Personally, I think Enforcer is a great example.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.If we apply the same logic to Enforcer that Irontruth is using, then if someone had nonlethal damage = HP, someone using enforcer would not get Intimidate checks, as the attacks did not deal nonlethal damage.
According to the rules, you still would, as the type of attack determines the damage you deal, it doesn't matter what happens to the target.
The reason why enforcer is a great example, is because of the use of "Damage dealt" in the feat. Does damage dealt refer to damage dealt by the attack or damage dealt to the target? The language is a little unclear here, and I can understand there being a discrepancy.
Here's another one I used where I think we will find disagreement.
Whenever you deal a prone opponent at least 10 points of damage with a natural weapon or unarmed strike, you can savage your foe as a swift action. Your victim becomes disfigured unless it succeeds at a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier). The effects of this disfigurement are identical to those of a bestow curse spell (caster level equal to your character level).If I roll 10 damage, and the target has DR 1/-, do I still get the Savage? RAW would be yes.
Perhaps an analogy will help: every Labrador Retriever(non-lethal damage) is a dog(HP damage) but not every dog(HP damage) is a Labrador Retriever(non-lethal damage). It really is that simple.
Enforcer really won't matter in the long run as they are unconcious anyways once you deal that damage unless there is an ability I missed that lets you stay up at the point.
As for Wolf Savage I'll quote the rules from Damage reduction
attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
So damage reduction effects the damage an attack deals not the damage dealt by an attack so no RAW would be no that you don't get savage as the attack only deals 9 damage.
Personally, I think Enforcer is a great example.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.If we apply the same logic to Enforcer that Irontruth is using, then if someone had nonlethal damage = HP, someone using enforcer would not get Intimidate checks, as the attacks did not deal nonlethal damage.
Actually, my interpretation doesn't say that at all.
My interpretation is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. I'm not sure why you think that specifically impacts the Enforcer feat.
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
Damage reduction uses "deal" and "taken" to mean the same thing.
Personally, I think Enforcer is a great example.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.If we apply the same logic to Enforcer that Irontruth is using, then if someone had nonlethal damage = HP, someone using enforcer would not get Intimidate checks, as the attacks did not deal nonlethal damage.
Actually, my interpretation doesn't say that at all.
My interpretation is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. I'm not sure why you think that specifically impacts the Enforcer feat.
He is referring to the I deal nonlethal that becomes lethal from overflow meaning its lethal so power attack applies. You know that is what he is referring to. So he is arguing based off of that logic an attack that deals all lethal because of overflow no longer counts as having done nonlethal.
This is actually a good point for the whole after the fact changing types situation if it weren't for the fact that I don't see how it matters in this case since there is no legal target to intimidate anyways.
|
It is explained in the 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.
So, Nonlethal is Damage. It effects HP, having less available before the character passes out.
When it says "It is not 'real' damage" the assumption is that Nonlethal is still damage and still HP, but the entry has the player/GM record that damage in a different pool.
Now, I know that the focus is on the singular sentence quoted above instead of looking at the whole entry to convey context. I will continue to play my Living Monolith with the Blugoeneer feet to do Power Attack with Nonlethal Damage. I know I am able to do so, as I understand the rules and how they interact.
Damage reduction uses "deal" and "taken" to mean the same thing.Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
That's a great example! It's something in the core rulebook that specifically shows that damage dealt can, at times, be considered the same as damage taken.
Mallecks, how is someone to determine which one the rules means?What problems arise if damage dealt means damage received?
Do you see any problems with nonlethal damage being hit point damage? (Even though it isn't specifically stated in the rules?)
: You gain a +4 bonus on saving throws against pain effects. Also, you suffer no adverse effect when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, and you become staggered when your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points. You never fall unconscious due to nonlethal damage.
Is this sufficient?
I will review the other posts when I get a chance.
Personally, I think Enforcer is a great example.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.If we apply the same logic to Enforcer that Irontruth is using, then if someone had nonlethal damage = HP, someone using enforcer would not get Intimidate checks, as the attacks did not deal nonlethal damage.
Actually, my interpretation doesn't say that at all.
My interpretation is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. I'm not sure why you think that specifically impacts the Enforcer feat.
He is referring to the I deal nonlethal that becomes lethal from overflow meaning its lethal so power attack applies. You know that is what he is referring to. So he is arguing based off of that logic an attack that deals all lethal because of overflow no longer counts as having done nonlethal.
