage the target takes. You keep saying it works this way, but have failed to show how you are bypassing the rules text of Power Attack where the condition is based on the type of damage the effect deals. The "damage taken = damage dealt" argument, I believe, has many unintended consequences about how the game works.
AFAIK, the only rules that determine what type of damage a melee attack deals is...
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.
Nonlethal: These weapons deal nonlethal damage
Damage
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
|
|
Mallecks, as GA has not posted on this for quite some time and it is his position of "Not HP because it isn't 'real' HP" stance that you are trying (badly) to defend, let me explain how Non Lethal is HP damage.
Looking at the core rule book...
Now, notice something. When it equals or exceeds you CURRENT HP. Meaning, when you combine the damage you have taken from Lethal damage and the damage from Non Lethal damage, the character will pass out when that total exceeds his Max HP. Do you agree?Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal
nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being
exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take
nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much
you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal
damage number from your current hit points. It is not
“real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage
equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see
below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.No. You do not combine the lethal damage with nonlethal damage. Lethal damage actually reduces your hit points. Nonlethal Damage is compared against your current hit points. Comparing two things does not mean one effects the other.
What about the "HP" statistic is changed by the comparison to the "nonlethal damage tally"?
You do it your way, I will do it mine. You keep a tally of a total. Let's see, I took 5 HP, so my total is now 20 instead of 25. Oh, Now I took 21 Non Lethal Damage, that exceeds my current HP, I am unconscious.
Tell me, how is that possible if Non Lethal does not effect HP?
Where does it tell you that Non Lethal needs to be completely up to Max HP to effect unconsciousness, and never takes what damage you took into account at all? That is not what I see at all.
Please provide the citation for Power Attack working off of what damage the target takes.
It literally says you only exclude it if the target doesn't take hit point damage.
Can you prove that the target didn't take hit point damage?
You do it your way, I will do it mine. You keep a tally of a total. Let's see, I took 5 HP, so my total is now 20 instead of 25. Oh, Now I took 21 Non Lethal Damage, that exceeds my current HP, I am unconscious.
Tell me, how is that possible if Non Lethal does not effect HP?
Where does it tell you that Non Lethal needs to be completely up to Max HP to effect unconsciousness, and never takes what damage you took into account at all? That is not what I see at all.
1. I am OK with you playing how you want thaX. However, this topic is for the discussion of whether or not nonlethal damage is considered hit point damage based on the rules of the game. There is no clear definition in the rules, so it has been more about each side presenting/defending their position based on the impact on other rules.
I think that by the end of this topic, we should be able to sit down and say...
If you believe nonlethal damage IS hit point damage, then a,b, and c are the "repercussions."
If you believe nonlethal damage is NOT hit point damage, then x, y, and z are the "repercussions."
I am not certain if the final results would sway the people here in this thread, but it may be referenced later by those trying to make the decision themselves or provide meaningful input for devs if they try to answer this FAQ.
2. By the rules...
Lethal damage reduces your hit points. Nonlethal damage is tracked separately, it does not reduce your hit points.
3. I agree that the amount of nonlethal you have can cause your character's condition to change. (Gain/Lose staggered or unconscious conditions..)
I agree that this change is brought about by a comparison between the nonlethal damage and hit points.
However, just because the condition of a character can change based on the relationship between nonlethal damage and the current HP of a character does not mean that one effects the other.
For example...
I have a credit card and I have a bank account.
If my credit card has a balance larger than my bank account, I am considered to be "in debt."
No matter how many purchases I make on my credit card, it doesn't change the balance of my bank account.
No matter how many deposits/withdrawals I make on my bank account, it doesn't change the balance on my credit card.
This is not a perfect example of the situation, but I feel it accurately portrays the concept of a relationship between two different values being related but not affected each other.
Both are measured in dollars.
Both totals are called the "balance."
Both are a factor of determining whether or not you are "in debt."
etc.
In this same way...
If your nonlethal damage(credit card) has a balance larger than your current HP (bank account), then you are unconscious ("in debt.")
Changes to your nonlethal damage and current HP exist independently of each other.
on this point my questions for you are..
Does this concept make sense? Do you believe this to accurately reflect the rules regarding the interaction between nonlethal damage, current HP, and status conditions? If you disagree this, what rules are you using to determine that nonlethal damage IS affecting the hit point statistic specifically?
It literally says you only exclude it if the target doesn't take hit point damage.
Can you prove that the target didn't take hit point damage?
I cannot find a source for this. This is the version of Power Attack I am using.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
This is the text from the PRD and it matches the 6th edition core rule book.
As you can see, the text I have emphasized states that the bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Nothing in the text suggest it uses the damage taken, nothing in the associated rules on how one determines how much of or what type of damage suggests you use damage taken (afaik) and I am unaware if it is even possible for such an interpretation to be logically consistent with the rules.
