Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?


Rules Questions

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,405 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Why would the section about hit point damage apply to nonlethal damage?


Why would the section about hit point damage apply to nonlethal damage?


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.

Let's see if I can help with this too...

Player: "I power attack with my +3 Icy Burst Glaive doing nonlethal damage. Does a 23 confirm the crit?"
GM: "Yes, you confirm. What's the weapon damage and what's the cold damage?"
Player: "The glaive did 16, the cold is 14, and I do an extra 2 from power attack if the glaive does any lethal damage."
GM: "Okay, they take 13 nonlethal, the other 3 rolls into lethal so they take another 2, and they resist 10 of the cold because they have resist energy up."

Doesn't that make sense to you, Mallecks?
Because if the damage can't change based on the status of the enemy then how would something like Resist Energy work? It modifies the damage the character takes, just like how nonlethal rolling into lethal would modify how much damage the character would take from power attack.


Mallecks wrote:
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.

There is no timing rule. They are separate actions.


Warped Savant wrote:

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.

Sure, the non-lethal rules introduce other ways you can be slowed down. Why do you think that makes it hit point damage?

Do you consider ability damage to be a form of damage? Doesn't it slow you down before your Hit points are zero? However you explain that the line doesn't apply to ability damage will probably also apply to non-lethal damage.

In reading of the Loss of Hit Points section, it's pretty clear that this use of Damage is not the umbrella term damage but rather referring to either lethal or hit point damage.

1) At the top of the Loss of Hit points section, it specifically refers to lethal damage.
2) The line in question is titled "Effects of Hit point damage".
3) The damage section says damage reduces hit points(aka lethal, or, depending on interpretation, Hit point damage).


Irontruth wrote:
There is no timing rule. They are separate actions.

Oh ok, that makes sense. Provide that rule then. The one that says you can modify rolls at any point during an action is being handled, but not aftrer.


Don't have to. Turns and actions are defined as separate and discrete things by both the initiative rules, and the action rules. You can also see it codified within certain feats like Spring Attack and Flyby Attack.


You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with the books. You are modifying a roll after the it happens, which is a valid interpretation RAW. As we both know, there is no rule for determining when a roll is over or at what times you can't modify a roll anymore.

So, by your own interpretation, rolls can be modified at any point after they are made. As they are not defined as being "over" and you believe that the total results can be modified once initially calculated.

And it isn't like I'm changing the total result. it's conditional, so the damage of my arrow is...

1d8(+1 if the target is within 30ft).

So, of course, they will regain that HP if I move away as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, the vaunted "I know you are, but what am I" defense.

Just because you rephrase something I say back at me, doesn't make it actually a response to the things I say.

Actions are separate and discrete events per the rules for Actions and Initiative. This is supported by multiple feats and rules interactions that modify that normally separate and discrete nature of actions.

Feel free to keep repeating your argument if you want. I'm sure my respect for it could only increase at this point.


Less "I know you are but what am I" and more "Your argument against my interpretation doesn't stand on its own merits."

The argument you are using to say my interpretation is invalid equally applies to your own argument. If your argument is valid, it invalidates your own argument.


Mallecks wrote:
Why would the section about hit point damage apply to nonlethal damage?

Looking at the book again and how it's separated out, that's fair enough.

But I still say that recovering nonlethal damage in hit points per hour per level point to nonlethal being hit point damage.

Mallecks wrote:

You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with the books. You are modifying a roll after the it happens, which is a valid interpretation RAW. As we both know, there is no rule for determining when a roll is over or at what times you can't modify a roll anymore.

So, by your own interpretation, rolls can be modified at any point after they are made. As they are not defined as being "over" and you believe that the total results can be modified once initially calculated.

And it isn't like I'm changing the total result. it's conditional, so the damage of my arrow is...

1d8(+1 if the target is within 30ft).

So, of course, they will regain that HP if I move away as well.

No, he's not. The damage roll on power attack does +2 if the target takes hit point damage. So let's say that the damage is normally 1D8. With power attack it would be 1D8 (+2 if the target takes hit point damage).

That's not changing the result, that IS the result. If the target doesn't take hit point damage then the +2 isn't applied.


No, you have a habit of just repeating catch phrases back at me without actually applying them. This right here is one such example. It is intellectual laziness.

If you don't believe me, feel free to read "Initiative" on page 178, "Actions in Combat" on page 181, and as a specific example, "Spring Attack" on page 134. Feel free to dispute any of them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
B lucky wrote:
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.

Then what is it? What kind of damage is being done here that relates to the character's vitality? Con damage? That can't be, that is ability damage and would take down Max HP. Negative Damage? That can't be, it is subtracted from Hit Points. Oh, OH! Then Negative Damage can be use with Power Attack... except that it is typically a touch attack... nevermind. Is it a form of negative levels? Energy attacks? No? Then what is Nonlethal Damage considered to be?

You have said in the past that it is Nonlethal Damage, except when you heal the damage, it appears. Saying that it is just Nonlethal Damage is not the answer, as that is saying that it is Bacon, and has no effect on HP. Is that what you are saying? Obviously, you are disputing this in the post I quoted. Yet, you say it is still measured as Hit Points. So, you want it both ways?

See, this is the problem. When Nonlethal is Bacon, it can't interact with HP.


I've already given you my explanation for all this. It hasnt changed. You keep trying to use my stance on the matter with your interpretation on the definition of hit point damage. I'm not surprised you find it doesn't make sense.

In my interpretation, hit point damage is damage subtracted from hit points.

Just because something is measured in hit points doesn't make it hit point damage, because that is not the definition.

Just because something takes an enemy out of the fight, doesn't make it hit point damage.

Just because something is (literally anything other than the definition of hit point damage), does not make that thing hit point damage. That thing MIGHT be hit point damage, but not for that reason, only if it meets the definition of hit point damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As you said. You still haven't answered the question. If Nonlethal is not Hit Points, then what is it? How do you determine whether or not the character is staggered or unconscious if Nonlethal is not HP?

The damage dealt is giving less hit points for the character to use in a different way, Current HP - Nonlethal = how much the character can take in Damage before being knocked out. You are saying this isn't how you denote this, that Bacon = nothing. Because GA has narrowed the view into HP Total and focusing on that part of the rule without considering what Nonlethal actually does, he has convinced you and Mallecks that Nonlethal is Bacon, and actual HP are not worthy of Nonlethal's time.

What is the purpose of Hit Points? To determine if the target/character can keep participating in the game. We see it in other games all the time, from Link in Zelda, to more current games, like Skyrim and Rainbow Six shooters. Nonlethal is just an offshoot of those HP, generating a lesser, but still valid, effect. Being Knocked Out instead of Dying is not a reason to divorce the concept of HP from Nonlethal Damage.

Is there a reason you don't want your players using Power Attack with Nonlethal Damage? Is it more powerful when used in this way? Does it go against your sensibilities to not kill the evil doers and all your games are black and white affairs, the heroes against the villains? Do you ban feats like Blugeoneneer and Sap Master? Is there something about this combination you feel is to complicated to contemplate?

You are not going to convince me that Nonlethal is bacon. I want you to tell me, what is it other than Hit Point Damage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

thaX -- I think Butt_Luckily is trying to get across that Nonlethal Damage isn't the same as Lethal Damage (hit point damage) similar to how Ability Damage is different than Ability Drain.
Ability Damage is tracked against your ability score but doesn't reduce the ability. (Ability Drain reduces your actual score).
Nonlethal Damage is tracked against your hit point score but doesn't reduce your hit points. (Therefore not hit point damage). Lethal Damage reduces your actual score.


