|
Cavall.
Ding, and favorited.
This was an offshoot from a thread whose OP was confused by this, and he was told that "yes, of course you can use Nonlethal damage with Power Attack." It was three pages later that Galliant Armor proposed his interpretation that Nonlethal was not HP, thus not able to be used with Power Attack, and now these guys here (at first it was Malleck, defending GA's probability, then B lucky defending Malleck but conseading the fact that Nonlethal is denoted in HP) want to keep this thin line going, despite having no rules data to actually run this idea on.
My overall point to them is that Nonlethal isn't some sort of void, it actually means something when denoted on the character sheet or ticked off by the GM for the enemy. It is as you say, Damage to the character just the same as Lethal, just on a different track.
Thank you, Sir.
|
|
Take a look at Sap Master, and then tell me how it can be used when Nonlethal is considered something other than Hit Point damage.
As Cavall has pointed out, the rules never exclude Nonlethal from being HP damage, it is just written down differently on the page. The passage saying that it isn't "real" damage is telling you that, yes, this is damage, but it isn't denoted on the Lethal side of things. It is not telling you "this is not damage at all, it is bacon."
This is the thread that just keeps on giving.
So instead of just making the comparison, I guess I'll ask. What kind of damage is ability damage?
Ability damage is damage that you take that is measured against your ability scores.
Very similar to how nonlethal damage is damage you take that is measured against your hit points.See why most people would agree that nonlethal is hit point damage?
It is a form of hp damage. Just like str drain and str damage are both forms of damage (the general dictionary definition of damage) to your str. The ability drain/damage actually is a parallel of lethal/nonlethal. Drain actually reduces the score, damage counts up and when it matches the score you go unconscious.
I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet. This is a pretty good analogy for describing ability damage/ability drain.
A lot of the several hundred recent posts have been hyper-specific about the language being used. It's gotten down all the way to what it means to "make a roll."
I took the "All weapons deal hit point damage" argument as a semantic one. All weapons deal hit point damage doesn't mean that all damage dealt by weapons is hit points damage. The requirement for "All weapons deal hit point damage" is met by nonlethal weapons taking the penalty to deal lethal damage.
There are two basic rules here:
1. All weapons deal hit point damage
2. Hit Point damage reduces hit points
If we were looking at this from a "specific trumps general" perspective. You would say that #2 is trumped by the specific Nonlethal rules. I would say number 1 is trumped by the rules that declare weapons deal nonlethal damage (Nonlethal weapon quality, merciful, etc.)
At the beginning of the thread, I summarized the two stances:
P1: Nonlethal Damage is Damage
P2: Nonlethal Damage is measured/against hit points
C: Nonlethal Damage is hit point damage.
or
P1: Hit Point Damage reduces hit points
P2: Nonlethal Damage does not reduce hit points
C: Nonlethal Damage is not hit point damage
Outside of the hyper-specific rules arguing going around, the repercussions that I can remember right now for each position:
Nonlethal Damage is Hit Point Damage
1. Nonlethal Healing spells are modified by the nonlethal healing rule. (Calming Touch)
Nonlethal Damage is not Hit Point Damage
1. Spells and Abilities that refer to Hit Point Damage do not work with nonlethal. (Power Attack, Shield Other, etc.)
2. Regeneration doesn't heal nonlethal. (I don't personally agree with this interpretation of the rules interaction, but conceded the point to move on)
The only provided logical inconsistency claimed so far for Nonlethal damage not being hit point damage is Irontruth's claim that Power Attack isn't benefiting when it should be. However, he cannot demonstrate how this is so without a homebrew rule, an interpretation of "rolling dice" that allows them to be modified after they are rolled, and that treating nonlethal as lethal still means it is nonlethal.
Are you aware of any logical requirements or rules that would prevent the interpretation that Nonlethal Damage not being hit point damage from being logically consistent?
Welcome back!
I don't believe we've questioned why someone would think that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. Perhaps in the beginning of the thread, where initial arguments were being shored up, but not for some time.
But, really, the fact that the unit of measure is hit points is a great enough justification on its own, if that's your interpretation.
However, I don't think I would agree that hit point damage should be defined as being "tracked against hp". If that were the definition, then lethal damage would not be hit point damage.
Thanks! I was down in Florida for nearly two weeks and came back home to find this thread still going in much the same fashion as it was before. I was rather surprised that no one had introduced anything new to disprove either opinion. But hey, that happens.
How is lethal damage not tracked against your HP? You ave a maximum HP, when you take lethal damage your current HP is lowered. When you are healed your current HP is raised to a maximum of you HP maximum.
Are you seriously trying to say that lethal damage doesn't affect/isn't tracked by hit points? I don't understand where you're coming from with your statement.
