Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?


Rules Questions

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,394 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:

Cool. Do you have any rules you wish to share with me?

If my conclusion isn't logically consistent with the rules, you shouldn't have a hard time citing some rules that show I'm wrong.

1) Rules precedent.

Attack Roll wrote:


When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.)

Roll the d20. Add your attack bonus and all other modifiers. Once you have a total compare it to the target AC. Nothing happens regarding the target until you have a final number.

Things like overcoming SR, using dispel magic, etc work in a similar fashion. Roll dice, add bonuses, subtract penalties, compare against target once a final number has been reached.

2) From the rules on damage, and other areas.

Damage wrote:


If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Strength Bonus wrote:


When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.
Multiplying Damage wrote:


Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.
Unarmed Strikes wrote:


Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal).
Critical Hits wrote:


A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together.

These are all examples of adding bonuses to get a final result. Some are explicit (multiplying damage says to get a total). Others are implicit - e.g, roll dice, add bonuses.

At no part in any of those rules do I find any steps similar to the following:

a) Roll weapon dice damage.
b) Apply weapon dice damage to target.
c) Under certain conditions apply additional bonus damage.

Okay, your turn, provide some rules to back up your claim of how damage is separated into multiple components, and how the rules tell us to manage that.


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

In either interpretation, it is not strictly possible to do this unless you allow "heal nonlethal damage" to mean "removing nonlethal damage."

Please see my response to thaX at post #1240. I'm not sure if you remember, but a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, you and I were the ones discussing this point.

Yep, I remember.

So since healing nonlethal and removing nonlethal is the same, you could easily say that the rules are "You remove nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level."
Which still means that you're removing damage from your hit point pool.
Which still means that nonlethal damage damages your hit points.
Which still means that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

I think that nonlethal damage implicitly doesn't damage hit points. However, if you have some other type of meaning for "damaging" a statistic outside of merely "reducing" that statistic, it's whatever. I don't feel this is a distinction that is required for your position.

For my interpretation, Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points. So, the nonlethal healing rule is contextually accurate in defining the rate at which nonlethal damage.

willuwontu wrote:
So per that, nonlethal once again ignores DR, since normal attacks damage hit points, and nonlethal isn't real damage (just like ability damage).

I'm not sure I would agree that "normal attacks" can't deal nonlethal damage. Do you have a citation for such a claim? Is "normal attack" defined even? Would a Vital Strike be a "normal attack"? Would a Spring Attack? Would a sneak attack? Would a smite? Would a Power Attack?

I am unaware of references to "hit point damage" or "nonlethal damage" in regards to Damage reduction. So, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion. It should work the same under either interpretation.


thaX wrote:
As you define HP damage as something that reduces HP, the fact that Nonlethal limits the target's use of those HP seems.... lost. It is good that you, B lucky, have acknowledged that Nonlethal is at least measured in HP. The overall point that has been glossed over, and continues to be a point of contention, is the fact that both are forms of Damage, a type of which that effects HP, either by reducing the current HP, or by reducing how much of those current HP can be taken before the target is nullified.

Non-lethal doesn't limit the use of any HP. It's still all there, ready to be used.

Again, not once throughout this entire thread has anyone ever suggested that non-lethal damage is composed of anything other than hit points.

The point is not glossed over. It's been covered pretty thoroughly. We agree both types are damage. We agree they measure in hit points. We disagree on whether they both "affect" hit points and whether the unit of measure is enough to qualify a kind of damage as hit point damage.

Unless you have some text to prove that hit point damage is something other than damage that is subtracted from a characters hp, we simply agree to disagree here.

Anguish wrote:
So per that, nonlethal once again ignores DR, since normal attacks damage hit points, and nonlethal isn't real damage (just like ability damage).

I took those sections to mean that a normal attack is an attack with that is performed with a weapon or natural attack.

Where can I find that normal attacks damage hit points?

Warped Savant wrote:

So since healing nonlethal and removing nonlethal is the same, you could easily say that the rules are "You remove nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level."

Which still means that you're removing damage from your hit point pool.
Which still means that nonlethal damage damages your hit points.
Which still means that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

Well, you're removing non-lethal damage for sure.

I don't see how you jump to saying that you're removing damage from your "hit point pool". I'm not totally sure what you mean by this, because it appears to be something other than simply your hp.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
B lucky wrote:

Non-lethal doesn't limit the use of any HP. It's still all there, ready to be used.

Again, not once throughout this entire thread has anyone ever suggested that non-lethal damage is composed of anything other than hit points.

The point is not glossed over. It's been covered pretty thoroughly. We agree both types are damage. We agree they measure in hit points. We disagree on whether they both "affect" hit points and whether the unit of measure is enough to qualify a kind of damage as hit point damage.

Unless you have some text to prove that hit point damage is something other than damage that is subtracted from a characters hp, we simply agree to disagree here.

Mallecks has said on multiple occasions that Nonlethal is not HP damage. I believe he thinks that it is bacon, or a math exercise of some sort that is not at all involved with HP in the same way that Ham has nothing to do with pigs.

The more Nonlethal you have, the less HP you can take before being out of the fight. If you can't see that, then you have no concept as to what Nonlethal is supposed to represent. You do realize that enough Nonlethal done to a target will make that target unconscious, right?

B Lucky wrote:
Where can I find that normal attacks damage hit points?
Here you go...
CRB page 189 wrote:

Loss of Hit Points

The most common way that your character gets hurt is to
take lethal damage and lose hit points.


thaX wrote:
Mallecks has said on multiple occasions that Nonlethal is not HP damage. I believe he thinks that it is bacon, or a math exercise of some sort that is not at all involved with HP in the same way that Ham has nothing to do with pigs.

When we say that non-lethal damage is not hit point damage, it is because we disagree on the definition of hit point damage, not the unit of measure of nonlethal damage.

This goes back to needing to have to agree what terms mean in order to debate them.

thaX wrote:
The more Nonlethal you have, the less HP you can take before being out of the fight. If you can't see that, then you have no concept as to what Nonlethal is supposed to represent. You do realize that enough Nonlethal done to a target will make that target unconscious, right?

Are you bringing this up to criticize our position, or further justify yours? Just because nonlethal can cause you to fall unconscious sooner when taking lethal damage does not make it hit point damage under our definition, where hit point damage is damage that is subtracted from hit points.

It doesn't actually make it hit point damage under your position either, assuming that your position is hit point damage is damage measured in hit points. So I'm not sure why you would bring this up.

thaX wrote:

The most common way that your character gets hurt is to

take lethal damage and lose hit points.