Irontruth wrote:

No, you have a habit of just repeating catch phrases back at me without actually applying them. This right here is one such example. It is intellectual laziness.

If you don't believe me, feel free to read "Initiative" on page 178, "Actions in Combat" on page 181, and as a specific example, "Spring Attack" on page 134. Feel free to dispute any of them.

I have reviewed the material you have suggested. I have not come any closer in understanding how you arbitrarily decided that rolls can be modified after the initial totaling of the result, but not after the action is complete.

Warped Savant wrote:

No, he's not. The damage roll on power attack does +2 if the target takes hit point damage. So let's say that the damage is normally 1D8. With power attack it would be 1D8 (+2 if the target takes hit point damage).

That's not changing the result, that IS the result. If the target doesn't take hit point damage then the +2 isn't applied.

First of all, I am unaware of any conditional type increases to damage that modify a damage roll the way that it is being suggested.

Secondly, I am not changing the result of the damage die either.

The arrow does 1d8(+1 if the target is within 30 feet.) So, as soon as he is no longer within 30 feet, he would get a hit point back. Similarly, if I move back within 30 feet, he would take another hit point.

This is, of course, based on Irontruth's homebrew rule on how to determine the type of attack. Because, even with this interpretation, the rules are still being disregarded...

1d8(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage)

How do we know if the effect deals hit point damage?

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Minimum Damage wrote:
If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
Nonlethal Weapon Quality wrote:
Nonlethal: These weapons deal nonlethal damage (see Combat)

Here are some examples. It depends on exactly which rule is being used to determine the type. There are many of them. None of them determine based on the type of damage the target receives at the end of the action.

So, regardless of whether or not the target takes hit point damage as an end result of the attack action, the rules arbitrarily assign the type of damage the effect of an attack deals.

Irontruth has shown that the Damage Reduction rules equate "damage taken" and "dealing damage" in that Damage Reduction can make an attack "deal no damage". However, that is merely his interpretation of the Damage Reduction rules and that only modifies the value of the effect's interaction with the target HP. It doesn't ACTUALLY change the effect itself. (Modifying the effect itself has unintended consequences.) Damage Reduction would be a specific rule that trumps the general rule on determining the amount of damage an attack deals.

Damage wrote:
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

My interpretation would be that Damage Reduction doesn't equate them. Damage Reduction (as stated above) trumps the specific rule determining the amount of damage an effect deals, then (because it deals less damage) the target takes the reduced amount.

AFAIK, there are no rules that determine the type of damage an effect deals that is based on the reaction of the target, because you first have to know what kind of damage an attack deals before the target can take it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Warped Servant wrote:
haX -- I think Butt_Luckily is trying to get across that Nonlethal Damage isn't the same as Lethal Damage (hit point damage) similar to how Ability Damage is different than Ability Drain.

Well, of course it isn't the same, this is the reason for the bad interpretation.

It is, however, considered Damage in the same way as Lethal as far as "being" Hit Points, something that GA failed to comprehend when he introduced this issue.

B Lucky is trying to make the point that Nonlethal damage is nothing because it is different and tracked on a separate pool of points. To go as far as to say you can't damage a target with Power Attack because it is Nonlethal bacon is shoehorning a lot of rules interaction that will stop a game while one figures out how to effect the use of Nonlethal damage and how it should effect a character or maybe just be a nice breakfast snack.

To completely divorce the concept of Nonlethal being Damage and considering it to be bacon is ignoring how it is supposed to work and what Nonlethal Damage should do.

Ability damage heals over time, where Ability Drain needs special care to recover, such as spells to gain back scores from drain.

You also have to take at least 2 of Ability Damage to have the "bonus" go down. (so only even damage will effect a downgrade of that stat's bonus)

Though there are parallels, both are still damaging the overall pool and track against it. Mallecks and B Lucky seem to think that Nonlethal somehow isn't tracking against HP, and that only Max HP are somehow evolved. (It actually tracks against CURRENT HP) The overall thought is that Lethal Damage is somehow the only HP damage, and that Nonlethal should be considered a special ability or some sort of special attack that is beyond normal concerns, not able to be used with Power Attack, Sap Master, or any other feats or abilities at all, even when they themselves use Nonlethal exclusively.

I am trying to set the record straight here. Nonlethal is considered a form of HP Damage, and can be used with Power Attack. If you think otherwise, then you are reading to much into the rules and should think about intent and purpose when reading the rules book. I don't know what else to tell them, but that they are looking at this issue in the wrong way and making up rules that simply are not there. Iron Truth has been trying to tell them this since page three.

--> edit. was replying to Warp Servant. Sorry.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
AFAIK, there are no rules that determine the type of damage an effect deals that is based on the reaction of the target, because you first have to know what kind of damage an attack deals before the target can take it.

So.... you agree that you can use Power Attack with Nonlethal Damage?

Roll weapon Damage, add static mods, and bonus from Power Attack, apply to target. Done.

So.... as you have been saying that Nonlethal is Bacon, when you say the above...

Why would that change because it is Nonlethal damage being dealt?


thaX wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
AFAIK, there are no rules that determine the type of damage an effect deals that is based on the reaction of the target, because you first have to know what kind of damage an attack deals before the target can take it.

So.... you agree that you can use Power Attack with Nonlethal Damage?

Roll weapon Damage, add static mods, and bonus from Power Attack, apply to target. Done.

So.... as you have been saying that Nonlethal is Bacon, when you say the above...

Why would that change because it is Nonlethal damage being dealt?

thaX, the disagreement in our stances relies on the definition of hit point damage. You seem to have a problem with nonlethal damage being its own type of damage, as well.

If you would like to discuss how my position is logically inconsistent, you first have to agree to my definitions.
If you would like to discuss that my definitions are incorrect, we can do that instead.
If you use your definitions to argue why my position is logically inconsistent, then all you've done is shown that you don't understand my position.


thaX wrote:
...not able to be used with Power Attack, Sap Master, or any other feats or abilities at all, even when they themselves use Nonlethal exclusively.

I don't understand where you're coming from with the Sap Master comment... What am I missing here? I haven't seen anything they've said that would indicate they think this.

Mallecks wrote:

First of all, I am unaware of any conditional type increases to damage that modify a damage roll the way that it is being suggested.

Secondly, I am not changing the result of the damage die either.

The arrow does 1d8(+1 if the target is within 30 feet.) So, as soon as he is no longer within 30 feet, he would get a hit point back. Similarly, if I move back within 30 feet, he would take another hit point.

You can't think of something that does more damage if the target takes a specific type of damage? "Vulnerabilities" in the Universal Monster Rules is a good one for you to look at. Example: If an enemy is vulnerable to cold it takes half again as much damage. Rather similar to how if someone takes lethal damage they take an additional +2 damage from someone attacking with nonlethal.

Secondly, your comparison of isn't at all the same thing.
"If you take lethal damage power attack adds +2 to the damage" is resolved within the attack. With your example of moving away from the target you're pretending that the action never resolves. What you're saying is the equivalent of "he stopped attacking me with his sword so all of the damage goes away."

1d8(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage)

Mallecks wrote:
How do we know if the effect deals hit point damage?

Seriously? You're asking this? Okay... I can't believe you need someone to answer this for you.

Because the GM would be tracking how much nonlethal the target has taken and will therefore know when it rolls over into lethal. You knowing it or not doesn't matter. You, as a player, aren't tracking how much damage the enemy has taken.


Warped Savant wrote:


Because the GM would be tracking how much nonlethal the target has taken and will therefore know when it rolls over into lethal. You knowing it or not doesn't matter. You, as a player, aren't tracking how much damage the enemy has taken.

I find this to be a pretty good common sense reason about the flaw in the PA argument.