This is actually a good point for the whole after the fact changing types situation if it weren't for the fact that I don't see how it matters in this case since there is no legal target to intimidate anyways.
I'm really tired of them trying to put words in my mouth, so I don't tolerate it. Not even a little bit. If they want to discuss it with me, they're going to have to do it without putting words in my mouth. My limit on that aspect was reached well over 2 weeks ago, and I'm sorry if it's asinine, but I'm going to continue behaving this way until it stops. If they don't want responses like this, they can stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Enforcer really won't matter in the long run as they are unconcious anyways once you deal that damage unless there is an ability I missed that lets you stay up at the point.
As for Wolf Savage I'll quote the rules from Damage reduction
attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.So damage reduction effects the damage an attack deals not the damage dealt by an attack so no RAW would be no that you don't get savage as the attack only deals 9 damage.
This is problematic.
If by RAW, damage reduction modifies the actual effect, then the Power Attack family are going to have a problem with the Stoneskin example I have previously cited.
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
Creature power attacks Target who has a Stoneskin effect that blocks 100 dmg.
1. Creature rolls 10 damage (8 + 2 from Power Attack)
2. Target reduces the damage to 0. Stoneskin only has 90 damage left to block.
3. Attack dealt 0 hit point damage, it doesn't qualify for Power Attack.
4. Attack should have only dealt 8 damage, Stoneskin gets 2 back?
A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.
Fireball vs Immunity where damage dealt = damage taken:
Creature casts Fireball. Rolls 30 damage. Two creatures are hit, but one has immunity to fire. The immunity to fire makes the Fireball deal zero damage. Why does the other creature take damage from a fireball that deals zero damage?
When you cast a bard spell that deals damage, you may replace the spell’s normal damage with fire damage or split the spell’s damage so that half of it is the normal damage type and half is fire damage.
If you cast a summon monster spell as a bard spell, you may choose to give the summoned creature a fiery appearance, which gives it fire resistance 5 and adds +1 fire damage to all of its natural attacks. The creature sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius. This aspect of the feat has no effect if the creature already has the fire subtype.
When you use this feat, the affected spell gains the fire descriptor.
I cast a sound burst spell to deal 1d8 fire damage. The target has immunity to fire, so it didn't deal damage. So, it never qualified for this feat. So, it's only going to deal Sonic damage instead, and now hits the creature.
I'm not even sure how Fire Music would work because no idea if the spell is even going to "deal damage" to a target in order for damage taken = damage dealt.
Whenever you would deal damage to an object, you deal normal damage plus an additional amount equal to your Strength modifier. This applies to both unattended objects and those you damage as part of a successful sunder combat maneuver check.
How this ability works with Damage Taken = Damage Dealt:
1. Roll regular damage and see if you bypass hardness
2. If you do, roll damage again, but you can now add your STR bonus again to your damage roll.
This is not an exhaustive list, this was just some examples I grabbed with a quick pass over a table.
|
|
Damage is rolled, apply it to the target and take away defensive effects. nothing changes, the damage total is X and will stay X. (10 in your example) If immune to Nonlethal, then target takes no damage from it. If Stone Skin is up, it takes X from the 100 points. The fire damage was rolled and it will stay as fire damage no matter what the target does to it.
I am not sure where you want to take this, but it seems like your reading RiFTS instead of PathFinder.
Perhaps, if you step back and stop trying to force "damage taken" and "damage dealt" into hard-coded terms. They aren't defined game terms, and as long as you insist that they are, you will be led astray.
Using that text, highlight the portion that excludes nonlethal damage
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
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.
Damage reduction uses "deal" and "taken" to mean the same thing.Seems troubling. So would you say, then, that Power Attack retroactively loses its bonus when DR reduces the damage to 0?
No, I don't say that at all, because treating nonlethal as hit point damage means that this question doesn't arise.
Your idea that hit point damage is only that which causes hit point loss might run into some strange issues with this though.
That's a great example! It's something in the core rulebook that specifically shows that damage dealt can, at times, be considered the same as damage taken.
Mallecks, how is someone to determine which one the rules means?
What problems arise if damage dealt means damage received?Do you see any problems with nonlethal damage being hit point damage? (Even though it isn't specifically stated in the rules?)
If we determine that the wording of Damage Reduction is not just poorly worded, then it would have to be up for interpretation / context for the specific use each time.If this is the case, then we can simply agree to disagree and move on.