I see nothing defining normal attacks here. Even if it did, it specifies "the most common way", and I would agree that the rules provide much more opportunity to lose lethal damage than nonlethal.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
B lucky wrote:
Just because nonlethal can cause you to fall unconscious sooner when taking lethal damage does not make it hit point damage under our definition, where hit point damage is damage that is subtracted from hit points.

Then your stance is narrow and focused on a particular part of Power Attack's wording, and extrapolated to mean something beyond the intent of the feat. In your opinion, this issue aside, do you think a character can use Nonlethal damage with Power Attack? If you look at it as Damage and not as Bacon, you should come to the conclusion that it can be used with Power Attack.

Really, the goal of the fight is to incapacitate the target(s), and both forms of Damage do that, as both effect the HP pool and how much HP it will take to take out the target. Focusing on current HP and ignoring Nonlethal completely is akin to erasing Nonlethal from the game.

It is telling me that you think of Nonlethal as Bacon, and despite knowing that it is HP (or measured as such), does not effect the character in any way, shape or form. It is as I said about Mallecks thinking Nonlethal as divorced from HP, like saying Ham has nothing to do with pigs.

You can use Nonlethal damage with Power Attack. Why was this even a question?


bbangerter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Cool. Do you have any rules you wish to share with me?

If my conclusion isn't logically consistent with the rules, you shouldn't have a hard time citing some rules that show I'm wrong.

1) Rules precedent.

Attack Roll wrote:


When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.)

Roll the d20. Add your attack bonus and all other modifiers. Once you have a total compare it to the target AC. Nothing happens regarding the target until you have a final number.

Things like overcoming SR, using dispel magic, etc work in a similar fashion. Roll dice, add bonuses, subtract penalties, compare against target once a final number has been reached.

2) From the rules on damage, and other areas.

Damage wrote:


If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Strength Bonus wrote:


When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.
Multiplying Damage wrote:


Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.
Unarmed Strikes wrote:


Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal).
Critical Hits wrote:


A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together.

These are all examples of adding bonuses to get a final result. Some are explicit (multiplying damage says to get a total). Others are implicit - e.g, roll dice, add bonuses.

At no part in any of those rules do I find any steps similar to the following:

a) Roll weapon dice damage.
b) Apply weapon dice damage to target.
c) Under certain conditions apply additional...

I'm not going to give special circumstances, I'm going to follow the rules.

Damage: 1d8+3 (+2 more if the target takes hit point damage)

I roll it all at once, and I know the total prior to any interaction with the target.

Much like if I were to cast Chaos Hammer, I'd roll my dice, lets say it comes up 20 damage, and I'd tell the DM...

20 damage, half that if they're Neutral, nothing if they're Chaotic.

I roll, but the damage can change depending on how it interacts with the target.

I have followed all the rules you have laid out. Remember, all the process you've laid out aren't the "final total" either, because other things can still happen to the damage that changes it, such as DR, which changes the damage as it interacts with the target.


Butt_Luckily wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So per that, nonlethal once again ignores DR, since normal attacks damage hit points, and nonlethal isn't real damage (just like ability damage).

I took those sections to mean that a normal attack is an attack with that is performed with a weapon or natural attack.

Where can I find that normal attacks damage hit points?

Where can I find that the only form of an attack is using an attack roll?

The damage from drugs is quite clearly an attack on the body, causing you to take ability damage. Thus DR once again applies to ability damage.

Mallecks wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So per that, nonlethal once again ignores DR, since normal attacks damage hit points, and nonlethal isn't real damage (just like ability damage).

I'm not sure I would agree that "normal attacks" can't deal nonlethal damage. Do you have a citation for such a claim? Is "normal attack" defined even? Would a Vital Strike be a "normal attack"? Would a Spring Attack? Would a sneak attack? Would a smite? Would a Power Attack?

I am unaware of references to "hit point damage" or "nonlethal damage" in regards to Damage reduction. So, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion. It should work the same under either interpretation.

Ah, so we're back to drugs ability damage being reduced by DR.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
I'm not sure I would agree that "normal attacks" can't deal nonlethal damage. Do you have a citation for such a claim? Is "normal attack" defined even? Would a Vital Strike be a "normal attack"? Would a Spring Attack? Would a sneak attack? Would a smite? Would a Power Attack?

The normal way of damaging a target is with Lethal Damage. One needs to specify when Nonlethal damage is being done by the character, or when using poison, or using a spell or ability that will give the target a condition, such as staggered, stun or dazed.

I quoted the beginning passage to Loss to Hip Point section above that tell you this from the beginning of the section. Then in the Nonlethal Section is this...

CRB page 191 wrote:

Nonlethal Damage

Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is
not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal
damage is healed quickly with rest.

So from the beginning of the Nonlethal damage, it is assumed that it isn't "normal" damage, but that the earlier Lethal damage is the normal damaging attack used by attackers.


bbangerter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Cool. Do you have any rules you wish to share with me?

If my conclusion isn't logically consistent with the rules, you shouldn't have a hard time citing some rules that show I'm wrong.

1) Rules precedent.

And to be clear, my core point with this is that we should apply all of the rules that are triggered. PA says it modifies hit point damage. So, without a clear exception that would cause it to be excluded (ie, another rule is triggered), then PA applies its modifier.

For PA to not apply, there has to be a clear rule that tells us it doesn't apply (doesn't need to name PA directly, but a rules procedure that would make it impossible to apply would suffice).

Damage rolls get modified by the target's condition often enough in the rules that this isn't outrageous. Some are checked at different points, but who the target is, and what state they are currently in can and does matter.

I agree, that it's weird. There isn't a rule preventing it though, partially because the situation doesn't exist if you don't interpret what is and isn't hit point damage in this weird way. Which I think is also a suggestive (but not conclusive) argument for why it is a bad interpretation for what is and isn't hit point damage. But the logic of PA applying to hit point damage and there not being a rule to exclude it is thus far very sound. Power Attack and damage rolls aren't the source of the problem though, it's how hit point damage is interpreted.


Irontruth wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Cool. Do you have any rules you wish to share with me?

If my conclusion isn't logically consistent with the rules, you shouldn't have a hard time citing some rules that show I'm wrong.

1) Rules precedent.

And to be clear, my core point with this is that we should apply all of the rules that are triggered. PA says it modifies hit point damage. So, without a clear exception that would cause it to be excluded (ie, another rule is triggered), then PA applies its modifier.

For PA to not apply, there has to be a clear rule that tells us it doesn't apply (doesn't need to name PA directly, but a rules procedure that would make it impossible to apply would suffice).

Damage rolls get modified by the target's condition often enough in the rules that this isn't outrageous. Some are checked at different points, but who the target is, and what state they are currently in can and does matter.