All I know is that Power Attack applies to lethal damage. You are telling me that there are situations where it doesn't, but I don't see that in the rule book. Feel free to show me where it says it doesn't apply to lethal damage in specific circumstances.I've never claimed that Power Attack does not apply to lethal damage. My claim is that the nonlethal overflow rule is not used by power attack to determine eligibility of the damage bonus.
All I've been asking for is an explicit rules statement that allows you to do this.
Because without that explicit rules statement, the rules CLEARLY state that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage, and lethal damage is hit point damage, and PA applies to hit point damage. Show me the rule that EXPLICITLY lays out how you provide your exception and we're done.
Instead, the best you have "agree to disagree", which means you don't actually have anything that supports your argument. You want us to buy your "agree to disagree" when the thing you're disagreeing with is the rule book.
If you don't care about convincing me, there's nothing to talk about. If you want to convince me, show me the EXPLICIT exception in the rule book.
|
|
As stated before, the answer is not found explicitly in the rules. Just as it doesn't say nonlethal is not hit point damage, it doesn't say nonlethal is hit point damage.
And again, it was never suggested that nonlethal damage is not damage.
As far as sap master goes, I don't really see the point you are trying to get me to see. It works just fine whether or not you consider nonlethal damage hit point damage. If a rule doesn't mention hit point damage at all, why should anything about it change depending on if nonlethal damage is hit point damage or not?
Typically, the rulebook says that damage is dealt, and then HP are tracked after you take that damage. It just depends on if you took the normal damage (Lethal) or the outlyer damage (Nonlethal) as to where you track what damage you have taken, typically against the character's HP.
Not sure how Nonlethal somehow turned into bacon in the process, that is what I am trying to figure out with your, GA's and Mallecks circular thinking.
The only provided logical inconsistency claimed so far for Nonlethal damage not being hit point damage is Irontruth's claim that Power Attack isn't benefiting when it should be. However, he cannot demonstrate how this is so without a homebrew rule, an interpretation of "rolling dice" that allows them to be modified after they are rolled, and that treating nonlethal as lethal still means it is nonlethal.
I'm not making any claims about how rolling works, or should work.
I'm just pointing out the rules for Power Attack, Nonlethal, and Lethal damage.
Feel free to show us otherwise. If there's an explicit ruling roll you'd like to show us, I'd love to see it. The one you've shared so far doesn't prevent PA from modifying the damage roll.
All I've been asking for is an explicit rules statement that allows you to do this.
Because without that explicit rules statement, the rules CLEARLY state that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage, and lethal damage is hit point damage, and PA applies to hit point damage. Show me the rule that EXPLICITLY lays out how you provide your exception and we're done.
Instead, the best you have "agree to disagree", which means you don't actually have anything that supports your argument. You want us to buy your "agree to disagree" when the thing you're disagreeing with is the rule book.
If you don't care about convincing me, there's nothing to talk about. If you want to convince me, show me the EXPLICIT exception in the rule book.
I'm not making any claims about how rolling works, or should work.I'm just pointing out the rules for Power Attack, Nonlethal, and Lethal damage.
Feel free to show us otherwise. If there's an explicit ruling roll you'd like to show us, I'd love to see it. The one you've shared so far doesn't prevent PA from modifying the damage roll.
The explicit rule doesn't exist because they don't interact in a way for a rule to exist. You might as well be asking why there isn't a rule saying that Power Attack doesn't incorporate movement or environmental damage or any random concept.
The only way you have demonstrated that what you are saying is possible is:
1. Home brew rule for determining the type of damage an attack deals
2. An interpretation of "rolling a die" that allows one to modify a roll after it happens
Now, let's just assume that these conditions accurately reflect the rules. I would agree that the Power Attack bonus would be provided to attacks that deal Nonlethal Damage in excess of a target's HP.
Regardless of the accuracy of the above statements, I agree with your conclusion that if were such, that the Power Attack bonus is granted and my position is logically consistent.
Odd question but this thread seems appropriate. Does a magus get to gain double power attack bonuses on spells cast with spell strike? Once for the weapon hit and a second for the spell?
I mean plenty of spells would meet the power attack requirement now that they are being made though a normal and not a touch attack.
Odd question but this thread seems appropriate. Does a magus get to gain double power attack bonuses on spells cast with spell strike? Once for the weapon hit and a second for the spell?
I mean plenty of spells would meet the power attack requirement now that they are being made though a normal and not a touch attack.
Only briefly reviewed it on mobile, so I could be wrong.
Based on the wording of spell strike, it seems that the effect of the attack is the melee damage + spell damage. If the weapon and spell damage are considered a single damage roll, then it can only benefit from the bonus once.