If we can't agree to disagree on the use of "deals" in Power Attack, then opposing side would have to reconcile some of the example issues I have already provided, and I would even argue that Damage Reduction is a specific rule that overrides the general "dealing" rules I have previously cited, but in all other cases, the value is determined using the those rules.
No, I don't say that at all, because treating nonlethal as hit point damage means that this question doesn't arise.
Your idea that hit point damage is only that which causes hit point loss might run into some strange issues with this though.
This does cause an issue. Because if an attack deals 0 hit point damage, then the attack deals no hit point damage and isn't eligible for the Power Attack bonus.
This does cause an issue. Because if an attack deals 0 hit point damage, then the attack deals no hit point damage and isn't eligible for the Power Attack bonus.No, I don't say that at all, because treating nonlethal as hit point damage means that this question doesn't arise.
Your idea that hit point damage is only that which causes hit point loss might run into some strange issues with this though.
It causes an issue for your interpretation.
It doesn't cause an issue for my interpretation.
There's a key question you haven't asked me. You're focused so hard on proving that you're right that you haven't actually thought about how my interpretation works. Ask me how I define "hit point damage".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...just poorly worded, then it would have to be up for interpretation / context for the specific use each time...
Right! Of course! Sometimes things are worded in such a way that they can be taken two opposing ways and there's nothing to prove either side is correct!
How silly of me to forget that...And with that, I'm out of this conversation.
...just poorly worded, then it would have to be up for interpretation / context for the specific use each time...Right! Of course! Sometimes things are worded in such a way that they can be taken two opposing ways and there's nothing to prove either side is correct!
How silly of me to forget that...And with that, I'm out of this conversation.
I believe that both are internally consistent, and each side appears to have some "unintended" consequences.
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.
What is the confusion here?
Except the rules don't tell you to do that, and doing that means you are violating the rules of Power Attack.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Power Attack DOES say to check what the target takes. Rather, what the target takes is proof that Power Attack was not applied correctly.
The process is immaterial. What matters right now is the result. Currently your result is flawed, therefore your process must also be flawed.
If I told you I was really good at hitting a baseball you'd ask me what my batting average was. If I say .000, you'd point out that my conclusion previously was probably wrong.
You say nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage. I'm asking if you apply Power Attack to the overflow damage, which is hit point damage. You are saying "No". Since you aren't applying it to hit point damage, that means something in your process is flawed.
I am sorry that your personal definition + your homebrew calculation rule to verify the results of an attack don't work with my position.
It seems you don't think we can agree to disagree on damage taken vs damage dealt. Damage Reduction is a specific rule that overrides the general rule of determining how much damage an effect deals (normally based on weapon type.)
Which rule are you using to determine the type of damage an attack deals?
This is the one I am using:
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.
Please provide the rule that backs up your calculation based determination of the damage type or whichever rule you are using to determine damage.
I agree, the damage is nonlethal. It then must follow ALL of the rules for nonlethal damage, correct?
Malleck
1. Cool so Flagellant would make it so you could still be up. Under the changing damage types logic no you wouldn't get to make the intimidate check.
2. Damage taken/dealt issues most of these are resolved by simply realizing that the rules don't care and knowing what effects are stopped by DR and what isn't.
a. Stoneskin is not an issue for power attack under either situation since you believe that power attack fuctions off of damage it deals not what the target is dealt it would trigger, since we see both as identical it doesn't matter because DR is taking the damage down after it's calculated.
b.Immunity doesn't work that way and you know it I'm not going to respond to blatantly bad rules interpretations on either side of this with actual evidence. And if you do think that this would work this way I don't know how to proceed with anything. This also applies to fire music.
c. Gatebreaker your actually close but no reason to reroll the damage you would simply add the damage on after you successfully damage the object so [BW]+Str+any other mods=D if D>H deal Str mod more damage.
Those are the logically conclusions if we strictly treat damage dealt as damage taken and that the statistic of the effect is actually modified.
If it is up for interpretation, we can agree to disagree and move on from the Power Attack issue. I have been looking to agree to disagree on Power Attack for a while, but Irontruth is concerned that I am breaking a rule, so we can't move on.
I agree, the damage is nonlethal. It then must follow ALL of the rules for nonlethal damage, correct?
Sure, we can go around the issue again.
Yes, it follows all rules of nonlethal damage.