Player: Okay, I know my attack roll of 22 hits. I'm dealing nonlethal cause I just want to knock out the thief, but I'm also using PA to make sure he is out cold as quickly as possible. I do 12 damage.
GM: Okay, that is going to go into nonlethal overflow, so PA definitely applies. Oh wait. How much damage would you do if you don't apply PA.
Player: 10
a)
GM: Okay, that still hits nonlethal overflow. How much was the total damage again.
Other players: <drumming fingers impatiently>
Player: 12.
GM: Ok, 9 nonlethal staggers, then he takes 3 points as lethal, and is knocked out cold.
or b)
GM: Okay, that doesn't convert any to lethal, so you don't get the PA bonus.

The rules don't cover this type of scenario, because they don't support this kind of scenario. When rolling damage you get a total (dice + bonuses - penalties) and apply that as a given type of damage. You have to know the type and amount of damage before we move on to what the defender does with it as a result of special abilities and/or vulnerabilities.

This isn't quite like a vulnerability which would go more like this:
Player: My fireball deals 20 damage.
GM: <rolls, fails save>. <thinking, okay creature has fire vulnerability, so add 50% more, total of 30 damage to jot down against the creature>


Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

First of all, I am unaware of any conditional type increases to damage that modify a damage roll the way that it is being suggested.

Secondly, I am not changing the result of the damage die either.

The arrow does 1d8(+1 if the target is within 30 feet.) So, as soon as he is no longer within 30 feet, he would get a hit point back. Similarly, if I move back within 30 feet, he would take another hit point.

You can't think of something that does more damage if the target takes a specific type of damage? "Vulnerabilities" in the Universal Monster Rules is a good one for you to look at. Example: If an enemy is vulnerable to cold it takes half again as much damage. Rather similar to how if someone takes lethal damage they take an additional +2 damage from someone attacking with nonlethal.

Vulnerability to damage doesn't change the result of a damage roll or the actual damage dealt by an effect. It only changes how much damage the target takes, this time directly.

If you feel that Vulnerability DOES change how much damage an effect deals, how would you describe the interaction between Fractions of Heal and Harm with Vulnerability?

I Fireball for 30 damage and it its something vulnerable to fire. Do I heal extra? Because it doesn't deal 30 it deals 45? Please let me know if you feel this example is appropriate. Irontruth has restricted our discussion to CRB only, so I can try to find another example that reflects that restriction.

Warped Savant wrote:

Secondly, your comparison of isn't at all the same thing.

"If you take lethal damage power attack adds +2 to the damage" is resolved within the attack. With your example of moving away from the target you're pretending that the action never resolves. What you're saying is the equivalent of "he stopped attacking me with his sword so all of the damage goes away."

The rules for rolling provide the instructions on what to do when rolling dice. You roll the dice required, total the results (including modifiers.)

Irontruth is claiming that is possible for this value to change at a later time. His defense in this claim is that there is no "timing rule." Absent this "timing rule", I see no reason why the end of action means that the roll suddenly becomes unable to be modified. It seems to be a completely arbitrary decision he is making with no basis in the rules.

Warped Savant wrote:

1d8(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage)

Mallecks wrote:
How do we know if the effect deals hit point damage?

Seriously? You're asking this? Okay... I can't believe you need someone to answer this for you.

Because the GM would be tracking how much nonlethal the target has taken and will therefore know when it rolls over into lethal. You knowing it or not doesn't matter. You, as a player, aren't tracking how much damage the enemy has taken.

It was a rhetorical question within my post. Immediately following this question, I provided the rules one uses to determine the type of damage the effect of an attack deals. Zero of them say "The GM determines the type of damage the effect of an attack deals." Of course, the GM could rule 0. Normally, you would use a rule such as one of the examples provided.

bbangerter wrote:

aren't tracking how much damage the enemy has taken.

I find this to be a pretty good common sense reason about the flaw in the PA argument.

Player: Okay, I know my attack roll of 22 hits. I'm dealing nonlethal cause I just want to knock out the thief, but I'm also using PA to make sure he is out cold as quickly as possible. I do 12 damage.
GM: Okay, that is going to go into nonlethal overflow, so PA definitely applies. Oh wait. How much damage would you do if you don't apply PA.
Player: 10
a)
GM: Okay, that still hits nonlethal overflow. How much was the total damage again.
Other players: <drumming fingers impatiently>
Player: 12.
GM: Ok, 9 nonlethal staggers, then he takes 3 points as lethal, and is knocked out cold.
or b)
GM: Okay, that doesn't convert any to lethal, so you don't get the PA bonus.

Edit: After your edit, it appears that you disagree with this as a possible interpretation, but I am still interested in your answer to the question.

Bbangerter, given this interpretation, would it be possible for a PC to use the Enforcer feat against a target that only takes lethal overflow?

Enforcer wrote:
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.

And if you feel that this exercise requires the target to be a valid target (conscious), the target can have the Flagellant feat.

Flagellant wrote:
You gain a +4 bonus on saving throws against pain effects. Also, you suffer no adverse effect when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, and you become staggered when your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points. You never fall unconscious due to nonlethal damage.


bbangerter wrote:

This isn't quite like a vulnerability which would go more like this:

Player: My fireball deals 20 damage.
GM: <rolls, fails save>. <thinking, okay creature has fire vulnerability, so add 50% more, total of 30 damage to jot down against the creature>

Player: "I attack and hit on a 22, right? So I do 16 damage with my flaming long sword."

GM: "The monster is vulnerable to fire so how much was the sword and how much was fire damage?"
Player: "Oh, I don't remember.... I already picked up the dice."

Yeah, vulnerability is so much easier...

Mallecks wrote:

Vulnerability to damage doesn't change the result of a damage roll or the actual damage dealt by an effect. It only changes how much damage the target takes, this time directly.

If you feel that Vulnerability DOES change how much damage an effect deals, how would you describe the interaction between Fractions of Heal and Harm with Vulnerability?

We've already gone over this way too many times. Please don't pretend that you don't know the answer or that it's something new that you're asking.

Vulnerability adds to the amount of damage that the target takes based on the type of damage the target takes.
Power attack adds to the amount of damage that the target takes based on the type of damage the target takes.

Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth is claiming that is possible for this value to change at a later time.

I must have missed that. I've only noticed him saying that the entire action (including any extra damage) needs to be done as the attack is being resolved. (Eg: You attack with nonlethal, some of the damage is lethal, and therefore, with your interpretation of nonlethal not being hit point damage, you add the +2 from power attack because the character has taken lethal. There is nothing about that which claims that the damage can be changed after the attack/damage is resolved. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what he's saying...)

I understand where you're coming from with your argument, but I completely disagree with you (and everyone else for that matter) pretending that people are saying things that they clearly aren't.

Mallecks wrote:
It was a rhetorical question within my post. Immediately following this question, I provided the rules one uses to determine the type of damage the effect of an attack deals. Zero of them say "The GM determines the type of damage the effect of an attack deals." Of course, the GM could rule 0. Normally, you would use a rule such as one of the examples provided.

So if a nonlethal attack rolls over it's not up to the GM to determine how much of the damage is lethal? If the GM isn't determining the type of damage then nonlethal only ever does nonlethal and the GM doesn't have to convert any of it to lethal ever?

No. The GM is aware that the nonlethal has rolled into lethal and therefore the +2 from power attack would apply in your ruling of nonlethal not being hit point damage.