Rapid shot is just an extra attack. Did you mean many shot?
When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
Manyshot would benefit twice from Deadly Aim.
All I've been asking for is an explicit rules statement that allows you to do this.
Because without that explicit rules statement, the rules CLEARLY state that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage, and lethal damage is hit point damage, and PA applies to hit point damage. Show me the rule that EXPLICITLY lays out how you provide your exception and we're done.
Instead, the best you have "agree to disagree", which means you don't actually have anything that supports your argument. You want us to buy your "agree to disagree" when the thing you're disagreeing with is the rule book.
If you don't care about convincing me, there's nothing to talk about. If you want to convince me, show me the EXPLICIT exception in the rule book.
I'm not making any claims about how rolling works, or should work.I'm just pointing out the rules for Power Attack, Nonlethal, and Lethal damage.
Feel free to show us otherwise. If there's an explicit ruling roll you'd like to show us, I'd love to see it. The one you've shared so far doesn't prevent PA from modifying the damage roll.
The explicit rule doesn't exist because they don't interact in a way for a rule to exist. You might as well be asking why there isn't a rule saying that Power Attack doesn't incorporate movement or environmental damage or any random concept.
The only way you have demonstrated that what you are saying is possible is:
1. Home brew rule for determining the type of damage an attack deals
2. An interpretation of "rolling a die" that allows one to modify a roll after it happensNow, let's just assume that these conditions accurately reflect the rules. I would agree that the Power Attack bonus would be provided to attacks that deal Nonlethal Damage in excess of a target's HP.
Regardless of the accuracy of the above statements, I agree with your conclusion that if were such, that the Power Attack bonus is granted and my position is logically consistent.
Yeah, you keep saying this, but you never back it up with anything from the rules. Since you've had about a month to find something, I think we can safely assume there's nothing that actually does back you up.
Irontruth, it doesn't matter what the rules actually are on this specific point, let's just assume they are true.
Given your assumptions that die rolls can be modified after they happen and the damage a target takes determines the type of damage an effect deals, then your conclusion that the Power Attack bonus would be provided to a nonlethal attack that deals lethal ocerflow would be accurate.
For my position to be logically consistent under the circumstances, it rightfully would grant the Power Attack bonus to the damage roll.
Are you ready to discuss the other issues you alluded to earlier?
I can't even bring myself to read or decipher anyone's point anymore...
Like, who believes what?
Irontruth, it doesn't matter what the rules actually are on this specific point, let's just assume they are true.
Given your assumptions that die rolls can be modified after they happen and the damage a target takes determines the type of damage an effect deals, then your conclusion that the Power Attack bonus would be provided to a nonlethal attack that deals lethal ocerflow would be accurate.
For my position to be logically consistent under the circumstances, it rightfully would grant the Power Attack bonus to the damage roll.
Are you ready to discuss the other issues you alluded to earlier?
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm just going off the rules.
These three things are all true and verifiable in the rules. They aren't my opinion. They are facts:
1: Power Attack applies to hit point damage. (Page 131 if you're interested)
2: Lethal damage is hit point damage. (Page 189 if you're interested)
3: Nonlethal damage that exceeds the target's capacity is lethal damage. (Page 191 if you're interested)
I'm not saying ANYTHING else. Just those three things. I don't need anything else. Just those three things. Those are all verifiable, and they are true. Therefore, if you want to say that this process doesn't happen, you can't just have an opinion, you need to show something in the rules that breaks this chain.
I'm not making any assumptions. I am simply presenting what is in the text of the rules.
You are making tons of assumptions. In fact, it seems to be your modus operandi.
I took the "All weapons deal hit point damage" argument as a semantic one. All weapons deal hit point damage doesn't mean that all damage dealt by weapons is hit points damage. The requirement for "All weapons deal hit point damage" is met by nonlethal weapons taking the penalty to deal lethal damage.
If you want to use this argument, then your going to have to explain to me how a net somehow deals hit point damage.
As I stated previously, this argument is as flawed as the argument Irontruth keeps using for his power attack due to nonlethal overflow argument - only this time you are supporting the argument.
Let me explain the flaw in both of these (I think you already understand the flaw in the PA/nonlethal overflow argument).
Let's say I have an ability that states that when I deal fire damage, I get to deal an additional 3 points of damage. Lets then say I cast a fireball. Would we all agree that my fireball does x + 3 damage? I hope so. Lets then pretend there is a creature which has a special ability that says whenever it takes fire damage, it is changed to cold damage instead. How much damage does my fireball do to this creature? Answer is x + 3. I'm applying fire damage - what happens to the creature doesn't matter - I met the conditions for making an attack/spell/effect that deals out fire damage, so I get my bonus. Doesn't matter if the creature is immune to fire, resistant to it, or changes that damage it takes to cold after the fact. I met the condition, I get my bonus.