If your still stuck on immunity then you have to remember that it does modify the damage the spells but only to the target that has immunity any more than you would let the players claim that since the Druid is immune to the poison gas they all are. I have no problem talking reasonable interpretations of the rules with anyone but if you present an interpretation that we can all agree the developers wouldn't support then that should be that.
If your still stuck on immunity then you have to remember that it does modify the damage the spells but only to the target that has immunity any more than you would let the players claim that since the Druid is immune to the poison gas they all are. I have no problem talking reasonable interpretations of the rules with anyone but if you present an interpretation that we can all agree the developers wouldn't support then that should be that.
Neither one of us believes this. I am pointing out the reason why we can't use what happens to the target (Damage taken) to determine what the effect does (Damage dealt).
My interpretation is the effect exists independently of the target.
We can use that method and do use that method but you want to extrapolate what happens to one target to what happens to multiple targets. And I'm not going to try to prove a point that we both can agree the devs wouldn't support no matter how they ruled on deal vs dealt if they ever did.
My interpretation is that the effect exists independently of the target unless something on the target tells us other wise.
Power Attack does not get applied to any lethal damage the target takes.
Where does it say this?
For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
Damage reduction uses "take" and "deal" to mean the same thing. So is there a place in the book that explicitly tells us "take" and "deal" don't mean the same thing?
Talonhawke,
Sure, we can drop the AoE if you disagree with that reasoning.
Here is one where it provides a bonus on the damage roll.
When you use your unarmed strike to deal nonlethal damage and sneak attack damage to an opponent denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, you gain a +1 bonus on the damage roll per each sneak attack damage die you roll.
If I perform an Unarmed Strike + SA on a flatfooted opponent, and they already have nonlethal damage = to their HP, they I can't deal nonlethal damage.
The bonus is provided to the damage roll (like Power Attack), so we need to know if I'm dealing lethal or nonlethal at that point.
Much like with the other argument if we are worrying about the damages final outcome as a separate entity then no you wouldn't.
The thing is I can logically treat dealt/taken as the same thing because I don't believe that factors after the fact will change the initial roll even if the damage changes. I wouldn't punish a character with a vow to only deal nonlethal for overflow damage. I look at the damage roll and damage dealt as the same thing some rules like damage reduction can effect whether or not an ability or feat functions or not.
But as to your last point it only matters if and only if you believe that the damage changing types outside of the hands of the attacker would somehow retroactively effect the attacker.
Much like with the other argument if we are worrying about the damages final outcome as a separate entity then no you wouldn't.
The thing is I can logically treat dealt/taken as the same thing because I don't believe that factors after the fact will change the initial roll even if the damage changes. I wouldn't punish a character with a vow to only deal nonlethal for overflow damage. I look at the damage roll and damage dealt as the same thing some rules like damage reduction can effect whether or not an ability or feat functions or not.
But as to your last point it only matters if and only if you believe that the damage changing types outside of the hands of the attacker would somehow retroactively effect the attacker.
Yes, exactly. This is what I've been trying to explain to Irontruth. The result doesn't retroactively effect the attacker.
Power Attack does not get applied to any lethal damage the target takes.
Where does it say this?
The only thing it says that a bonus gets applied to is the damage roll. By virtue of that, everything that is not the damage roll does not receive the PA bonus.
Could you please explain your view on your after the fact verification and damage reduction in relation to power attack?
I'm modifying the damage roll. Yes, I agree with this.
Where does it say that the damage roll can't be modified after a certain point?
Right now you are saying that certain kinds of lethal damage do not benefit from Power Attack. But reading the rules, this is clearly false. Unless you can show a rule that gives us a process which clearly would prohibit it.
I've been asking for where you guys are seeing this in the rule book for a couple weeks now. Since you're so adamant that this is how the rules work, I'm assuming you've found it be now.
If I said humans ALWAYS have a move speed of 30, that would be backed up by the Race chapter in the book. But we know that sometimes a human's speed can become something else based on other rules found in other places.
Power Attack says it applies to hit point damage. Do you have a rule from somewhere else that says differently?
You're the one suggesting I'm breaking a rule, so you'll have to provide it.
I certainly meet all the requirements of PA. If you feel differently, please highlight or provide the specific portion of the text as you asked me to do, because you keep using some specific language that's not in the text, and I'd like to keep the line of argument clear.
I'm still very interested for you to explain your process of after the fact verification and how it relates to power attack and damage reduction. I still don't understand how that doesn't require a retroactive removal of the bonus.