You do realize that the argument between you and Irontruth mostly comes down to this one sticking point about applying the PA damage when nonlethal rolls into lethal, right? As far as I know it seems to be his main, maybe only, issue with what you're trying to say. If you follow this "+2 bonus when the attack does lethal" he'll need to find a new way to pick your argument apart. Honestly, I mean this seriously, look at what I'm saying as objectively as you can, see if it makes sense to you. The fact that it (might be) the only time that a bonus can be applied to an attack roll based on the type of damage isn't a very good reason to say it doesn't work that way... there's a few things that only come up once in the rules.


Warped Savant wrote:

We've already gone over this way too many times. Please don't pretend that you don't know the answer or that it's something new that you're asking.

Vulnerability adds to the amount of damage that the target takes based on the type of damage the target takes.
Power attack adds to the amount of damage that the target takes based on the type of damage the target takes.

This is incorrect.

Vulnerability increases the damage(+50%) a target takes based on [conditions].

Power Attack provides a bonus to the melee damage roll based on [conditions].

These are two separate concepts.

Warped Savant wrote:

I must have missed that. I've only noticed him saying that the entire action (including any extra damage) needs to be done as the attack is being resolved. (Eg: You attack with nonlethal, some of the damage is lethal, and therefore, with your interpretation of nonlethal not being hit point damage, you add the +2 from power attack because the character has taken lethal. There is nothing about that which claims that the damage can be changed after the attack/damage is resolved. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what he's saying...)

I understand where you're coming from with your argument, but I completely disagree with you (and everyone else for that matter) pretending that people are saying things that they clearly aren't.

First off, let me say that I have repeatedly told Irontruth that regardless of my opinion as to the validity of his argument, I agree with his conclusion given his conditions. He refuses to move on, so we are stuck trying to work out if this argument is valid. (Either way, my position is logically consistent, so I am OK with moving on.)

The rules for rolling dice are provided:

Getting Started wrote:
Whenever a roll is required, the roll is noted as "d#," with the "#" representing the number of sides on the die. If you need to roll multiple dice of the same type, there will be a number before the "d." For example, if you are required to roll 4d6, you should roll four six-sided dice and add the results together. Sometimes there will be a + or – after the notation, meaning that you add that number to, or subtract it from, the total results of the dice (not to each individual die rolled). Most die rolls in the game use a d20 with a number of modifiers based on the character's skills, his or her abilities, and the situation. Generally speaking, rolling high is better than rolling low. Percentile rolls are a special case, indicated as rolling d%. You can generate a random number in this range by rolling two differently colored ten-sided dice (2d10). Pick one color to represent the tens digit, then roll both dice. If the die chosen to be the tens digit rolls a "4" and the other d10 rolls a "2," then you've generated a 42. A zero on the tens digit die indicates a result from 1 to 9, or 100 if both dice result in a zero. Some d10s are printed with "10," "20," "30," and so on in order to make reading d% rolls easier. Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.

I consider these to be explicit instructions on rolling a die. Once this is complied with, the roll is complete. (There is nothing left to do.) And there is no mechanism provided for modifying the total results of the die roll.

Irontruth wants to follow the rules for rolling a die, then determine the final damage statistic of the effect (usually the same), then pass it through spells and/or abilities, then apply the damage to the target, then modify the total result of the die roll, then "reapply" the damage. (The shortcut being +2 damage, but this is actually mechanically incorrect. It would require "undoing" at the very least the damage application and reapplying, because Power Attack doesn't add additional damage to the effect, it modifies the die roll.)

The basis for this argument is that no "timing rule" exists that restricts when the result of the die roll from being changed after the initial "totaling" of the dice happens. Given this argument, there is also no "timing rule" that restricts the total results of rolls from being modified at any point in time. He says that they can't be modified after the action is complete, but his only defense thus far on this point is that actions are discrete. He hasn't provided any rules based argument as to why a roll can modified within an action but not after the action.

I think that the Point Blank Shot argument is actually a semi-weak one, but it is very extreme so it provides an excellent example of the point I am trying to make. There are other more obscure problems...

Power Attack vs DR:

If Target has 5 DR and Creature attacks for 5 damage (+2 Power Attack), does the target take 0 or 2 damage?

Power Attack vs Minimum Damage:

I roll damage. My weapon is 1d4, I use Power Attack and my str is -2. I roll a 2. According to this new dynamic roll modification, how does this play out?

2-2 (+2 if the target takes hit point damage?)
Minimum damage happens, so I deal 1 nonlethal.
1 Nonlethal (+2 if the target takes hit point damage)

Target takes lethal overflow, so they take 3 damage? Or, do we retroactively apply Power Attack at the damage roll step and get 2 damage?

Warped Savant wrote:

So if a nonlethal attack rolls over it's not up to the GM to determine how much of the damage is lethal? If the GM isn't determining the type of damage then nonlethal only ever does nonlethal and the GM doesn't have to convert any of it to lethal ever?

No. The GM is aware that the nonlethal has rolled into lethal and therefore the +2 from power attack would apply in your ruling of nonlethal not being hit point damage.
You do realize that the argument between you and Irontruth mostly comes down to this one sticking point about applying the PA damage when nonlethal rolls into lethal, right? As far as I know it seems to be his main, maybe only, issue with what you're trying to say. If you follow this "+2 bonus when the attack does lethal" he'll need to find a new way to pick your argument apart. Honestly, I mean this seriously, look at what I'm saying as objectively as you can, see if it makes sense to you. The fact that it (might be) the only time that a bonus can be applied to an attack roll based on the type of damage isn't a very good reason to say it doesn't work that way... there's a few things that only come up once in the rules.

The rules determine what type of damage the effect does and the rules also determine how much damage gets converted to lethal.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work because it is the only time it happens this way, I am saying that isn't how it works at all.

Just to make sure we are on the same page:

Power Attack wrote:

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.

You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Power Attack does not deal additional damage (like other abilities sometimes do.)

Power Attack does not state "the bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effect that do not cause the target to suffer a loss of hit points" or anything like that.

Power Attack provides a bonus to the damage roll.
Power Attack provides the bonus if the effect deals hit point damage.

Which rule are you using to determine if the effect deals hit point damage?


thaX wrote:
It is, however, considered Damage in the same way as Lethal as far as "being" Hit Points, something that GA failed to comprehend when he introduced this issue.

I am concerned. Despite constant clarification on my part, this line suggests that you do not understand our position.

thaX wrote:
B Lucky is trying to make the point that Nonlethal damage is nothing because it is different and tracked on a separate pool of points. To go as far as to say you can't damage a target with Power Attack because it is Nonlethal bacon is shoehorning a lot of rules interaction that will stop a game while one figures out how to effect the use of Nonlethal damage and how it should effect a character or maybe just be a nice breakfast snack.

This quote shows that you do not understand the position you are arguing against.

thaX wrote:
To completely divorce the concept of Nonlethal being Damage and considering it to be bacon is ignoring how it is supposed to work and what Nonlethal Damage should do.

This quote shows that you do not understand the position you are arguing against.

thaX wrote:
Mallecks and B Lucky seem to think that Nonlethal somehow isn't tracking against HP, and that only Max HP are somehow evolved. (It actually tracks against CURRENT HP)

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "tracking against HP", but I certainly do not agree that only Max HP is involved. When I use nonlethal, it is compared to both the current and max HP of a chracter. This line shows you do not understand the position you are against against.

thaX wrote:
The overall thought is that Lethal Damage is somehow the only HP damage, and that Nonlethal should be considered a special ability or some sort of special attack that is beyond normal concerns, not able to be used with Power Attack, Sap Master, or any other feats or abilities at all, even when they themselves use Nonlethal exclusively.

The fact that you say "somehow" here shows that you do not understand the position you are arguing against. Even Warped Savant, who is on your side of the debate, is confused at some of the things you say we suggest here.

thaX wrote:
I am trying to set the record straight here. Nonlethal is considered a form of HP Damage, and can be used with Power Attack.