So of course, as I believe you understand, this is the flaw in Irontruths PA with nonlethal overflow. I'm making an attack to deal nonlethal damage. I get all bonuses I qualify for added to that nonlethal damage. If PA applies, I get that bonus, if PA does not apply I don't. What happens to the creature as a result of me dealing x amount of nonlethal does not change any of those parameters. That fact nonlethal overflow becomes lethal isn't a "problem" my nonlethal attack is concerned with.
The this problem applies to your current argument. Just because a specific rule can allow me to use a nonlethal weapon to deal lethal does not satisfy the general rule or statement of "All weapons deal hit point damage". It is a flawed argument. It would be like me claiming that fireballs actually deal electrical damage. And I support my claim by stating that I can take the elemental metamagic feat and thereby change my fireballs from fire damage to electrical - thus I prove that fireballs actually deal electrical damage. Lay out some specifics and under certain conditions, sure fireballs can do electrical damage. But generally speaking no, they don't do electrical damage. And generally speaking, nonlethal weapons don't satisfy the clause that all weapons deal hit point damage by virtue of special conditions.
But let me help you out here, the argument you should be making is that nonlethal weapons are a specific exception to the general rule of all weapons deal hit point damage. (That's the only meaningful answer to explain the net as a weapon above). In this case, regarding nonlethal, you'd still be wrong (lots of contextual clues in the rules show this to be the case, but I can't "prove" reading comprehension), but at least with it you have a logical argument to be made instead of the nonsensical "because I can invoke the specific rule of dealing lethal with a nonlethal it satisifies the general statement".
As an aside, not to you specifically Mallecks, but I've seen it posted a couple of times now (I think by Butt_Luckily, but I can't be bothered to go verify it) regarding how can a exceptionally deadly attack be used when not trying to kill someone. The problem with that particular argument is that the phrase "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength." in the PA feat is fluff/flavor. It does not dictate the mechanics of how PA works. The rules are quite full of little discrepancies like this between fluff and actual game mechanics. Fluff can be used to help ascertain intent of the rules when the mechanics themselves are not clear. But the mechanics of PA are pretty clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't even bring myself to read or decipher anyone's point anymore...
Like, who believes what?
At the moment, the core argument is about what the consequences of assuming that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage results in.
I personally adhere to nonlethal damage is hit point damage. It isn't explicit, but the book is highly suggestive. There are no complications that result from this. There's some disagreement about a very small consequence, but the rules all make sense and everything seems to work as it should.
In their attempts to avoid strange consequences of their strict reading of hit point damage though, B Lucky and Mallecks have gone off the rails in disregarding any other section of text that they don't like.
So of course, as I believe you understand, this is the flaw in Irontruths PA with nonlethal overflow. I'm making an attack to deal nonlethal damage. I get all bonuses I qualify for added to that nonlethal damage. If PA applies, I get that bonus, if PA does not apply I don't. What happens to the creature as a result of me dealing x amount of nonlethal does not change any of those parameters. That fact nonlethal overflow becomes lethal isn't a "problem" my nonlethal attack is concerned
...
This has been proposed many, many, many times. I'm fully willing to be wrong, in fact I'd like it a lot.
Do you have a page number where I can find a rule that discusses this?
The rules don't differentiate on "damage taken", "damage dealt", or "deals damage" in a clear and explicit way, and there are examples of rules that use "taken", "dealt", and "deals" synonymously with each other.
Damage can be manipulated in myriads of ways in this game. Vulnerable creatures take more damage based on how much damage they're taking in that moment. I'm all for clarity though, so I'd love to see any rules that specifically address the issue at hand.
Cavall, I'm with you on nonlethal is hit point damage, which means regardless of what happens to the target, PA applies to all melee attacks with weapons (lethal and nonlethal).
The issue I'm debating is what are the consequences of assuming nonlethal is not hit point damage based on a specific reading of the loss of hit points section of the rules.
This has been proposed many, many, many times. I'm fully willing to be wrong, in fact I'd like it a lot.
Do you have a page number where I can find a rule that discusses this?
I don't. Nor do I need one. Its simply a straightforward application of the rules.
Lets work with my pretend +3 to fire damage ability.