Edit:
To add... Maybe part of the confusion is that you say you only care about what is potentially hit point damage, but your verification method is what actually happens, which seems to me to be a poor test. Shouldn't the verification merely be determining whether or not the damage potentially deals hit point damage (essentially, a definition/rules check) prior to adding the bonus?
I've provided it many times. You've quoted it. Power Attack applies hit point damage. How do you get around applying it to hit point damage?
I don't need to get around it, you do. It's a question that is raised by YOUR definition of what is and isn't hit point damage. If "hit point damage is damage which actually causes loss of hit points" then that definition creates oddities with Power Attack, damage reduction, and probably other places as well. But at the moment you and Mallecks are trying to act like these oddities don't exist and handwave them away without any justification from the rules.
On the edit: you are mixing together two separate conversations. This is why we MUST have clarity on who's position we are talking about. If we talk about my position (nonlethal is hit point damage) there are certain assumptions we must apply, but if we talk about your position (nonlethal is not hit point damage) there are different assumptions we must deal with.
The assumptions in each are mutually exclusive. An assumption in my interpretation does not carry over to yours, because that assumption is literally being replaced by your assumption. This is why we have to be SUPER F*&%ING CLEAR about which position we are talking about, because you guys seem to confuse and meld things together which are incompatible.
Which position would you like to discuss:
1) nonlethal is hit point damage
2) nonlethal is not hit point damage
Also, lets keep the conversation simple and focused, instead of trying to rewrite the entire rule book. Let's deal with one issue at a time. If we can come to a conclusion on Power Attack, that conclusion will apply other places.
My problem is that #2 directly contradicts the RAW in Power Attack. So, without written confirmation somewhere in the rules, or a FAQ, or even just a JB post somewhere, the written text wins against random person posting. Is there written text that supports #2? Without that written text though, we have to follow what the text says in Power Attack.
You can of course house rule, and play this however you want, but this forum is about what the text says. And the text of Power Attack says it applies to all hit point damage.
By the way, in the interest of keeping things simple, I have another can of worms to open eventually, but I want to wait to finish how we address Power Attack first.
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.
The bonus is only excluded if there is no hit point damage.
Nonlethal overflow meets your requirements for counting as hit point damage. We've gone over this multiple times and every time I ask questions about it, both you and Mallecks agree to definitions and methods of determining whether it is hit point damage, and concur that it IS hit point damage.
You have not shown a rule that says to exclude the bonus damage from PA though.
The bonus is only excluded if there is no hit point damage.
Nonlethal overflow meets your requirements for counting as hit point damage. We've gone over this multiple times and every time I ask questions about it, both you and Mallecks agree to definitions and methods of determining whether it is hit point damage, and concur that it IS hit point damage.
You have not shown a rule that says to exclude the bonus damage from PA though.
I mean... I do provide the rules, but you seem to disagree with them.
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.
Let's say I am attacking an invulnerable rager.
They have DR2/lethal, DR1/-, 20 HP and 20 nonlethal damage taken. I attack with a nonlethal attack, how much damage is blocked?
There's no specific rule for it but since DR is generally applied before applying damage to hit points and the attack is rolling its hit point damage as non-lethal, I'm applying the DR2 vs non-lethal damage first. Then I'm going to check the target's hit points and, if there is damage left over, I'm going to apply it as lethal hit points because it would qualify for the spillover.
But since the non-lethal damage is rolled up as hit point damage (and we'll assume it's a melee attack that isn't a touch attack since then it would be irrelevant), if power attack were declared - I'd be applying it right from the get-go.
There's no specific rule for it but since DR is generally applied before applying damage to hit points and the attack is rolling its hit point damage as non-lethal, I'm applying the DR2 vs non-lethal damage first. Then I'm going to check the target's hit points and, if there is damage left over, I'm going to apply it as lethal hit points because it would qualify for the spillover.
But since the non-lethal damage is rolled up as hit point damage (and we'll assume it's a melee attack that isn't a touch attack since then it would be irrelevant), if power attack were declared - I'd be applying it right from the get-go.
Right. I do the same thing. Before the DR would apply, the damage needs rolled and it's nonlethal damage. The Rager gets the benefit of the DR2/Lethal. Any damage taken by the target would be treated as lethal (which is AFTER rolling damage and AFTER damage reduction.)
I, also, apply Power Attack at the get-go. The only difference is that I don't think nonlethal qualifies for it based on my interpretation of hit point damage.