I agree, that it's weird. There isn't a rule preventing it though, partially because the situation doesn't exist if you don't interpret what is and isn't hit point damage in this weird way. Which I think is also a suggestive (but not conclusive) argument for why it is a bad interpretation for what is and isn't hit point damage. But the logic of PA applying to hit point damage and there not being a rule to exclude it is thus far very sound. Power Attack and damage rolls aren't the source of the problem though, it's how hit point damage is interpreted.

Did you have other examples of damage roll totals being modified after the roll happens?


Mallecks wrote:


Did you have other examples of damage roll totals being modified after the roll happens?

More specifically I'd ask, are there any example of damage rolls being modified after the fact as a result of some ability/feat/etc of the attacker. Lots of rolls get modified based on defender state (DR, saves, resistance, etc). I'm not aware of any that conditionally apply to the damage roll total after the fact based on the attackers state.

Irontruth wrote:


I agree, that it's weird. There isn't a rule preventing it though, partially because the situation doesn't exist if you don't interpret what is and isn't hit point damage in this weird way. Which I think is also a suggestive (but not conclusive) argument for why it is a bad interpretation for what is and isn't hit point damage. But the logic of PA applying to hit point damage and there not being a rule to exclude it is thus far very sound. Power Attack and damage rolls aren't the source of the problem though, it's how hit point damage is interpreted.

Very much in agreement that it is only a question that even could come up as a result of the wrong interpretation of what HP damage is. We are simply in disagreement about when we check to see if PA should apply its bonus or not.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Cool. Do you have any rules you wish to share with me?

If my conclusion isn't logically consistent with the rules, you shouldn't have a hard time citing some rules that show I'm wrong.

1) Rules precedent.

And to be clear, my core point with this is that we should apply all of the rules that are triggered. PA says it modifies hit point damage. So, without a clear exception that would cause it to be excluded (ie, another rule is triggered), then PA applies its modifier.

For PA to not apply, there has to be a clear rule that tells us it doesn't apply (doesn't need to name PA directly, but a rules procedure that would make it impossible to apply would suffice).

Damage rolls get modified by the target's condition often enough in the rules that this isn't outrageous. Some are checked at different points, but who the target is, and what state they are currently in can and does matter.

I agree, that it's weird. There isn't a rule preventing it though, partially because the situation doesn't exist if you don't interpret what is and isn't hit point damage in this weird way. Which I think is also a suggestive (but not conclusive) argument for why it is a bad interpretation for what is and isn't hit point damage. But the logic of PA applying to hit point damage and there not being a rule to exclude it is thus far very sound. Power Attack and damage rolls aren't the source of the problem though, it's how hit point damage is interpreted.

Did you have other examples of damage roll totals being modified after the roll happens?

Show me a game definition of "after the roll".


bbangerter wrote:
Mallecks wrote:


Did you have other examples of damage roll totals being modified after the roll happens?

More specifically I'd ask, are there any example of damage rolls being modified after the fact as a result of some ability/feat/etc of the attacker. Lots of rolls get modified based on defender state (DR, saves, resistance, etc). I'm not aware of any that conditionally apply to the damage roll total after the fact based on the attackers state.

Irontruth wrote:


I agree, that it's weird. There isn't a rule preventing it though, partially because the situation doesn't exist if you don't interpret what is and isn't hit point damage in this weird way. Which I think is also a suggestive (but not conclusive) argument for why it is a bad interpretation for what is and isn't hit point damage. But the logic of PA applying to hit point damage and there not being a rule to exclude it is thus far very sound. Power Attack and damage rolls aren't the source of the problem though, it's how hit point damage is interpreted.
Very much in agreement that it is only a question that even could come up as a result of the wrong interpretation of what HP damage is. We are simply in disagreement about when we check to see if PA should apply its bonus or not.

I don't have an encyclopedic memory of everything in the game every made. Particularly since I stopped buying books about 2 years ago.

All I know is that if you exclude the damage bonus, you've broken the rules for Power Attack.

Show me the rule I'm breaking by adding it.


You are breaking whichever rule being used to determine the type of damage the attack deals.


No, I'm not. Every version of this argument that you've tried fails to exclude PA from adding it's bonus. You've also flip-flopped on what that means way too many times.

Also, the definition of the word "show" continues to elude you.


Mallecks wrote:

I think that nonlethal damage implicitly doesn't damage hit points. However, if you have some other type of meaning for "damaging" a statistic outside of merely "reducing" that statistic, it's whatever. I don't feel this is a distinction that is required for your position.

For my interpretation, Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points. So, the nonlethal healing rule is contextually accurate in defining the rate at which nonlethal damage.

So, in your interpretation, nonlethal is measured in hit points, nonlethal is damage (although not 'real' damage, whatever that's supposed to actually mean), nonlethal damage is healed in hit points.... but somehow it's not your hit points that is being nonlethally damaged?

How are you healing your nonlethal hit points if those same hit points weren't damaged?


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

I think that nonlethal damage implicitly doesn't damage hit points. However, if you have some other type of meaning for "damaging" a statistic outside of merely "reducing" that statistic, it's whatever. I don't feel this is a distinction that is required for your position.

For my interpretation, Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points. So, the nonlethal healing rule is contextually accurate in defining the rate at which nonlethal damage.

So, in your interpretation, nonlethal is measured in hit points, nonlethal is damage (although not 'real' damage, whatever that's supposed to actually mean), nonlethal damage is healed in hit points.... but somehow it's not your hit points that is being nonlethally damaged?

How are you healing your nonlethal hit points if those same hit points weren't damaged?

There isn't "Nonlethal Hit Points" that I am aware of. There is only "Nonlethal Damage" that is measured in hit points. The Healing Nonlethal Rule refers to healing the "nonlethal damage" not "nonlethal hit points."

Quote:
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

You heal 1 hit point (of nonlethal damage) per hour per character level.

Irontruth wrote:

No, I'm not. Every version of this argument that you've tried fails to exclude PA from adding it's bonus. You've also flip-flopped on what that means way too many times.

Also, the definition of the word "show" continues to elude you.

I don't feel that I've flipflopped on anything really. However, any amount of changing positions in the past has no bearing on the validity of my current position.

Power Attack provides its damage bonus to a melee damage roll if the effect deals hit point damage. There are rules used to determine what type of damage an attack deals. ZERO of them use the target to determine what type of damage the effect deals. At best, damage reduction is a specific rule that trumps the general rule that determines the amount of damage dealt (which is usually determined by the weapon type.) This has no impact on the type of damage dealt.

Based on your interpretation that there is no such thing as an irrelevant rule, you are actually simultaneously breaking all rules that are used to determine the attack type by using your homebrew rule instead of the written rules that should be used instead.

bbangerter wrote:
Very much in agreement that it is only a question that even could come up as a result of the wrong interpretation of what HP damage is. We are simply in disagreement about when we check to see if PA should apply its bonus or not.