I roll a 10 on my damage (prior to the +3). The target has fire resistance 10. Do I get to add my +3 or not? Am I dealing 10 damage or 13 damage? The only consistent method without doing convolutions is to add my 3 damage to my initial damage roll, and check the final damage I do against the creatures 10 fire resistance, and it takes 3 damage. I dealt 13. It took 3. Otherwise its open to the you did 10, reduced to 0, so you did 0, so don't get your +3. What happens to the target as a result of my 13 fire damage result is irrelevant. It may take all, some, or none of that actual damage. I still got a 13 on my damage output.
In most cases there is no need to distinguish between damage dealt vs damage taken, and so no real reason for the rules to really spell these out as being different things, but obviously with DR and resistances there is a difference. Its largely trivial and moot even in most of these instances, but it is there. E.g fireball a room for 20 damage. All creatures in the room take 20 damage, except those that save for half, and those with fr, and those with fire immunity, and those with evasion. Which damage amount do we say my fireball does? 20? or 10? or 0? Well all of them. But really we say the fireball dealt 20 damage, and some creatures took the full 20, and some took 10, and some took 0. But you wouldn't negate any bonuses to fire damage you get because some creatures took less or none. Its still a 20 damage fireball.
I agree with the end result of your argument, I just don't think the nonlethal overflow is a valid argument to that result.
I hear what you're saying. I really, really do. But here's the rub, this is a RAW discussion. So, I go an look in the rule book and I find:
1: Power Attack applies to hit point damage. (Page 131 if you're interested)
2: Lethal damage is hit point damage. (Page 189 if you're interested)
3: Nonlethal damage that exceeds the target's capacity is lethal damage. (Page 191 if you're interested)
These three things are true. They are facts. They're in the book and they're RAW. In a RAW discussion, we talk about what is in the book. This is what the book says. I'm all for talking about what the better way to handle something is, but first we have to agree on what the rules actually say. Is it silly that by RAW, you can't see the Sun? Yes, but to have that discussion, you first have to admit that the RAW say you can't see the Sun.
The damage is hit point damage. The source of that damage is the attack. Therefore, the damage should gain the bonus of Power Attack, because those are the conditions of determining whether PA applies. If you have a rule you want to add in, I'm all for discussing it.
That's a distinction without a difference.
The word "effect" literally means consequences. The word "result" means the exact same thing.
The hit point damage is a consequence of the attack. It doesn't come from somewhere else. It comes from the attack.
You are arguing a distinction without a difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear what you're saying. I really, really do. But here's the rub, this is a RAW discussion. So, I go an look in the rule book and I find:
1: Power Attack applies to hit point damage. (Page 131 if you're interested)
2: Lethal damage is hit point damage. (Page 189 if you're interested)
3: Nonlethal damage that exceeds the target's capacity is lethal damage. (Page 191 if you're interested)These three things are true. They are facts. They're in the book and they're RAW. In a RAW discussion, we talk about what is in the book. This is what the book says. I'm all for talking about what the better way to handle something is, but first we have to agree on what the rules actually say. Is it silly that by RAW, you can't see the Sun? Yes, but to have that discussion, you first have to admit that the RAW say you can't see the Sun.
The damage is hit point damage. The source of that damage is the attack. Therefore, the damage should gain the bonus of Power Attack, because those are the conditions of determining whether PA applies. If you have a rule you want to add in, I'm all for discussing it.
I can't help you if you are going to insist on misapplying the rules.
Let's start with the example you provided: According to RAW you can't see the sun.
For those not familiar with this little exercise, the hypothesis is that by pathfinder rules you cannot see the sun because it takes a perception check to spot/see something, and the perception rules apply a +1 DC for every 10' of distance between you and the thing you are trying to perceive. Assuming Golarions sun is roughly 93 million miles away (similar to earths), that's +14.9104e+10 to the DC. No one can make that check of course.
But if we actually read the perception rules there are two primary things perception is used for.
1) "...the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent’s Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised."
2) "Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment."
Now the sun isn't actively trying to stealth from us, so that leaves us with #2.
Question: Would anyone here describe the sun as a fine detail in the environment?
So if we misapply the rules, we can't see the sun. But when we apply them correctly...
Another similar example, an army camped 1000' away (normally a +100 DC to perception) is still visible. An army is not a fine detail in the environment. What would be a fine detail in this example is the words on the shirt of the armies general which read "I'm a great cook".
But now that we are done with our fun little divergence, let's come back to PA.
If Mallecks were correct (which he is not) in his supposition that nonlethal is not HP damage then you, Irontruth, need to resolve the following in regards to when we determine if the nonlethal overflow rules apply for adding PA damage bonus:
If we make a nonlethal attack for 10 nonlethal damage (before looking to add any bonuses for PA) against a target that has 100HP, and has taken 0 nonlethal, should we add PA? I'd assume your answer is no in this case (again assuming Mallecks stance were correct). Why? We dealt no HP damage for which PA qualifies for.