Unfortunately, to set the record straight you should at least demonstrate an understanding of the discussion at hand.

thaX wrote:
If you think otherwise, then you are reading to much into the rules and should think about intent and purpose when reading the rules book. I don't know what else to tell them, but that they are looking at this issue in the wrong way and making up rules that simply are not there. Iron Truth has been trying to tell them this since page three.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not I am reading too far into the rules. I have already discussed how I believe RAI comes into this, so clearly that is part of my consideration.

Also, please provide the rules you believe we've made up.

I don't want to believe you are intentionally misrepresenting our position, so I can only assume that you do not understand what it means for something to potentially hold a different definition than you already have.

Here is another attempt to help you understand.
In your interpretation, hit point damage is defined as damage that is measured in hit points. This means that one can simply replace "hit point damage" with "damage that is measured in hit points".

Examples:
- Direct Example: Is nonlethal damage "damage that is measured in hit points"? Yes, because it is measured in hit points.
- Power Attack Example: Power attack's damage bonus is not applied on effects that do not deal "damage that is measured in hit points." So nonlethal damage can be used for power attack.

However, in our interpretation, hit point damage is defined as damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points, all you have to do is replace any instance of the term "hit point damage" with "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points", instead of "damage that is measured in hit points".

Examples:
- Direct Example: Is nonlethal damage "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points"? No, because it is not subtracted from a character's hit points.
- Power Attack Example: Power attack's damage bonus is not applied on effects that do not deal "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points". So nonlethal cannot be used for Power Attack.


Mallecks wrote:
Edit: After your edit, it appears that you disagree with this as a possible interpretation, but I am still interested in your answer to the question.

Sorry, I'm unclear on what you are asking here. My comments below may answer whatever question you had in mind, but if not please ask again with clarity on what you are asking my opinion on.

While I don't agree with your position that nonlethal is not HP damage, I don't feel the long standing argument Irontruth has made regarding PA is a valid argument against your position. I was just providing a role play sample of where the PA argument really breaks down - and for which I find no support in the rules. I believe you and I are in agreement that if an attack is dealing X type of damage, it deals X type of damage - and what the target does to increase/decrease/change that type of damage is irrelevant.

Which given that answers your second question regarding Enforcer. If I do nonlethal damage, regardless of whether the target converts that to lethal, or any other type, so long as I did some damage (got past DR at least), I get the free intimidate check. The check is of course a moot point unless the target has Flagellant.

I can see where some might feel there is a flaw in my reasoning in that I would expect the damage to bypass DR, which means there is some interaction with the target, so if it interacts with DR, why not with nonlethal overflow as well? I think that is a fair question, and thus I would not fault a GM for ruling either way on that. But it is so edge case we can't expect the rules to actually cover that scenario.

But this entire discussion is fairly edge case at it is, so I'm not really surprised there is not a straight forward clear answer in the rules (I personally think the answer is pretty clear, but understand that others do not). Hence my interpretation of the entire thing is based almost entirely on my own understanding of the rules and the contextual clues given there in.


Before your edit, the post had a connotation that it was in agreement with the idea that the GM could determine the type of damage an effect deals.

I typed up my response, then saw your edit, but left it as a question anyway to verify that you and I were on the same page.

I appreciate your attempts to provide neutral input where you feel it is valuable.


Mallecks wrote:
...I have repeatedly told Irontruth that regardless of my opinion as to the validity of his argument, I agree with his conclusion given his conditions. He refuses to move on, so we are stuck trying to work out if this argument is valid. (Either way, my position is logically consistent, so I am OK with moving on.)...

And yet here we are, two months later, with you trying to prove yourself right and him trying to prove you wrong by repeating the same things in different words over and over again.

Honestly, I'm surprised it matters so much to either of you. You've said numerous times that you're willing to agree to disagree and yet you keep restating your thoughts making him try to shoot them down again.
Have you ever been in a game where someone says that the group should retreat but then no one does and, after everyone is dead, that player says "I told you we should've run away?" but you're well aware that if that player had retreated everyone else would've followed suit?
This feels like that, but in real life.

Mallecks wrote:

Power Attack provides a bonus to the damage roll.

Power Attack provides the bonus if the effect deals hit point damage.

Which rule are you using to determine if the effect deals hit point damage?

To the damage roll so long as the attack does hit point damage.

Since damage dealt can equal damage taken a nonlethal attack that deals some lethal damage means that the attack dealt some lethal damage.

getting started wrote:
...Most die rolls in the game use a d20 with a number of modifiers based on the character's skills, his or her abilities, and the situation...

The situation, in the case of power attack and roll over nonlethal, is that the target has now taken lethal and therefore, according to the rules, the +2 would get added.

Nothing in the Getting Started section that you've quoted says anything about when bonus damage can no longer be added to the damage roll.

Mallecks wrote:
Power Attack vs DR:

You're saying that, with Irontruths flaw with your idea is that if the power attack damage can be added partway through the resolution of the damage that would mean that, with his ruling based on your ruling, would mean that the power attack damage wouldn't get added if the initial damage doesn't get through the DR.

Your view is that the damage roll is rolled and then it's not subject to other changes. The target takes the damage based on the roll and then damage is added or subtracted based on things the target has (DR, Vulnerability, etc).
Yes, your system is internally logical.

Irontruth disagrees for reasons he's discussed.

I understand where you're coming from but rule that nonlethal is hit point damage because, if it isn't, I don't like how it interacts with different spells/abilities.

(I think I've just summed up the last 2 months/27 pages of posts with everything I said after "your view is that....")


Butt_Luckily wrote:
...Even Warped Savant, who is on your side of the debate, is confused at some of the things you say we suggest here.

To be fair, I'm also confused about some of the things that you and Mallecks are trying to say that Irontruth said.

Butt_Luckily wrote:

Here is another attempt to help you understand.

In your interpretation, hit point damage is defined as damage that is measured in hit points. This means that one can simply replace "hit point damage" with "damage that is measured in hit points".

Examples:
- Direct Example: Is nonlethal damage "damage that is measured in hit points"? Yes, because it is measured in hit points.
- Power Attack Example: Power attack's damage bonus is not applied on effects that do not deal "damage that is measured in hit points." So nonlethal damage can be used for power attack.

However, in our interpretation, hit point damage is defined as damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points, all you have to do is replace any instance of the term "hit point damage" with "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points", instead of "damage that is measured in hit points".

Examples:
- Direct Example: Is nonlethal damage "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points"? No, because it is not subtracted from a character's hit points.
- Power Attack Example: Power attack's damage bonus is not applied on effects that do not deal "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points". So nonlethal cannot be used for Power Attack.

This is a wonderful way to describe the two stances.

bbangerter wrote:
While I don't agree with your position that nonlethal is not HP damage, I don't feel the long standing argument Irontruth has made regarding PA is a valid argument against your position.

I'm with you. That's why I keep trying to find other things that point to nonlethal being hit point damage.


Warped Savant wrote:

And yet here we are, two months later, with you trying to prove yourself right and him trying to prove you wrong by repeating the same things in different words over and over again.

Honestly, I'm surprised it matters so much to either of you. You've said numerous times that you're willing to agree to disagree and yet you keep restating your thoughts making him try to shoot them down again.
Have you ever been in a game where someone says that the group should retreat but then no one does and, after everyone is dead, that player says "I told you we should've run away?" but you're well aware that if that player had retreated everyone else would've followed suit?
This feels like that, but in real life.