It also can only happen if you change how "rolls" work and disregard all the rules that are used to determine how to determine what type of damage an attack deals.


Mallecks wrote:

There isn't "Nonlethal Hit Points" that I am aware of. There is only "Nonlethal Damage" that is measured in hit points. The Healing Nonlethal Rule refers to healing the "nonlethal damage" not "nonlethal hit points."

Quote:
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
You heal 1 hit point (of nonlethal damage) per hour per character level.

So if your hit points aren't damaged by nonlethal damage then how are you healing those hit points?


thaX wrote:
Then your stance is narrow and focused on a particular part of Power Attack's wording, and extrapolated to mean something beyond the intent of the feat.

My stance is not based on power attack. It's based on the Weapons and Effects of Hit Point Damage.

thaX wrote:
In your opinion, this issue aside, do you think a character can use Nonlethal damage with Power Attack? If you look at it as Damage and not as Bacon, you should come to the conclusion that it can be used with Power Attack.

This is not a very clearly worded question. I already think that nonlethal damage is damage, and don't think one can use it with power attack.

Did you mean that if I took your stance, where hit point damage is damage measured in hit points? If so, then yes, clearly in your stance power attack applies to nonlethal damage. This was never in question.

thaX wrote:
Really, the goal of the fight is to incapacitate the target(s), and both forms of Damage do that, as both effect the HP pool and how much HP it will take to take out the target. Focusing on current HP and ignoring Nonlethal completely is akin to erasing Nonlethal from the game.

The goal of a fight is irrelevant to whether or not something is hit point damage, unless you are proposing to include that within the definition of hit point damage.

Whether or not nonlethal reduces how much hp you have before being knocked unconscious is irrelevant to whether or not it is hit point damage, unless you are proposing to include that in the definition of hit point damage.

I don't know why you feel that nonlethal damage is being erased from the game. Aside from not interacting with a relatively small amount of spells/abilities, there is no functional change.

thaX wrote:
It is telling me that you think of Nonlethal as Bacon, and despite knowing that it is HP (or measured as such), does not effect the character in any way, shape or form. It is as I said about Mallecks thinking Nonlethal as divorced from HP, like saying Ham has nothing to do with pigs.

I am not saying that nonlethal does not affect a character in any way. Just that the ways it does affect a character do not make it hit point damage.

Warped Savant wrote:
So if your hit points aren't damaged by nonlethal damage then how are you healing those hit points?

As Mallecks has explained, in our interpretation that line is implicit that it heals 1 hit point (of nonlethal damage). It's not HP that is healed, it is nonlethal damage.

However, this question doesn't matter in this discussion, I think, because it applies to both interpretations.

If you feel this explanation is insufficient, then how do you think it works within your definition of hit point damage? Whatever explanation you provide is probably also acceptable in our interpretation (unless you suggest something outside of the rules, I suppose).


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

There isn't "Nonlethal Hit Points" that I am aware of. There is only "Nonlethal Damage" that is measured in hit points. The Healing Nonlethal Rule refers to healing the "nonlethal damage" not "nonlethal hit points."

Quote:
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
You heal 1 hit point (of nonlethal damage) per hour per character level.
So if your hit points aren't damaged by nonlethal damage then how are you healing those hit points?

There isn't hit points to heal in either interpretation. You heal the nonlethal damage. Based on other references, I think this is equivalent to removing the nonlethal damage.


Mallecks wrote:


Power Attack provides its damage bonus to a melee damage roll if the effect deals hit point damage. There are rules used to determine what type of damage an attack deals. ZERO of them use the target to determine what type of damage the...

Hey, goldfish...

How do you define what is hit point damage?


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:


Power Attack provides its damage bonus to a melee damage roll if the effect deals hit point damage. There are rules used to determine what type of damage an attack deals. ZERO of them use the target to determine what type of damage the...

Hey, goldfish...

How do you define what is hit point damage?

Damage that reduces hit points


Mallecks wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
So if your hit points aren't damaged by nonlethal damage then how are you healing those hit points?
There isn't hit points to heal in either interpretation. You heal the nonlethal damage. Based on other references, I think this is equivalent to removing the nonlethal damage.

Yes there is. Your hit points have taken a point of nonlethal damage. It doesn't reduce your current hit points but if all of your hit points are nonlethally damaged any more nonlethal damage they take becomes lethal damage.

If nonlethal damage doesn't damage your hit points how are you healing hit points when you heal nonlethal damage? Or are you saying that the rules are wrong and that you don't heal nonlethal at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per level?
It says right in the rule that you're healing hit points.


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
So if your hit points aren't damaged by nonlethal damage then how are you healing those hit points?
There isn't hit points to heal in either interpretation. You heal the nonlethal damage. Based on other references, I think this is equivalent to removing the nonlethal damage.

Yes there is. Your hit points have taken a point of nonlethal damage. It doesn't reduce your current hit points but if all of your hit points are nonlethally damaged any more nonlethal damage they take becomes lethal damage.

If nonlethal damage doesn't damage your hit points how are you healing hit points when you heal nonlethal damage? Or are you saying that the rules are wrong and that you don't heal nonlethal at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per level?
It says right in the rule that you're healing hit points.

As we've explained, the way we read that is that there is an implication that the hit points that are being healed are nonlethal damage, as opposed to the hit points of your actual current HP.

Even if we assume that hit point damage were damage measured in hit points, how does that explain the rule? You still have a rule that says your hit points are healed. You don't seem to like our reasoning that there is an implied "of nonlethal damage", so what is your explanation?


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
So if your hit points aren't damaged by nonlethal damage then how are you healing those hit points?
There isn't hit points to heal in either interpretation. You heal the nonlethal damage. Based on other references, I think this is equivalent to removing the nonlethal damage.

Yes there is. Your hit points have taken a point of nonlethal damage. It doesn't reduce your current hit points but if all of your hit points are nonlethally damaged any more nonlethal damage they take becomes lethal damage.

If nonlethal damage doesn't damage your hit points how are you healing hit points when you heal nonlethal damage? Or are you saying that the rules are wrong and that you don't heal nonlethal at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per level?
It says right in the rule that you're healing hit points.

Healing Nonlethal Damage wrote:
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

The rule explicitly says you are healing nonlethal damage, not hit points.

The term "hit point" is referring to the nonlethal damage, because that is the unit of measure for nonlethal damage.

ninja'd twice


Butt_Luckily wrote:

As we've explained, the way we read that is that there is an implication that the hit points that are being healed are nonlethal damage, as opposed to the hit points of your actual current HP.