Please provide a citation for how you are bypassing the text I have bolded. If you like, I can re-quote the rules for determining the type or amount of damage that the effect of a melee attack deals.
According to the these rules for starvation and thirst, it is possible to heal the lethal damage of the environmental damage, but not the nonlethal. So, a CLW would heal the lethal damage, but none of the damage associated with the starvation would removed. Regeneration doesn't heal that damage.
Does this sufficiently answer the question? The "hit point damage" that is in the regeneration ability is specifically referring to the "heal-able" lethal damage
So once someone that has Regeneration is no longer starving you're saying that their Regeneration doesn't heal the lethal damage that they took but it restores the nonlethal?
But at the same time, since Regeneration says "attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration" it can't heal nonlethal but does heal lethal weapon damage.(Because it says you can't recover the hit points lost and you're saying that nonlethal isn't losing hit points.)
Got to love an ability that can sometimes heal nonlethal and sometimes can't based on your reading of the rules!
Ok, I think I see what you are saying. Nonlethal Damage is not Hit point damage, so a nonlethal attack isn't healed by regeneration.
However, because the nonlethal from environmental is not an attack, the damage can be healed (once you eat/drink).
So, I would have to admit that either, some nonlethal is healed and some nonlethal isn't healed....
or agree that it is hit point damage?
I think this is the point you are trying to make. I missed it the first two times. My gut feeling is that I conceded the point of regen never healing nonlethal, as I felt that it didn't invalidate my position. It now seems that it would. It's late, but I will take a look at it tomorrow and see if I can find an alternative solution or if we will have to revisit regeneration vs nonlethal healing rule.
While it would be logically consistent, I think that regeneration some times healing nonlethal in certain situations and other times not healing nonlethal damage would be a bridge-to-far for me, personally.
It literally says you only exclude it if the target doesn't take hit point damage.
Can you prove that the target didn't take hit point damage?
I cannot find a source for this. This is the version of Power Attack I am using.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.This is the text from the PRD and it matches the 6th edition core rule book.
As you can see, the text I have emphasized states that the bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Nothing in the text suggest it uses the damage taken, nothing in the associated rules on how one determines how much of or what type of damage suggests you use damage taken (afaik) and I am unaware if it is even possible for such an interpretation to be logically consistent with the rules.
Please provide a citation for how you are bypassing the text I have bolded. If you like, I can re-quote the rules for determining the type or amount of damage that the effect of a melee attack deals.
I don't see anything in the rules that says there is a difference between damage dealt and damage taken. A lot of feats and spells use both terms interchangeably.
Also, where is the damage coming from if it isn't coming from the attacker? Is this some sort of zen koan?
|
|
So, your saying that Non Lethal Damage is not Damage, it is borrowed time?
Listen, I know you want to bend over backwards for this particular reading, that Power Attack is somehow broken and needs to be limited somehow in regards to Non Lethal Damage. Simply put, you and GA seem to want to make Non Lethal Damage into something that is akin to ability damage or Stamina from Starfinder.
It is transferred HP damage that runs on a separate pool, one that tracks against current HP instead of Max HP as Lethal damage does. It effects HP as far as determining how long the target can stay in the fight. It heals when normal HP heals, usually at the same time, and doesn't heal twice if it is the only HP that is healed.
If you don't see that, I am not sure what else I can tell you.
The supposed repercussions you elude to (and has been discussed ad naseum) simply are not there. Both forms of damage is the same as far as it goes, it is just denoted differently on the page. One tracks up, the other down.
To answer the other question by BL, Con Damage lowers Max HP, it does not effect how much HP damage you have already taken, just how much you can take. Non Lethal is a separate pool that works against Current HP, and the target would pass out if the combined damage and this pool would exceed Max HP.
Con Damage lowers a different aspect of the character, which effects what that character can take and could kill the character outright if Con goes to 0.
Okay whats the problem with fractions of heal and harm working with Ability damage? I haven't check to see what spells 0-3 are legal for it's use but I doubt we are seeing more than a few d6 worth of str damage which your wanting to lower by a portion to gain back a very small amount of HP. hardly game breaking
I'm merely showing that even under the worst case that it still doesn't break anything. But your not getting str healing as I suspect he thinks or might try to argue.
I don't see anything in the rules that says there is a difference between damage dealt and damage taken. A lot of feats and spells use both terms interchangeably.
Also, where is the damage coming from if it isn't coming from the attacker? Is this some sort of zen koan?
I have provided the rules for determining the damage an attack deals. I am sorry you don't like the answer, but I can't help you figure out how your own homebrew rules work with my position on this topic.