In all honesty, I'm just a person with some free time who is regularly near a computer. The only reason I didn't post yesterday was because I became completely absorbed in a book I have started reading.

I am willing to agree to disagree and move on. Irontruth feels this is inappropriate. "There is no agree to disagree." He believes his PA example is proof positive that my position cannot be true, despite the fact that my position is logically consistent either way. Whenever he is willing to agree to disagree or is persuaded that perhaps this argument does not have merit, we can move on.

Warped Savant wrote:


To the damage roll so long as the attack does hit point damage.

Since damage dealt can equal damage taken a nonlethal attack that deals some lethal damage means that the attack dealt some lethal damage.

While I agree that in most cases the amount of damage dealt will be equal to the amount of damage taken, I don't see how this has any impact on the rules that determine the type of damage an effect deals.

There are many types of rules that determine the type of damage an attack deals.

Let's say I'm using the a "regular" weapon to make a nonlethal attack. I'm using this rule to determine my damage type:

"Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Which (presumably specific) rule are you using that changes the type of damage the attack deals?

Warped Savant wrote:
getting started wrote:
...Most die rolls in the game use a d20 with a number of modifiers based on the character's skills, his or her abilities, and the situation...

The situation, in the case of power attack and roll over nonlethal, is that the target has now taken lethal and therefore, according to the rules, the +2 would get added.

Nothing in the Getting Started section that you've quoted says anything about when bonus damage can no longer be added to the damage roll.

Correct. This is Irontruth's argument. However, nothing I have quoted in the rules says that bonuses can no longer be added to the damage roll on the next turn.. or the following turn.. or the turn after that... etc.

Why, then, can does the (+1 damage if the opponent is within 30 feet) provided by Point Blank Shot not dynamically change the value of every arrow fired ever based on the distance between the shooter and the target?

There are many things the rules don't say you can't do. This is not a healthy interpretation of reading the rules. First, we are modifying damage rolls after they happen. Next, dogs are playing basketball because "the rules don't say a dog can't play basketball."

Mallecks wrote:

You're saying that, with Irontruths flaw with your idea is that if the power attack damage can be added partway through the resolution of the damage that would mean that, with his ruling based on your ruling, would mean that the power attack damage wouldn't get added if the initial damage doesn't get through the DR.

Your view is that the damage roll is rolled and then it's not subject to other changes. The target takes the damage based on the roll and then damage is added or subtracted based on things the target has (DR, Vulnerability, etc).
Yes, your system is internally logical.

Irontruth disagrees for reasons he's discussed.

I understand where you're coming from but rule that nonlethal is hit point damage because, if it isn't, I don't like how it interacts with different spells/abilities.

(I think I've just summed up the last 2 months/27 pages of posts with everything I said after "your view is that....")

This is more or less accurate.

Irontruth's disagreement (the PA argument) is not valid and is not relevant. It isn't valid because it requires a homebrew rule and an interpretation of rolling dice that basically makes the game unplayable. It isn't relevant because it doesn't even prove my interpretation is logically inconsistent.

Irontruth wrote:
To be fair, I'm also confused about some of the things that you and Mallecks are trying to say that Irontruth said

He may feel that I am putting words in his mouth, but I have never maliciously misrepresented what I believe his argument is.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

No, you have a habit of just repeating catch phrases back at me without actually applying them. This right here is one such example. It is intellectual laziness.

If you don't believe me, feel free to read "Initiative" on page 178, "Actions in Combat" on page 181, and as a specific example, "Spring Attack" on page 134. Feel free to dispute any of them.

I have reviewed the material you have suggested. I have not come any closer in understanding how you arbitrarily decided that rolls can be modified after the initial totaling of the result, but not after the action is complete.

That's par for the course for you though. Anything you don't you just ignore or claim it isn't relevant.


Mallecks wrote:
"Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage"[/quote wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Which (presumably specific) rule are you using that changes the type of damage the attack deals?

I think you think I'm talking about something else... either that or you're asking a question to which you obviously know the answer as you've quoted the rule.

But since damage dealt can equal damage taken a taking -4 to nonlethally attack with a regular weapon can still result in lethal damage being done if you do enough for the target to roll over into lethal.
But sometimes damage dealt doesn't equal damage taken (see Fraction of Heal and Harm). So it's up to the GM and players to decide when it means the same thing and when it doesn't. The book doesn't spell it out for us.

Mallecks wrote:

Correct. This is Irontruth's argument. However, nothing I have quoted in the rules says that bonuses can no longer be added to the damage roll on the next turn.. or the following turn.. or the turn after that... etc.

Why, then, can does the (+1 damage if the opponent is within 30 feet) provided by Point Blank Shot not dynamically change the value of every arrow fired ever based on the distance between the shooter and the target?

There are many things the rules don't say you can't do. This is not a healthy interpretation of reading the rules. First, we are modifying damage rolls after they happen. Next, dogs are playing basketball because "the rules don't say a dog can't play basketball."

You're right, it doesn't say when you can no longer add bonuses so we need to use common sense. Unfortunately, that means it's open to interpretation. You take it to mean that you can't add anymore bonuses after the die is rolled, before the damage is taken. Irontruth, when arguing against your opinion of nonlethal not being hit point damage, thinks that the bonuses can be added up until the action is completed.

Your interpretation makes more sense, even though I disagree with your basic premise that nonlethal isn't hit point damage.

Mallecks wrote:
...it requires a homebrew rule...

Since the rules don't list when you can no longer add bonuses (there's no 'timing' rule, if you prefer) then both you and Irontruth require a homebrew rule as to when the cut-off for bonuses is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I understand both your stances, B Luck. They just are not in line with the rules in the book.

What is Nonlethal Damage? If you maintain that it is not HP damage, then what else would it be? It isn't any type of Energy damage, nor is it some type of damage using positive or negative energy, and it sure as heck not Ability damage.

Your answer to this seems to be that it is just it's own type of damage. Really? There is a problem with that, you see, as being just "nonlethal" damage would mean that it is something that isn't anything but Nonlethal. It would not be measured in Hit Points, have it's own track, and would use it's own statistic. It would be, as you, Mallecks and GA has inferred, Bacon.

So when does the bad effects from taking Nonlethal happen? Go ahead, tell me. Just don't mention Hit Points in any way when you do.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
warped servant wrote:
I don't understand where you're coming from with the Sap Master comment... What am I missing here?

Sap Master adds damage to sneak attacks when using Nonlethal, but since Sneak Attack is typically used with lethal damage, if Nonlethal is Bacon, one can not use the feat with Nonlethal damage. It doesn't make sense, but that is what B Luck and Mallecks are saying.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
you first have to agree to my definitions.

To actually give merit to your definitions, you first have to prove how those definitions work within the ruleset and how the interactions within the structure of that ruleset is consistent within what you have defined. Thus far, you have not proven this, and I should not be constrained to your limited scope of how you define "damage."

Originally, you came in saying that GA's imperfect interpretation had merit even if it was flawed in it's execution. I have yet to see that merit or how it should be applied.

Even when Irontruth has given credence to your defense of GA's stance, you have not engaged him with the example he has given you to disprove your definition, instead focusing on how there is not timing rules that the example would create because of the defined way of Nonlethal interaction you are trying to defend.

Nonlethal is Damage. You are disputing that by saying it isn't Hit Point damage, but some sort of Bacon damage. I will not accept this, as I have read the rule book and know how to add 2 + 2.


thaX wrote:

I understand both your stances, B Luck. They just are not in line with the rules in the book.

What is Nonlethal Damage? If you maintain that it is not HP damage, then what else would it be? It isn't any type of Energy damage, nor is it some type of damage using positive or negative energy, and it sure as heck not Ability damage.