Even if we assume that hit point damage were damage measured in hit points, how does that explain the rule? You still have a rule that says your hit points are healed. You don't seem to like our reasoning that there is an implied "of nonlethal damage", so what is your explanation?

So the hit points being healed are nonlethal damage? The HIT POINTS being healed.... That are being healed because they were damaged?

But you're trying to say that when the book refers to healing nonlethal hit points it actually just means nonlethal damage? Because, you know, ignoring words in the rulebook totally makes sense.
What is my explanation of what? How is hit point damage not measured in hit points? Yes, of course hit points can be healed. I have no issue with hit points being healed of nonlethal damage... Read the paragraph you typed out again... either I'm missing something or you're not articulating what you're trying to say very well.

Mallecks wrote:

The rule explicitly says you are healing nonlethal damage, not hit points.

The term "hit point" is referring to the nonlethal damage, because that is the unit of measure for nonlethal damage.

So you heal 1 point of nonlethal damage per level per hour.

I guess they just added the word "hit" in there because they were bored and thought that the spacing looked better that way?
If it's not hit point damage wouldn't it make WAY more sense for them to just say that you heal )or remove) 1 point of nonlethal damage per hour per level?

But hey, good job on ignoring what the book says just because it goes against your argument...


I'm not ignoring anything.

You are claiming the rule says it heals hit points. This is incorrect.

Healing Nonlethal Damage wrote:
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

It explicitly states it heals nonlethal damage.

When this natural recovery rate of nonlethal damage happens, how many hit points are healed? Zero. Because hit points aren't healed, nonlethal damage is.

But hey, good job on ignoring what the book says just because it goes against your argument...(lol, couldn't resist)


Warped Savant wrote:

So, the hit points being healed are nonlethal damage? The HIT POINTS being healed.... That are being healed because they were damaged?

But you're trying to say that when the book refers to healing nonlethal hit points it actually just means nonlethal damage? Because, you know, ignoring words in the rulebook totally makes sense.
What is my explanation of what? How is hit point damage not measured in hit points? Yes, of course hit points can be healed. I have no issue with hit points being healed of nonlethal damage... Read the paragraph you typed out again... either I'm missing something or you're not articulating what you're trying to say very well.

The point is you have some problem with this rule, but however you feel this rule is not a problem in your view probably also applies in our view. The major point of contention is over the definition of the term "hit point damage", and this sentence youre suggesting exposes some flaw doesn't even use the term. If the term under contention isnt used, why would anything about that line change if the term changes meaning?


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:


Power Attack provides its damage bonus to a melee damage roll if the effect deals hit point damage. There are rules used to determine what type of damage an attack deals. ZERO of them use the target to determine what type of damage the...

Hey, goldfish...

How do you define what is hit point damage?

Damage that reduces hit points

How do you know that the damage reduces hit points?


It is defined as doing so.


Based on what?

This is a rhetorical question btw. But there's a specific thing I'm pointing out.

What the damage is defined as is based on what it does to the target. The damage is literally defined by it's effect on the target. All damage is defined by what it does to the target. You have to know what you're doing to the target to know what kind of damage you are doing.

You're trying to act like there's some mystical barrier between the attacker and the target, that the two are completely separate entities who don't interact at all. This isn't true though. They directly interact, and everything that happens in that interaction is based on the other entity from the beginning.

Attacks don't hit or miss in a vacuum, they have to beat the targets AC.

The damage type isn't independent of the target, it is based on what statistic of the target that it interacts with.

What happened? The target lost hit points.
What caused it? The attack.

The effect (or consequence, or result) of the attack is hit point damage. This is literally what those words mean. Barring a separate game definition of the word "result", we have to use the English language definition of the term.

Feel free to show me game rules that say differently, but we both know that they don't exist.


The types of damage have defined qualities. Lethal (or normal or hit point) damage causes a loss of hit points as a defined quality. When Power Attack is used, a "definition lookup" is performed using the rule that determines what type of damage an effect deals.

To use what happens to a target to define damage is silly, as it is possible to be immune to damage. In those cases the damage is what? Nothing? Bacon?

We know that hit point damage reduces hit points because it is implicitly (or explicitly, if you believe the weapon rule is a definition) defined as doing so. We know that Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points because it is defined as doing so.

Even if your homebrew rule for determining the type of damage were true, this is still disregarding the rules that determime the type of damage an attack deals and requires a roll to be modified after it happens. Because Power Attack modifies the roll before the target can take the damage and there are no references anywhere that I know of that describe the ability to add conditional damage to a damage roll that can change at later a later time.

For your Chaos Hammer example, it would be like me trying to argue that we determine the alignment of the creature based on how much damage it takes, instead of a definition lookup based on the independent alignment of the character (or any effects that would cause it to behave differently.)


Mallecks wrote:
When this natural recovery rate of nonlethal damage happens, how many hit points are healed?

1 hit point per hour per level of nonlethal damage is healed.

(If I were on your side I wouldn't have been able to resist that snark-back either. It's all good.)

Butt_Luckily wrote:
...and this sentence youre suggesting exposes some flaw doesn't even use the term. If the term under contention isnt used, why would anything about that line change if the term changes meaning?

The exact term "hit point damage" isn't used, no. But it, again, indicates that you're healing 1 hit point per hour per level of nonlethal damage.

Can either of you explain a logical reason as to why they would use "...rate of 1 hit point per hour..." if it wasn't hit points you were healing?
Wouldn't "...rate of 1 point of nonlethal damage per hour..." actually be correct?


Mallecks wrote:

The types of damage have defined qualities. Lethal (or normal or hit point) damage causes a loss of hit points as a defined quality. When Power Attack is used, a "definition lookup" is performed using the rule that determines what type of damage an effect deals.

To use what happens to a target to define damage is silly, as it is possible to be immune to damage. In those cases the damage is what? Nothing? Bacon?

We know that hit point damage reduces hit points because it is implicitly (or explicitly, if you believe the weapon rule is a definition) defined as doing so. We know that Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points because it is defined as doing so.

Even if your homebrew rule for determining the type of damage were true, this is still disregarding the rules that determime the type of damage an attack deals and requires a roll to be modified after it happens. Because Power Attack modifies the roll before the target can take the damage and there are no references anywhere that I know of that describe the ability to add conditional damage to a damage roll that can change at later a later time.

For your Chaos Hammer example, it would be like me trying to argue that we determine the alignment of the creature based on how much damage it takes, instead of a definition lookup based on the independent alignment of the character (or any effects that would cause it to behave differently.)

Every definition for damage you gave still describes what happens to the target. You are literally defining the damage based on what happens to the target.

Yes, a target immune to a certain type of damage changes the value of that damage to nothing. It has not impact on the target.