If we make that some attack but the target has taken 100 nonlethal, now your answer becomes yes, add in the PA bonus damage - this is according to the way you are applying the damage rules.
Now, if we again take that same scenario and the target has taken 90 nonlethal, do we add PA bonus or not? If we don't, then the target is now at exactly 100 nonlethal, an no real damage was applied. If we do, then the only reason we got real damage was because the PA bonus was applied BEFORE we knew what the actual result would be. But we cannot apply it before because we don't know if we are going to meet the criteria for dealing hp damage.
Now since Mallecks is wrong, we can toss that particular example if you want, and instead take an actual example from within the RAW.
PA of course has this statement "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." Now we change our example to dealing lethal damage vs DR. DR10/-. My natural roll before adding in PA is 10. So do I get to add my PA bonus or not? If I do, I do actually deal hit point damage, but only because I added the bonus. If I don't, I don't overcome DR, and thus don't get to the add bonus as no actual HP damage was dealt. This parellels how you are trying to apply the nonlethal overflow rules to PA.
Please cite a book and page number for how we should handle this scenario? Given that you can't - as we both very well know, then we have to apply logical reasoning to the rules, as there is no RAW that spells it out for us.
This is why I don't need a specific rule telling me how to handle this. I've shown your reasoning to be flawed in this regard (unless you can cite that page number I just asked for that tells us how to handle the DR scenario). e.g, you are making a conclusion of how the rules work without an actual rule to tell you how it works. So if you want to ask me for a page # to support my view, feel free to provide your own page # first.
It comes down to this. When making an attack, if you score a hit, you roll for damage and add all applicable bonuses to that damage roll. There are no scenarios in which we retroactively add additional damage or remove extra damage from our roll. Our damage roll is our damage roll. The target then takes that damage and applies whatever modifiers it needs to and makes adjustments to the damage it takes. That might be DR, resistance, immunity, save for half, shield other damage transference, swarm 50% increased damage from AoE, the consumed oracle 50% nonlethal damage stacked on top, etc. Our damage roll of X is always X. The damage taken by any given creature is usually X, but given the examples I've just listed might be X * 0.5, X * 0, X * 1.5, etc.
You have to be able to include (or not include) the bonus damage from PA without knowing anything about the state of the target. This is the basis from which the damage rules function. The bonus is applied (or not) strictly from the type of attack you are making.
You'll probably come back (again) with the rules don't make a distinction between damage dealt and damage taken. Don't bother. The rules aren't a contract agreement with which I'd sign with a devil by any stretch. Don't expect them to be air tight. None of those things are game defined terms, just like Mallecks/BL claims that "this damage is deducted from your current HP" is a definition of what HP damage is - it's not. That is not a accurate game defining term of what HP is. When you see those terms damage dealt, damage taken, or any of the variants used in the book, you have to understand them in context. In most cases they are interchangeable, in some cases they are not.
Well said, bbangerter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having found myself with actual time on my hands.
Pathfinder Core Rulebook, page 192.
"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."
Yes. Nonlethal damage is considered hit point damage.
Several other areas in CRB reference nonlethal and points, but this quote explicitly refers to nonlethal damage as being accrued in hit points. This is unambiguous.
It's very clear that nonlethal damage is merely a different accounting method, to enable the concept of subduing an opponent, which in fact is why in 3.0 it was referred to as subdual damage. It isn't something different from hit point damage in the sense that ability damage is. Nope, you just write down the number of nonlethal hit points you've taken in a different place on your character sheet, because neat... a nuanced game.
They're still hit points. Because Core says so.
And let's not play wordgames with the second sentence. "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage" is excluding spells or abilities that provide healing other than hit point damage, such as lesser restoration. It's saying that spells that work on hit points at all conveniently work on both accounting columns at once. It;s not implying that the previous sentence is a typo.
Please cite a book and page number for how we should handle this scenario? Given that you can't - as we both very well know, then we have to apply logical reasoning to the rules, as there is no RAW that spells it out for us.
I literally gave you page numbers before you asked. So you can go do something not family friendly to the horse you rode in on.
You're new to the thread. So let's go through it one step at a time.
Power Attack says it applies to hit point damage (page 131). Do you agree or disagree? Let's not care about the rest of it for right now, let's just see where we stand on this one part. I'll give you three options:
1. It applies to all hit point damage (that meets the other requirements of melee attack, and not a touch attack).
2. It applies to some hit point damage (if you choose this, please provide a reference that you are using to make this determination).
3. It applies to no hit point damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it so unreasonable to not consider something X when it never does anything on "X does these things"?
Yes.