Your answer to this seems to be that it is just it's own type of damage. Really? There is a problem with that, you see, as being just "nonlethal" damage would mean that it is something that isn't anything but Nonlethal. It would not be measured in Hit Points, have it's own track, and would use it's own statistic. It would be, as you, Mallecks and GA has inferred, Bacon.

So when does the bad effects from taking Nonlethal happen? Go ahead, tell me. Just don't mention Hit Points in any way when you do.

Ability damage is tracked against your stat but doesn't decrease it. Why can't nonlethal damage be tracked against your hit points without being considered hit point damage?

I don't understand where you're coming from by saying that if it isn't hit point damage then it's nothing. It has an effect, it has it's own box to be tracked on the character sheet, it has a set of defined rules in the book.
Why is "it's nonlethal damage" not an acceptable answer to you?


It still appears you are mixing your interpretation with our interpretation.

thaX wrote:
It would not be measured in Hit Points, have it's own track, and would use it's own statistic.

This line is the biggest error. Nothing you list here matters if something is hit point damage or not.

Hit point damage has some definition.

Ours is "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points".

Can some damage that is NOT "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points" be measured in hit points? Yes, as long as that damage is not subtracted from a character's hit points.

Can some damage that is NOT "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points" have the same "track" (whatever that means) as something else? Yes, as long as that damage is not subtracted from a character's hit points.

It already has its own statistic, so I don't know why you would say that is a problem, but still...
Can some damage that is NOT "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points" share some statistic with other kinds of damage? Yes, as long as that damage is not subtracted from a character's hit points.

Even in your stance, other than being measured in hit points, any other quality does not matter. So if your argument is that we are wrong because hit point damage is defined as "damage that is measured as hit points, is part of the 'track' that compares against HP, is the exclusive kind of damage that can check against a character's HP, is furthering the goal of the fight, ...etc.", then we should discussing our disagreement on the definition of hit point damage.

If you are trying to say our interpretation does not make sense, then your application of it to the rules must also our definition.

I am willing to agree to disagree on the definition of hit point damage, or we can discuss why the definition should be one thing instead of the other, but if you want to discuss our interpretation, then our definitions have to be used.

I don't use my definitions when I represent your interpretation. We have to agree on what something means at what times. That is an axiomatic necessity to have a discussion.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Warped Savant wrote:
thaX wrote:

I understand both your stances, B Luck. They just are not in line with the rules in the book.

What is Nonlethal Damage? If you maintain that it is not HP damage, then what else would it be? It isn't any type of Energy damage, nor is it some type of damage using positive or negative energy, and it sure as heck not Ability damage.

Your answer to this seems to be that it is just it's own type of damage. Really? There is a problem with that, you see, as being just "nonlethal" damage would mean that it is something that isn't anything but Nonlethal. It would not be measured in Hit Points, have it's own track, and would use it's own statistic. It would be, as you, Mallecks and GA has inferred, Bacon.

So when does the bad effects from taking Nonlethal happen? Go ahead, tell me. Just don't mention Hit Points in any way when you do.

Ability damage is tracked against your stat but doesn't decrease it. Why can't nonlethal damage be tracked against your hit points without being considered hit point damage?

I don't understand where you're coming from by saying that if it isn't hit point damage then it's nothing. It has an effect, it has it's own box to be tracked on the character sheet, it has a set of defined rules in the book.
Why is "it's nonlethal damage" not an acceptable answer to you?

Being just "Nonlethal Damage" is making it into something else other than the damage that is dealt. It is putting forth a complication that is not needed, and makes it so that Nonlethal Damage can not track against the Current HP as it does in the book. If it were it's own damage exclusively, it would have a separate statistic that is derived separately that would be the barometer of what it would do to the target when a condition with that stat would be met.

Having it as it is in the book, HP damage that is compared to Current HP to effect it's outcome, it becomes quite clear that it is used in much the same way as Lethal Damage unless specified within the abilities otherwise. One can use Power Attack with either form of Damage in this way, whereas one would need mechanical explanations on when one can use or can not use Nonlethal Damage with every ability and feat if it was as GA has proposed.

B Lucky wrote:
Ours is "damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points".

You keep saying this, but do not realize that it is only the most common way to damage an opponent. I have even pointed this out a page ago.

Nonlethal Damage is still under the section "Injury and Death" and is a part of the Hip Point structure. I do not understand your need to put a barrier between Lethal and Nonlethal damage and limit a player choices on what they can do with their attacks.


thaX wrote:
You keep saying this, but do not realize that it is only the most common way to damage an opponent. I have even pointed this out a page ago.

I agree it is just the most common way. I don't see why that would invalidate my interpretation.

thaX wrote:

Nonlethal Damage is still under the section "Injury and Death" and is a part of the Hip Point structure. I do not understand your need to put a barrier between Lethal and Nonlethal damage and limit a player choices on what they can do with their attacks.

It is inaccurate to say that I have a need to place a barrier between non-lethal and lethal damage. It implies that the treatment of non-lethal damage as something different (even though everyone already treats it differently) is some goal I am trying to achieve.

In actuality, I am not "trying" to do anything. When I read the rules, I arrive at a different definition of hit point damage, which has ramifications, such as not including non-lethal damage.

Because I merely feel there is a different definition for hit point damage, I don't feel that anything is more limiting than it is before. Power Attack is limited to effects that deal hit point damage, and it still is now.


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

No, you have a habit of just repeating catch phrases back at me without actually applying them. This right here is one such example. It is intellectual laziness.

If you don't believe me, feel free to read "Initiative" on page 178, "Actions in Combat" on page 181, and as a specific example, "Spring Attack" on page 134. Feel free to dispute any of them.

I have reviewed the material you have suggested. I have not come any closer in understanding how you arbitrarily decided that rolls can be modified after the initial totaling of the result, but not after the action is complete.
That's par for the course for you though. Anything you don't you just ignore or claim it isn't relevant.

It is possible that I missed it.

Please provide the relevant text from the sections you have provided that total results of a damage roll can be modified after the roll takes place but not after the action is complete.


thaX wrote:

Being just "Nonlethal Damage" is making it into something else other than the damage that is dealt. It is putting forth a complication that is not needed, and makes it so that Nonlethal Damage can not track against the Current HP as it does in the book. If it were it's own damage exclusively, it would have a separate statistic that is derived separately that would be the barometer of what it would do to the target when a condition with that stat would be met.

Having it as it is in the book, HP damage that is compared to Current HP to effect it's outcome, it becomes quite clear that it is used in much the same way as Lethal Damage unless specified within the abilities otherwise. One can use Power Attack with either form of Damage in this way, whereas one would need mechanical explanations on when one can use or can not use Nonlethal Damage with every ability and feat if it was as GA has proposed.

How is it not being hit point damage turn it into something that isn't damage being dealt?

Nonlethal Damage. See that word 'damage'?
If nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage what complication does it add? You can't use power attack with it... what else?
Why can't it be tracked against hit points even though it isn't hit point damage? Why would it HAVE to be a separate statistic?
You make a lot of claims but I haven't seen your justifications other than "because I said so." Perhaps if you could explain why it would help your argument.
Where in the book does it say that HP damage is anything that's compared to Current HP?
And no, it wouldn't need an explanation as to if the feat/ability can be used with lethal or nonlethal. If it says 'damage' then it can be added to either. If they only wanted it to be applied to one they would specify that. (See Sap Master for an example of them doing this.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Injury and Death section is the section that talks about Hit Points. Nonlethal Damage is a subsection of that.

Nonlethal damage is not Ability drain/damage, or energy damage, or is it negative or positive energy damage. It is Damage that is compared to current HP, measured in HP and the character status will change (staggered or Unconscious) when such reaches or exceeds that comparison.