No, my Chaos Hammer example tells me that if we look at how the target interacted with the damage we can deduce one of the target's alignment values. We have to know if it made or failed the save, and what portion of the damage it took, plus any other influencing variables.

Tell me the spells original damage, all the interaction variables, and I can work backwards and tell you the target's alignment. It works backwards and forwards.

How you treat Power Attack doesn't work backwards and forwards. I bolded that one sentence, you still have not provided proof that this happens. You claim it happens, but no where in the rules does Power Attack say "at this point, determine the damage type". It just asks "does the attack have a hit point damage effect?" and the answer in our case is "Yes", because we know the target lost hit points. A consequence (result/effect) of the attack is hit point damage.

Show me the cut off point and I'll believe you. Since you can't show me the cut off point though, you are making it up. Therefore any method that relies on the cut off point must be wrong, because it's not in the rules.


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
When this natural recovery rate of nonlethal damage happens, how many hit points are healed?
1 hit point per hour per level of nonlethal damage is healed.

This is also how we read it.

Warped Savant wrote:

The exact term "hit point damage" isn't used, no. But it, again, indicates that you're healing 1 hit point per hour per level of nonlethal damage.

Can either of you explain a logical reason as to why they would use "...rate of 1 hit point per hour..." if it wasn't hit points you were healing?
Wouldn't "...rate of 1 point of nonlethal damage per hour..." actually be correct?

There's nothing wrong with the line, because it's merely using the unit of measure. We've always agreed that nonlethal damage is measured in hit points, so I don't see a problem.

All of the following could be used interchangeably in "X per hour" in the healing nonlethal damage rule:
1) 1 point of nonlethal damage
2) 1 hit point of nonlethal damage
3) 1 nonlethal damage

Because what's being healed is already implicitly nonlethal damage, these are also acceptable:
4) 1 point of damage
5) 1 hit point of damage
6) 1 damage
and even:
7) 1

Some are more precise than others, but they're all fine because we already know what's being healed is nonlethal damage.


Butt_Luckily wrote:
Some are more precise than others, but they're all fine because we already know what's being healed is nonlethal hit point damage.

Fixed that for you.

Because, again, you're healing damage that is nonlethal and you're healing that nonlethal damage in hit points.
And we know this because the book mentions that you're healing nonlethal in terms of hit points.
If nonlethal damage wasn't hit point damage then it wouldn't say anything about hit points. But it does. Because nonlethal is hit point damage.

The book wouldn't need to use hit points as a way to measure nonlethal damage because it already uses your nonlethal damage tally as a way to measure the nonlethal damage you've taken. Unless, you know, nonlethal counts as hit point damage.

Again, if nonlethal isn't hit point damage how are you healing nonlethal at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per level?


In the same way that str damage and str drain are tracked using the same measure but aren't the same thing and can't be healed the same way but both still use points of strength as a measure.


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

The types of damage have defined qualities. Lethal (or normal or hit point) damage causes a loss of hit points as a defined quality. When Power Attack is used, a "definition lookup" is performed using the rule that determines what type of damage an effect deals.

To use what happens to a target to define damage is silly, as it is possible to be immune to damage. In those cases the damage is what? Nothing? Bacon?

We know that hit point damage reduces hit points because it is implicitly (or explicitly, if you believe the weapon rule is a definition) defined as doing so. We know that Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points because it is defined as doing so.

Even if your homebrew rule for determining the type of damage were true, this is still disregarding the rules that determime the type of damage an attack deals and requires a roll to be modified after it happens. Because Power Attack modifies the roll before the target can take the damage and there are no references anywhere that I know of that describe the ability to add conditional damage to a damage roll that can change at later a later time.

For your Chaos Hammer example, it would be like me trying to argue that we determine the alignment of the creature based on how much damage it takes, instead of a definition lookup based on the independent alignment of the character (or any effects that would cause it to behave differently.)

Every definition for damage you gave still describes what happens to the target. You are literally defining the damage based on what happens to the target.

Yes, a target immune to a certain type of damage changes the value of that damage to nothing. It has not impact on the target.

No, my Chaos Hammer example tells me that if we look at how the target interacted with the damage we can deduce one of the target's alignment values. We have to know if it made or failed the save, and what portion of the damage it took, plus any other influencing variables.

Tell me the spells...

The rules arbitrarily define the qualities of the damage.

The rules don't say:

If a target takes damage, and their HP is reduced, it is lethal damage.
If a target takes damage, and their STR gets depleted it is Strength Damage.

Nothing about how the target reacts to taking damage is used to define them. It is all arbitrarily defined in the rules. True, some of the qualities do describe what happens when a target takes damage, but that isn't the ONLY quality of damage and the damage defines what happens to the target. What happens to the target doesn't define the damage.

Also, I'm not sure why Power Attack needs to work both forwards and backwards, but it absolutely does in my interpretation. Because the effect of an attack is an independent statistic that exists independently of the target. No matter what point in time you refer to that statistic, it will always be the same*.

*Note: This is assuming that the total results of a roll can't be modified after it happens.


Mallecks wrote:
True, some of the qualities do describe what happens when a target takes damage, but that isn't the ONLY quality of damage and the damage defines what happens to the target. What happens to the target doesn't define the damage.

This is called a "distinction without a difference."

Irontruth: I refuse to take dance lessons.
Mallecks: What if someone you knew taught you?
Ironrtuth: Yeah, that'd be okay.

That is what you are doing right now. It's a specific type of logical fallacy.

And no, your method doesn't work backwards. The target took hit point damage, but that damage did not include Power Attack, which is wrong, because Power Attack adds to all hit point damage.


Power Attack checks the damage the effect deals, not what damage the target takes.

also, there is a distinction between rules defining what damage is and not how the target reacts to damage.

The former is that the concepts of damage are unchanging rules, the latter being that damage is dynamic.

If I attack for 5 lethal damage and the target has an active ablative barrier up, the attack still deals lethal damage.

The fact that the target took 5 Nonlethal damage has nothing to do with what is and isn't lethal damage and it doesn't change the effect of the attack.


Just because Ablative Barrier has an effect on incoming damage doesn't change how damage is defined by what it does to the target. Every time you tell me what the definition of damage is, you are describing what happens to the target as a result of the damage.

Go ahead, give me a one sentence definition of damage that doesn't describe how it interacts with the target. I understand that this is getting into a metaphysics realm you might not be prepared for, but all things are defined by their relationship to other things. It is literally the only way that humans can describe anything.

If you say something is green, you are comparing it's color to other things that have color, because the concept of "green" doesn't exist in a vacuum.