When you can use Shield Other to prevent some lethal damage to a friend from a monks punch but you can't prevent some nonlethal damage to a friend from that exact same monks punch simply because the monk decided to do nonlethal instead of lethal.In my books, that is kind of ridiculous.
It has never been suggested that nonlethal damage is not measured in hit points, just that the fact that it is measured in hit points is not enough to qualify it as hit point damage (in our interpretation.
The use of wording is the same. You might as well play Clintonesque "what the meaning of the word is is" games. In the quote I produced, Paizo referenced nonlethal damage with the exact same syntax that they use with lethal damage. It isn't - at this moment - a matter of measurement anymore. It's a matter of language. In the section of the Core that explains how nonlethal works and what it is, they include a sentence that treats nonlethal damage linguistically the same way we're accustomed to lethal damage being treated.
We have no problem with those that consider nonlethal damage hit point damage, on the justification that it is measured in hit points).
Sure. But Mulder wants to believe.
Is it so unreasonable to not consider something X when it never does anything on "X does these things"?
Honestly, yes. Lethal and nonlethal damage are - per the Core - referred to as hit point damage; damage that is hit points.
Money is money, regardless of if it's a digital balance in my bank account that I can reference, or if it's paper currency that I can set on fire.
What hit points do is abstract the concept of durability, and the two types of them do exactly that, just as the two types of money act as a means for transacting trades for products and services.
Again, in my opinion my answer to your question is "still yes". Cold damage and fire damage are both energy damage despite the fact that they don't behave identically and are resisted by different things.
If it is insufficient for you that the CRB literally references hit points in the middle of nonlethal documentation, then this is all a colossal waste of time because your requirement for proof is unobtainable.
Please cite a book and page number for how we should handle this scenario? Given that you can't - as we both very well know, then we have to apply logical reasoning to the rules, as there is no RAW that spells it out for us.I literally gave you page numbers before you asked. So you can go do something not family friendly to the horse you rode in on.
You're new to the thread. So let's go through it one step at a time.
Power Attack says it applies to hit point damage (page 131). Do you agree or disagree? Let's not care about the rest of it for right now, let's just see where we stand on this one part. I'll give you three options:
1. It applies to all hit point damage (that meets the other requirements of melee attack, and not a touch attack).
2. It applies to some hit point damage (if you choose this, please provide a reference that you are using to make this determination).
3. It applies to no hit point damage.
The three page numbers you provided, and what they detail, don't explain a thing about how to handle the DR scenario I laid out. That's what I'm asking for a page number for.
As for being new to the thread, no I'm not. I've made a few comments here and there over the past couple weeks. I've been following the thread daily, though I've started skimming over large portions of you and Mallecks when you are simply repeating yourselves with nothing new - skimming to see if any new ideas are being presented. Given that, I'm quite familiar with all the arguments that have already been made - both the good points and the flaws in them. I'm simply pointing out some errors both of you have made with your arguments.
Honestly, yes. Lethal and nonlethal damage are - per the Core - referred to as hit point damage; damage that is hit points.Money is money, regardless of if it's a digital balance in my bank account that I can reference, or if it's paper currency that I can set on fire.
What hit points do is abstract the concept of durability, and the two types of them do exactly that, just as the two types of money act as a means for transacting trades for products and services.
Again, in my opinion my answer to your question is "still yes". Cold damage and fire damage are both energy damage despite the fact that they don't behave identically and are resisted by different things.
If it is insufficient for you that the CRB literally references hit points in the middle of nonlethal documentation, then this is all a colossal waste of time because your requirement for proof is unobtainable.
What I'd really like for you to answer though Anguish, is what is the DC to jump a 10' pit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd really like for you to answer though Anguish, is what is the DC to jump a 10' pit?
Because one section of rules are written poorly does not imply another is. This is the kind of magician "look over here" distraction that caused this thread to get where it is, and I won't engage in it.
The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.
If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.
The "What Hit Points Represent" paragraph describes what hit points are and is relevant to both lethal and nonlethal damage because they are measured in hit points.
The "Effects of Hit Point Damage" paragraphs clauses:
1. Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower.
It is not possible for nonlethal damage to reduce your current HP to 0 or lower.
2. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.
It is not possible for nonlethal damage to reduce a character's HP to 0. Nonlethal damage never causes the disabled condition.
3. If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
It is not possible for nonlethal damage to reduce a character's HP to negative. Nonlethal damage never causes the dying condition.
4. When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.
It is not possible for nonlethal damage to reduce your hit point total to negative hit points equal to your constitution. Nonlethal can never cause the dead condition.