The reason GA has provided this interpretation of Nonlethal being bacon is from the reading of Power Attack that mentions Hit Point damage. Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is not Hit Point damage. There are other places where it is referred to as Hit Points, such as healing at 1 hit point per hour, and it is in the section of the book that talks about the relationship between Hit Points and the character/target, and how it is used.

My point has been that if it is bacon as suggested, the use of it would be severely limited and it would not use HP as a means to determine when the target/character would succumb to it's effects. One could not use any ability or feat to damage the target with Nonlethal, DR would not work, Barbarians could not convert Lethal damage into Nonlethal, and it goes on...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Butt_Luckily wrote:

thaX wrote:

Nonlethal Damage is still under the section "Injury and Death" and is a part of the Hip Point structure. I do not understand your need to put a barrier between Lethal and Nonlethal damage and limit a player choices on what they can do with their attacks.

It is inaccurate to say that I have a need to place a barrier between non-lethal and lethal damage. It implies that the treatment of non-lethal damage as something different (even though everyone already treats it differently) is some goal I am trying to achieve.

In actuality, I am not "trying" to do anything. When I read the rules, I arrive at a different definition of hit point damage, which has ramifications, such as not including non-lethal damage.

Because I merely feel there is a different definition for hit point damage, I don't feel that anything is more limiting than it is before. Power Attack is limited to effects that deal hit point damage, and it still is now.

"It implies that the treatment of Nonlethal Damage as something different..."

Yes.

"I arrive at a different definition of (hit point) damage..."

You treat Nonlethal as bacon. I understand this. The thing is, you are trying to say that it isn't damage at all in relation to the abilities that the character wants to use. It is a special attack according to the interpretation GA has put forth, one that forgoes any use of other abilities, traits or feats. This is the barrier that you three have created.


thaX wrote:
The Injury and Death section is the section that talks about Hit Points. Nonlethal Damage is a subsection of that.

Are you suggesting that each subsection of the Injury and Death section is Hit Point Damage?

Loss of Hit Points is a subsection of the Injury and Death section.
Nonlethal Damage is a separate subsection of the Injury and Death section.

thaX wrote:
Nonlethal damage is not Ability drain/damage, or energy damage, or is it negative or positive energy damage. It is Damage that is compared to current HP, measured in HP and the character status will change (staggered or Unconscious) when such reaches or exceeds that comparison.

Are we talking our definitions? Let's be a little more clear here. There are many qualities of "hit point damage." We are generally talking about whether or not it is measured in hit points or whether it reduces hit points. This is a shorthand argument, and may be the cause of your confusion.

A more verbose description of what I consider to be hit point damage:
1. Damage that reduces hit points
2. Damage that effects cause "the effect of hit point damage."
3. Damage that recovers at the natural recovery rate of Hit Point Damage.

Is that it? There may be more rules that aren't in the section I'm looking at right now.

"Hit Point Damage" has many qualities. If it doesn't meet ALL of the qualities (or is provided an exception by another rule) I would not consider it to be hit point damage. Nonlethal Damage doesn't do anything that hit point damage is supposed to do.

However, all/most of the things that Hit Point Damage does revolves around it reducing hit points. So, the argument has generally been reduced to that.

thaX wrote:


The reason GA has provided this interpretation of Nonlethal being bacon is from the reading of Power Attack that mentions Hit Point damage. Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is not Hit Point damage. There are other places where it is referred to as Hit Points, such as healing at 1 hit point per hour, and it is in the section of the book that talks about the relationship between Hit Points and the character/target, and how it is used.

The original source of this discussion was started from a question of whether or not Power Attack works with nonlethal damage. Power Attack was never used as evidence of nonlethal damage being hit point damage or not. (Irontruth is trying to use it as an example of my position being logically inconsistent. No one is using Power Attack to set up a definition.)

thaX wrote:
My point has been that if it is bacon as suggested, the use of it would be severely limited and it would not use HP as a means to determine when the target/character would succumb to it's effects. One could not use any ability or feat to damage the target with Nonlethal, DR would not work, Barbarians could not convert Lethal damage into Nonlethal, and it goes on...

Damage Reduction does not use the term hit point damage. Why would a change to the definition of hit point damage have any impact on Damage reduction?

Why would feats that specifically use the term Nonlethal Damage change at all?

Please provide the specific text you feel is an issue.

Edit: If the text does not use the term "Nonlethal Damage" or "Hit Point Damage," then the text works the same for both of us. If the text uses the term "Nonlethal Damage" specifically, then it almost definitely works the same for both of us, but is worth a review. If the term "Hit Point Damage" is used, then it will potentially work differently and should be reviewed.


thaX wrote:
You treat Nonlethal as bacon. I understand this. The thing is, you are trying to say that it isn't damage at all in relation to the abilities that the character wants to use. It is a special attack according to the interpretation GA has put forth, one that forgoes any use of other abilities, traits or feats. This is the barrier that you three have created.

No, they don't. They treat it as nonlethal damage and believe that it doesn't count as hit point damage.

How does them not treating it as hit point damage make it different from how you treat it, with the exception of it not getting a bonus from power attack?
DR works the same because it only references "damage" (which is assumed to be lethal or nonlethal damage as they are both attack damage.)
Can you find something that would demonstrate that DR only reduces hit point damage?


thaX wrote:
Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is not Hit Point damage.

Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is Hit Point damage.

thaX wrote:
There are other places where it is referred to as Hit Points, such as healing at 1 hit point per hour, and it is in the section of the book that talks about the relationship between Hit Points and the character/target, and how it is used.

I agree with the first half of this. Healing at a rate of 1 hit point per hour per level implies to me that nonlethal is, in fact, hit point damage.

The second half, not so much... As Mallecks pointed out, it's a different subsection of Injury & Death then the subsection talking about hit point damage.


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

No, you have a habit of just repeating catch phrases back at me without actually applying them. This right here is one such example. It is intellectual laziness.

If you don't believe me, feel free to read "Initiative" on page 178, "Actions in Combat" on page 181, and as a specific example, "Spring Attack" on page 134. Feel free to dispute any of them.

I have reviewed the material you have suggested. I have not come any closer in understanding how you arbitrarily decided that rolls can be modified after the initial totaling of the result, but not after the action is complete.
That's par for the course for you though. Anything you don't you just ignore or claim it isn't relevant.

It is possible that I missed it.

Please provide the relevant text from the sections you have provided that total results of a damage roll can be modified after the roll takes place but not after the action is complete.

No, because the premise of your request is flawed.

You tried to claim that you can modify previous actions with later, subsequent actions. I'm showing that this claim is incorrect, because the rules make actions separate and discrete events, just like turns and rounds are separate end discrete units of time in the game. I provided proof that this is true, based on the Initiative rules, the Action rules, and supported by text within certain feats.

If you want to disagree with the idea that turns and actions are separate events, I'm willing to hear it.

As a separate issue, if you've found a rule that defines "after the roll" I'm willing to hear that too.


I fail to see any reason why you would be able to modify a roll after the initial totaling of the result but not after the action is complete.

or for that matter..

Any reason why we would disregard the rules for determining the type of damage the effect of an attack deals.


I'm not disregarding any rule. That's the difference between you and me.

Actions are clearly intended to be discrete and separate events. You have to finish your move before you can attack (barring feats that let you circumvent that rule, like Spring Attack). If actions weren't separate events, then you wouldn't need a feat like Spring Attack, because all characters could use an action to modify another action directly.

See, when I tell you how you're wrong, I can talk about rules, and page numbers.

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,405 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 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.