If you tell me something is 2 feet tall, you are comparing its height to something else (possibly a ruler or tape measure, or something else that is also 2 ft tall). You can't determine its height without something else to compare it to.

You cannot describe what kind of damage something is other than telling us how it interacts with the target. I'm really not interested in seeing you try though, because you won't succeed, nor will it be interesting.


That's all right, it's kind of outside the scope of the argument anyway.

Your method of using Power Attack has other problems:

Ignoring the rules that determine what type of damage an attack deals.
Rolls modified after they happen.

And again, if these two conditions are as you say they are, we agree on the outcome and it doesn't even impact the consistency of my position.


I'm not ignoring the type of damage the attack deals. In fact, of the two of us I'm the one insisting we use all the rules for that damage type.

I'm modifying the rolls exactly as outlined in the rules. I'm modifying the total of the roll, just like all other modifiers.

Nothing homebrew. Nothing invented. I'm doing precisely what the rules tell me... if I use your definition of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Edit: to point out... this isn't like a separate effect turning it into hit point damage. It is a normal, regular, and ALWAYS PRESENT condition of the damage itself. The DAMAGE ITSELF turns it into hit point damage. If it were some spell, or effect on the target, maybe you'd have a point.

The only requirements for Power Attack to add it's bonus damage:

1: the attack is a melee attack, and the penalty from PA is applied.
2: it isn't a touch attack.
3: the effects of the attack include hit point damage.

Once all three conditions are met, you have to add the bonus damage, or you are violating the rules that are set out in the Power Attack feat. It's really f&&!ing clear. That is RAW. It's not homebrew. It isn't a figment of my imagination. It isn't "agree to disagree". If you say otherwise, you are not following the Rules as Written.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
B_Lucky wrote:
thaX wrote:
Then your stance is narrow and focused on a particular part of Power Attack's wording, and extrapolated to mean something beyond the intent of the feat.
My stance is not based on power attack. It's based on the Weapons and Effects of Hit Point Damage.

GA's stance was a response to the question in the original thread about if one could use Nonlethal Damage with Power Attack. This is where that issue is coming from, as Power Attack is one of only a few feats/abilities that include the phrase "...damages HP..." as a means to track what can or can not be done with it. This is the stance you and Mallecks are defending, that Nonlethal can not be used with Power Attack.

I say you can use Nonlethal with such abilities, and that it counts as HP damage as it never mentions being Bacon.

B Lucky wrote:

thaX wrote:
In your opinion, this issue aside, do you think a character can use Nonlethal damage with Power Attack? If you look at it as Damage and not as Bacon, you should come to the conclusion that it can be used with Power Attack.

This is not a very clearly worded question. I already think that nonlethal damage is damage, and don't think one can use it with power attack.

Did you mean that if I took your stance, where hit point damage is damage measured in hit points? If so, then yes, clearly in your stance power attack applies to nonlethal damage. This was never in question.

It is clearly asked, and explained. You came up with GA's stance without having to have me clarify the question or my thoughts with this issue. The problem with turning Nonlethal damage into bacon is that it no longer interacts with HP or has any mechanical reason to be there. You go half way to say it's "Measured in Hit Points" but fails to do anything about it.
B Lucky wrote:


thaX wrote:
Really, the goal of the fight is to incapacitate the target(s), and both forms of Damage do that, as both effect the HP pool and how much HP it will take to take out the target. Focusing on current HP and ignoring Nonlethal completely is akin to erasing Nonlethal from the game.

The goal of a fight is irrelevant to whether or not something is hit point damage, unless you are proposing to include that within the definition of hit point damage.

Whether or not nonlethal reduces how much hp you have before being knocked unconscious is irrelevant to whether or not it is hit point damage, unless you are proposing to include that in the definition of hit point damage.

I don't know why you feel that nonlethal damage is being erased from the game. Aside from not interacting with a relatively small amount of spells/abilities, there is no functional change.

So the goal of the fight to take out the opponent has nothing to do with Hit Points and what they stand for? Really?

You are changing what Nonlethal is because it effects Hit Points differently than a direct subtraction from the pool of vitality that the character has, and really it is like using it like Starfinder, where only the last hit counts to not kill a target.

You are claiming that Ham has nothing to do with a Pig, or that Bacon has no relation to Ham and that Pork Chops is just like steak.

Do you simply ignore Nonlethal damage on your own character, as it doesn't really matter how it effects HP, since you think it isn't HP at all? That isn't how it works, it isn't how any of this works!


Irontruth wrote:

I'm not ignoring the type of damage the attack deals. In fact, of the two of us I'm the one insisting we use all the rules for that damage type.

I'm modifying the rolls exactly as outlined in the rules. I'm modifying the total of the roll, just like all other modifiers.

Nothing homebrew. Nothing invented. I'm doing precisely what the rules tell me... if I use your definition of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Edit: to point out... this isn't like a separate effect turning it into hit point damage. It is a normal, regular, and ALWAYS PRESENT condition of the damage itself. The DAMAGE ITSELF turns it into hit point damage. If it were some spell, or effect on the target, maybe you'd have a point.

The only requirements for Power Attack to add it's bonus damage:

1: the attack is a melee attack, and the penalty from PA is applied.
2: it isn't a touch attack.
3: the effects of the attack include hit point damage.

Once all three conditions are met, you have to add the bonus damage, or you are violating the rules that are set out in the Power Attack feat. It's really f%@$ing clear. That is RAW. It's not homebrew. It isn't a figment of my imagination. It isn't "agree to disagree". If you say otherwise, you are not following the Rules as Written.

Right, just like when you have Point Blank Shot and are less than 30 feet from your target, you get +1 Damage on your ranged damage roll. So, I can shoot someone from 35 feet away and then take a 5 foot step and they take an additional damage.


Warped Savant wrote:

Because, again, you're healing damage that is nonlethal and you're healing that nonlethal damage in hit points.

And we know this because the book mentions that you're healing nonlethal in terms of hit points.
If nonlethal damage wasn't hit point damage then it wouldn't say anything about hit points. But it does. Because nonlethal is hit point damage.

The book wouldn't need to use hit points as a way to measure nonlethal damage because it already uses your nonlethal damage tally as a way to measure the nonlethal damage you've taken. Unless, you know, nonlethal counts as hit point damage.

Again, if nonlethal isn't hit point damage how are you healing nonlethal at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per level?

Ah, I see now. This is just a continuation of the argument that hit point damage is damage measured in hit points.

It again returns to the definition of hit point damage. If the definition were assumed to be damage measured in hit points, then I would absolutely agree that this line would support that argument. If hit point damage is defined as something other than "damage measured in hit points", then I don't see why the wording of this rule matters.