For Nonlethal Damage not being hit point damage, I would say that "hit point damage" is not a category, it is a type of damage and the term is used interchangeably with lethal damage and normal damage. Hit Point damage, lethal damage, and normal damage (and even just Damage with the default assumption in some cases) are all used to refer to damage that reduces hit points.
When you can use Shield Other to prevent some lethal damage to a friend from a monks punch but you can't prevent some nonlethal damage to a friend from that exact same monks punch simply because the monk decided to do nonlethal instead of lethal.
In my books, that is kind of ridiculous.
A 10th level Psychic casts Rend Body I on Target. It reduces his hit points to -1 and all of its arms and legs are ripped from its body and flies and random directions and starts bleeding. Target is healed for 1 nonlethal damage and it stops the bleeding.
In my books, that is kind of ridiculous.Cold damage and fire damage are both energy damage despite the fact that they don't behave identically and are resisted by different things.
and positive energy damage and negative energy damage are not energy damage. The only reason why cold damage and fire damage are both considered energy damage is because there are multiple references to energy damage including them explicitly. (And an explicit definition of energy damage as acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.) There is no explicit definition of hit point damage that includes the types lethal and nonlethal damage, AFAIK. I'm not even aware of a reference to hit point damage as a "category" of damage instead of a "type" of damage.
Lethal and nonlethal damage are - per the Core - referred to as hit point damage; damage that is hit points.
I do not agree with the "damage that is hit points." Did you mean "damage measured in hit points"? I think we can all agree that damage isn't hit points.
Please cite a book and page number for how we should handle this scenario? Given that you can't - as we both very well know, then we have to apply logical reasoning to the rules, as there is no RAW that spells it out for us.I literally gave you page numbers before you asked. So you can go do something not family friendly to the horse you rode in on.
You're new to the thread. So let's go through it one step at a time.
Power Attack says it applies to hit point damage (page 131). Do you agree or disagree? Let's not care about the rest of it for right now, let's just see where we stand on this one part. I'll give you three options:
1. It applies to all hit point damage (that meets the other requirements of melee attack, and not a touch attack).
2. It applies to some hit point damage (if you choose this, please provide a reference that you are using to make this determination).
3. It applies to no hit point damage.
The three page numbers you provided, and what they detail, don't explain a thing about how to handle the DR scenario I laid out. That's what I'm asking for a page number for.
As for being new to the thread, no I'm not. I've made a few comments here and there over the past couple weeks. I've been following the thread daily, though I've started skimming over large portions of you and Mallecks when you are simply repeating yourselves with nothing new - skimming to see if any new ideas are being presented. Given that, I'm quite familiar with all the arguments that have already been made - both the good points and the flaws in them. I'm simply pointing out some errors both of you have made with your arguments.
Ah, see, I was confused. I thought you were talking to me about the things I've said. Instead you're changing the topic.
So, you don't actually have anything to show me about how I'm wrong about Power Attack and hit point damage.
When you can use Shield Other to prevent some lethal damage to a friend from a monks punch but you can't prevent some nonlethal damage to a friend from that exact same monks punch simply because the monk decided to do nonlethal instead of lethal.
In my books, that is kind of ridiculous.
A 10th level Psychic casts Rend Body I on Target. It reduces his hit points to -1 and all of its arms and legs are ripped from its body and flies and random directions and starts bleeding. Target is healed for 1 nonlethal damage and it stops the bleeding.
In my books, that is kind of ridiculous.
But the bleeding stopping due to healing one point of lethal isn't at all ridiculous to you? (Because, you know, games with magic and dragons all seem super realistic.)
It is not possible for nonlethal damage to...
But, by what you've said many times about nonlethal overflow still counting as dealing nonlethal damage even though the target takes lethal... well, wouldn't that mean that attacks that deal nonlethal damage can do all of these things?
I don't think so. The spell transfers wounds, so I can very easily see it not working on nonlethal damage because, conceivably, they are not actually being wounded.
What about when the target takes lethal damage due to nonlethal overflow?
Would Shield Other work if the target had already rolled over into lethal damage?Because, the stance of "I'm dealing nonlethal regardless of what the target is taking" (which is he current justification for why power attack doesn't work with nonlethal overflow) seems to conflict with how Shield Other would react with nonlethal overflow (if you pretend that it shouldn't work with nonlethal damage).
Power Attack: "The bonus damage does not apply to ... effects that do not deal hit point damage."
Shield Other: "... the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks ... that deal hit point damage."
Here's a question for everyone that I don't think has been asked yet:
If someone has rolled over into lethal damage due to taking their maximum HP in nonlethal and you attack them with nonlethal can you then apply the bonus damage from Power Attack? (Say you're not coup de gracing them due not wanting to open yourself up to AoO from other opponents.)