If you can provide a citation on how you are determining that Power Attack works off the damage a target takes instead of the rules for determining what damage the effect of a melee attack deals, we can continue.
Okay whats the problem with fractions of heal and harm working with Ability damage? I haven't check to see what spells 0-3 are legal for it's use but I doubt we are seeing more than a few d6 worth of str damage which your wanting to lower by a portion to gain back a very small amount of HP. hardly game breaking
No, I just wanted to make sure you were OK with the logic.
I will be searching for something that will be difficult for the position:
Despite the default assumption, W would X because Y is a type of Z.
I am not sure if I can prove this to be logically inconsistent, or if I can find something sufficiently out of the norms to cause you to change your mind, but this will definitely have things behaving in a new way.
(Also, on your other post, I was not trying to suggest you would heal the ability damage. Just trying to make sure I understood the logic and Fractions of Harm and Heal is a spell I've already been using as an example.)
The only question I have right now is "how do you determine whether or not the default assumption is used?"
I don't see anything in the rules that says there is a difference between damage dealt and damage taken. A lot of feats and spells use both terms interchangeably.
Also, where is the damage coming from if it isn't coming from the attacker? Is this some sort of zen koan?
I have provided the rules for determining the damage dealt by an attack. I am sorry you don't like the answer, but I can't help you figure out how your own homebrew rules work with my position on this topic.
If you can provide a citation on how you are determining that Power Attack works off the damage a target takes instead of the rules for determining what damage the effect of a melee attack deals, we can continue.
The target loses hit points. What kind of "effect" would you call that?
Right now, you are claiming that the target loses hit points, but no one dealt that damage to them.
I'm not saying that Power Attack works of "damage taken". I'm saying that the attack deals hit point damage. The reason I can prove the target had hit point damage dealt to them is that they lost hit points.
Are you claiming that the target lost hit points from something other than damage?
The target loses hit points. What kind of "effect" would you call that?Right now, you are claiming that the target loses hit points, but no one dealt that damage to them.
I'm not saying that Power Attack works of "damage taken". I'm saying that the attack deals hit point damage. The reason I can prove the target had hit point damage dealt to them is that they lost hit points.
Are you claiming that the target lost hit points from something other than damage?
I am unaware of a rule that calculates the damage of an effect based on the changes in the targets HP from the effect, and, again, I am not certain that this position is even logically valid.
Please provide the citation for the rule you are using to determine what damage an attack deals.
|
|
The target loses hit points. What kind of "effect" would you call that?Right now, you are claiming that the target loses hit points, but no one dealt that damage to them.
I'm not saying that Power Attack works of "damage taken". I'm saying that the attack deals hit point damage. The reason I can prove the target had hit point damage dealt to them is that they lost hit points.
Are you claiming that the target lost hit points from something other than damage?
I am unaware of a rule that calculates the damage of an effect based on the changes in the targets HP from the effect, and, again, I am not certain that this position is even logically valid.
Please provide the citation for the rule you are using to determine what damage an attack deals.
Are you serious? We have quoted the rules, both Iron Truth, GA, and you as well as me, and you still want us to quote them again?
Power Attack does additional damage for a penalty to hit the target.
Weapons deal HP damage, no matter if they deal Lethal or Non Lethal. (There is a weapon or two that do not, and is specified for those weapons what they do instead) The character can take a further penalty to deal the opposing damage that it normally does. (Flat of the Blade sort of thing)
The devil's advocate situation is assuming that GA's interpretation would be used and Non Lethal still ends up dealing Lethal Damage because of going beyond "0" with the damage it dealt. Of course it doesn't say how this interacts with things because it doesn't need to. Damage dealt to the target is self explanatory and the difference between the two damage types is only on how one denotes it on the page. Power Attack works with either type of damage here, Lethal and Non Lethal, and other abilities are not checking up on "HP" vs. not "real" HP, they are concerned about "Damage."
Not sure how else to say this.
That isn't what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you right now:
1) did the target lose hit points?
2) If yes, where did that damage come from?
The target loses hit points. What kind of "effect" would you call that?Right now, you are claiming that the target loses hit points, but no one dealt that damage to them.
I'm not saying that Power Attack works of "damage taken". I'm saying that the attack deals hit point damage. The reason I can prove the target had hit point damage dealt to them is that they lost hit points.
Are you claiming that the target lost hit points from something other than damage?
I am unaware of a rule that calculates the damage of an effect based on the changes in the targets HP from the effect, and, again, I am not certain that this position is even logically valid.
Please provide the citation for the rule you are using to determine what damage an attack deals.
That isn't what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you right now:
1) did the target lose hit points?
2) If yes, where did that damage come from?
That isn't what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you right now:
1) did the target lose hit points?