Either way, I don't see why you think this rule proves anything on its own other than that nonlethal damage is measured in hit points, which we all agree on anyway.

thaX wrote:

GA's stance was a response to the question in the original thread about if one could use Nonlethal Damage with Power Attack. This is where that issue is coming from, as Power Attack is one of only a few feats/abilities that include the phrase "...damages HP..." as a means to track what can or can not be done with it. This is the stance you and Mallecks are defending, that Nonlethal can not be used with Power Attack.

I say you can use Nonlethal with such abilities, and that it counts as HP damage as it never mentions being Bacon.

I am defending my own interpretation of the rules. Even though the question started on power attack, the reason why I don't think nonlethal damage is not hit point damage is not based on power attack(Rather, the fact that I don't consider nonlethal damage to be hit point damage is why I don't think you can use it with power attack).

thaX wrote:

It is clearly asked, and explained. You came up with GA's stance without having to have me clarify the question or my thoughts with this issue. The problem with turning Nonlethal damage into bacon is that it no longer interacts with HP or has any mechanical reason to be there. You go half way to say it's "Measured in Hit Points" but fails to do anything about it.

Just because something interacts with a character's HP does not mean it is hit point damage, unless you are proposing to add that to the definition of hit point damage.

thaX wrote:

So the goal of the fight to take out the opponent has nothing to do with Hit Points and what they stand for? Really?

I didn't say the goal of a fight had nothing to do with hit points. I said the goal of a fight has nothing to do with whether or not something is hit point damage, because hit point damage is not defined as "damage that helps to take out the opponent". Are you proposing to add this to your working definition of hit point damage?

thaX wrote:
You are changing what Nonlethal is because it effects Hit Points differently than a direct subtraction from the pool of vitality that the character has, and really it is like using it like Starfinder, where only the last hit counts to not kill a target.

I'm not changing anything (at least not to me). Anyway, it is not correct to say that nonlethal damage affects your HP differently. It doesn't affect your HP at all.

thaX wrote:
Do you simply ignore Nonlethal damage on your own character, as it doesn't really matter how it effects HP, since you think it isn't HP at all? That isn't how it works, it isn't how any of this works!

Depends on what you mean by "isn't HP". It's measured in hit points, but it certainly isn't your HP statistic.

Anyway, I follow all the rules regarding nonlethal damage.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not ignoring the type of damage the attack deals. In fact, of the two of us I'm the one insisting we use all the rules for that damage type.

I'm modifying the rolls exactly as outlined in the rules. I'm modifying the total of the roll, just like all other modifiers.

Nothing homebrew. Nothing invented. I'm doing precisely what the rules tell me... if I use your definition of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Edit: to point out... this isn't like a separate effect turning it into hit point damage. It is a normal, regular, and ALWAYS PRESENT condition of the damage itself. The DAMAGE ITSELF turns it into hit point damage. If it were some spell, or effect on the target, maybe you'd have a point.

The only requirements for Power Attack to add it's bonus damage:

1: the attack is a melee attack, and the penalty from PA is applied.
2: it isn't a touch attack.
3: the effects of the attack include hit point damage.

Once all three conditions are met, you have to add the bonus damage, or you are violating the rules that are set out in the Power Attack feat. It's really f%@$ing clear. That is RAW. It's not homebrew. It isn't a figment of my imagination. It isn't "agree to disagree". If you say otherwise, you are not following the Rules as Written.

Right, just like when you have Point Blank Shot and are less than 30 feet from your target, you get +1 Damage on your ranged damage roll. So, I can shoot someone from 35 feet away and then take a 5 foot step and they take an additional damage.

I don't see how that's the same at all. Those are two separate actions.

The damage is from one action.

Is that the point of confusion for you? Do you think the lethal damage comes at a later action?


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not ignoring the type of damage the attack deals. In fact, of the two of us I'm the one insisting we use all the rules for that damage type.

I'm modifying the rolls exactly as outlined in the rules. I'm modifying the total of the roll, just like all other modifiers.

Nothing homebrew. Nothing invented. I'm doing precisely what the rules tell me... if I use your definition of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Edit: to point out... this isn't like a separate effect turning it into hit point damage. It is a normal, regular, and ALWAYS PRESENT condition of the damage itself. The DAMAGE ITSELF turns it into hit point damage. If it were some spell, or effect on the target, maybe you'd have a point.

The only requirements for Power Attack to add it's bonus damage:

1: the attack is a melee attack, and the penalty from PA is applied.
2: it isn't a touch attack.
3: the effects of the attack include hit point damage.

Once all three conditions are met, you have to add the bonus damage, or you are violating the rules that are set out in the Power Attack feat. It's really f%@$ing clear. That is RAW. It's not homebrew. It isn't a figment of my imagination. It isn't "agree to disagree". If you say otherwise, you are not following the Rules as Written.

Right, just like when you have Point Blank Shot and are less than 30 feet from your target, you get +1 Damage on your ranged damage roll. So, I can shoot someone from 35 feet away and then take a 5 foot step and they take an additional damage.

I don't see how that's the same at all. Those are two separate actions.

The damage is from one action.

Is that the point of confusion for you? Do you think the lethal damage comes at a later action?

Please provide the timing rule you are using to determine that you can alter the total results of a die roll after the initial roll happens, but not after the action is complete.


Butt_Luckily wrote:

Ah, I see now. This is just a continuation of the argument that hit point damage is damage measured in hit points.

It again returns to the definition of hit point damage. If the definition were assumed to be damage measured in hit points, then I would absolutely agree that this line would support that argument. If hit point damage is defined as something other than "damage measured in hit points", then I don't see why the wording of this rule matters.

Either way, I don't see why you think this rule proves anything on its own other than that nonlethal damage is measured in hit points, which we all agree on anyway.

Okay, let's play "this is what the book says in the section about hit point damage and pretend that nothing else can possibly change that". Because that's what you seem to be doing...

CRB wrote:
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.

This says that damage doesn't slow you down until you're at zero hit points. It doesn't say lethal, hit point, stat, nonlethal, or any other kind of damage. Just straight up "damage doesn't slow you down".

So does that mean that when your nonlethal meets your current hit points you don't slow down? No, because we have to take into account what the nonlethal rules indicate. And they indicate that you DO get "slowed down" from taking damage even if your hit point total is above zero.
But hey, no.... I may have taken my max amount nonlethal damage but sorry, under Effects of Hit Point Damage it says that nothing happens until I'm at zero hit points.

You understand why that's foolish, right? Okay, good.

Nonlethal introduces another way that you can be "slowed down" even though you're above zero hit points.
Just like nonlethal introduces another way that your hit points can be damaged. The nonlethal rules show this by it being tracked against your hit point score and by healing them in the rate of hit points.

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,394 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.