2) If yes, where did that damage come from?
1.) It is possible for the target of the attack to lose hit points.
2.) The attack
The target loses hit points. What kind of "effect" would you call that?
Right now, you are claiming that the target loses hit points, but no one dealt that damage to them.
I'm not saying that Power Attack works of "damage taken". I'm saying that the attack deals hit point damage. The reason I can prove the target had hit point damage dealt to them is that they lost hit points.
Are you claiming that the target lost hit points from something other than damage?
Earlier in the thread, you seemed pretty resistant to the idea of retro-actively changing damage rolls (which is something that you claimed happened, never those arguing for nonlethal not being hit point damage), but your suggestion for including nonlethal overflow for power attack was...
Where does it say that I have to do it "at the time of rolling"? Page number please.
Also, I can do it "at the time of rolling".
Player: Does a 24 hit?
GM: Yes.
Player: Okay, that's 1d4+3, and another 2 points if he takes hit point damage.... rolled a 3, so it's 6, or 8 if he loses hit points.
GM: He can take 3 more nonlethal, so that becomes 3 points of lethal, plus the 2 for it having been lethal.Done, I've now added in the conditional numbers "at the time of rolling".
I don't agree with your interpretation of the interaction between Power Attack and damage dealt vs. damage taken. If a lethal attack fails to do damage because of DR, I don't think you should have the bonus retroactively removed from the damage. Do you agree that this is a result of your interpretation?
But it doesn't really matter. If you want to play with retroactively changing bonuses, that's fine. It's not explicitly covered in the rules, and we can merely agree to disagree on:
1a) Nonlethal is HP damage
1b) Nonlethal isn't HP damage2a) Abilities that refer to "deal damage" are determined only after all variables are determined, which sometimes mean bonuses/penalties are retroactively dropped/added.
2b)...
My interpretation is that nonlethal damage is always hit point damage, and so this question doesn't exist... in my interpretation.
Whenever you make this mistake, I really don't give a crap what else you write, because I need this to be SUPER CLEAR.
That isn't what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you right now:
1) did the target lose hit points?
2) If yes, where did that damage come from?1.) It is possible for the target of the attack to lose hit points.
2.) The attack
So, the attack caused the hit point loss?
So, the attack caused the hit point loss?
Yeah, sure.
|
|
It says that it isn't "Real" HP. Rather than subtract it from the total HP, you keep track of Non Lethal Damage (HP) to compare with "real" hp to see it's effect, IE, when the target goes unconscious. It never says that it is nothing else but damage.
I am sure with GA's interpretation, the only way to knock out a character is either with lethal damage and hope to not exceed the target's Con with negative HP, or Non Lethal damage that has to pool up to Max HP and start to convert to Lethal. Mallecks is saying that Non Lethal is Nothing, and it matters not what you do with it, it isn't HP or any type of Damage, just an exercise in math that doesn't effect the character in any way, shape or form.
At least, that is where this line of interpreted rules is heading.
My interpretation is that nonlethal damage is always hit point damage, and so this question doesn't exist... in my interpretation.
Whenever you make this mistake, I really don't give a crap what else you write, because I need this to be SUPER CLEAR.
The way you are arguing that power attack should work for nonlethal overflow when it isn't HP damage applies to lethal damage and DR whether or not nonlethal damage is HP Damage.
So, yes, your interpretation matters. If you don't believe that this is how power attack should work, why are you arguing for it to behave this way?
Nope, because the issue being caused here does not exist when nonlethal damage is HP damage. Treating nonlethal as hit point damage doesn't require hit points to be lost to meet the criteria.
You: hit point damage is only that with ACTUALLY causes hit point loss.
Me: hit point damage is only that which POTENTIALLY causes hit point loss.
That one word difference matters. Since I only care if it POTENTIALLY can, we don't have to ask the question "does it actually do it?" It is by very nature hit point damage, therefore the bonus from Power Attack always applies, whether hit points are lost or not.
Yeah, sure.
So, the attack caused the hit point loss?
If the attack is the cause, then the damage that causes hit point loss is the effect?
If the attack is the cause, then the damage that causes hit point loss is the effect?
Makes sense.
The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
So, according to the feat Power Attack, the damage would meet the criteria and qualify for the bonus.
You legit just agreed to every step of the logic I've been telling you for nearly 2 weeks now.
Nearly 750 Posts...
The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.So, according to the feat Power Attack, the damage would meet the criteria and qualify for the bonus.
You legit just agreed to every step of the logic I've been telling you for nearly 2 weeks now.
incorrect. The effect must deal hit point damage. Based on what we just went over, you have failed to demonstrate whether or not it would qualify.
Please provide the rule you are using for determining the damage an attack deals.