More or less.
What I am saying is that a nonlethal attack never does lethal damage. It always does nonlethal. The fact that nonlethal damage in excess of a characters HP is treated as lethal damage has nothing to do with the attack itself or rolling its damage.
The attack must deal the damage as nonlethal, because if the attack doesn't deal damage as nonlethal, there wouldn't be a need to handle non-lethal in excess of HP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ablative barrier. Attack is lethal, converts some damage to nonlethal due to the spell, how much is converted if the attack does 1 +1 Str +2 power attack?
I have yet to see a single convincing argument that the answer is anything less than 4.
Irontruth -- Just because a target takes lethal damage doesn't mean you aren't doing nonlethal.
For example, a whip does nonlethal (unless you're taking a -4 to do lethal or have a special power or something). If someone has taken 29 out of 30 nonlethal damage and someone attacks the person with a whip does that mean that anything above the first point of damage doesn't count? No, it just means that any damage above the first is lethal.I believe what Mallecks is trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong, Mallecks) is that, by their reading of the rules, if someone is Power Attacking with nonlethal they don't get the bonus damage, even if part of that damage rolls over into lethal. (Because, honestly, it would be ridiculous to do it that way. The character is attacking with nonlethal even though the one being attacked takes it as lethal.)
Warped, I know that this is ridiculous.
I'll try to make it SUPER clear for you, so you can stop arguing with me.
1. Gallant Armor says that nonlethal is not hit point damage.
2. Therefore, according to Gallant Armor, Power Attack does not deal bonus damage on nonlethal attacks.
3. But all lethal damage must by rule be eligible for Power Attack bonus damage.
4. So, any nonlethal overflow into lethal gains the bonus damage.
I say...
5. This is stupid and violates the order of operations that is evident in every other rule about the application of damage
So now... they've finally realized that #5 is true, they're trying to backtrack on #4. But to do that, they must show something in the rules that all of us already know doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter if the original attack is nonlethal. If the attack does lethal damage (nonlethal overflow is considered lethal for all intents and purposes) than Power Attack must apply.
My stance is that Power Attack applies to nonlethal as well, because nonlethal is hit point damage. There is no contradiction, or interaction that violates other rules based on this.
But the attack doesn't deal lethal damage. It does nonlethal damage. If the attack did lethal damage, there would be no need to convert it later.
Edit: you would have the same problem for an attack that does lethal damage but the damage (without power attack) is reduced to zero. Where you check to see whether or not certain conditions are met [the attack does HP damage] and then goes back and adds power attack damage.
So, you claim that this interpretation breaks the normal order of operations, but the same problem applies to lethal damage already because you are checking whether or not Power Attack should be applied at the wrong time.
Power Attack adds damage to the damage roll. If the conditions are met when So long damage, it should apply. After that. who cares? You aren't rolling damage anymore.
No, the rule book clearly says that nonlethal overflow is considered lethal damage.
Do you have a citation that says different?
And to be SUPER CLEAR, I do not think this is how the game works. I am pointing out that this is a result of YOUR horrible interpretation of what is and isn't hit point damage. It is a result of YOUR claims, not mine. If you think all of this is ridiculous, then maybe... just maybe... YOUR CLAIM is ridiculous. Your interpretation is indefensible without conclusive proof of the outcomes that go against other aspects of the game that we already know to be true.
I don't have this problem, because my interpretation that nonlethal is a type of hit point damage resolves all of these issues in exactly the way everyone who plays this game expects them to resolve. There are no issues with PA and nonlethal, or PA and DR, or Merciful and nonlethal overflow. None of that is an issue.
Option 1: (Gallant Armor/Mallecks) Nonlethal is not hit point damage, which results in irreconcilable behaviors of game mechanics.
Option 2: (everyone else) Nonlethal is hit point damage, everything works just fine.
I still don't understand. If someone is attacking with a sap, and the target they are attacking has non-lethal damage exceeding their hit points...
You claim that the attack will do lethal damage at the time you roll damage?
This is not the rules. The rules are that no lethal hit points that exceed your HP are treated as lethal damage. In your scenario, the target of the attack has not received nonlethal damage which will be treated as lethal damage, they have only received lethal damage.
This idea you have has other weird problems. If I attack with a sap and it rolls over to lethal damage, do I retroactively get a -4 to my attack roll?
I believe that non-lethal attacks always do nonlethal damage. After succeeding on an attack roll, you make a damage roll that represents the amount of nonlethal damage you will do. The damage is applied to the target and any nonlethal that would exceed their HP would be considered lethal damage.
The exact same thing happens for lethal damage.
Succeed attack roll. Roll damage [Note: Power Attack happens here.] That damage is applied to the target.
What you are saying is...
Succeed attack roll. Roll damage. Check to see if the target took HP damage. Now add Power Attack damage.
This is not how Power Attack works and I don't think I have ever claimed it did. To be clear though, I am saying that nonlethal attacks would never be eligible for Power Attack because the effect of a nonlethal attack is nonlethal damage. The current amount of nonlethal damage the target has does not impact the effect of the nonlethal attack.The nonlethal attack effects the amount of nonlethal the target has. It is not a two-street.
|
This went over 100 posts.
A merciful weapon will do non-lethal damage, as well as a sap or any other weapon when the character is choosing to do so, either with the -4 penalty or using Bludgeoneer feet for no penalty with bludgeoning weapons.
One can use Power Attack with Non Lethal damage, and will get the extra damage as noted in the feat.
The answer for the original question is "Yes."
When the non lethal damage go past the threshold of the Max hp of the target, the rest is converted to lethal damage. The wielder of the weapon is still doing Non Lethal, it is the target that has no more Non Lethal to take.
I still don't understand. If someone is attacking with a sap, and the target they are attacking has non-lethal damage exceeding their hit points...
You claim that the attack will do lethal damage at the time you roll damage?
This is not the rules.
Give that a couple reads. Let me know which part is confusing you.
If someone has a few nonlethal damage left before overflow, and then gets hit again and the nonlethal exceeds it.... is the attack both lethal and nonlethal at the same time?
Ok, I think I have an example that should work.
At 2nd level, the invulnerable rager gains DR/— equal to half her barbarian level. This damage reduction is doubled against nonlethal damage.
At second level invulnerable raged has DR 4/lethal and DR 2/-.
Let's say they have 20 HP and 20 Nonlethal damage. If they are hit for 3 nonlethal damage, you are saying that at the time damage is rolled this becomes a lethal attack and they take 1 lethal damage.
I am saying that the attack is nonlethal damage, so it doesn't beat the DR4/lethal.
Let's say the rager has 20 HP and 15 Nonlethal damage and they get hit for 10.
Option 1: 5 lethal and 5 Nonlethal at damage roll, then DR happens and they take 1 nonlethal and 3 lethal.
Option 2: They take 9 Nonlethal and 1 lethal. Then DR happens. 9 reduced to 5 to get the rollover and then 1 lethal, but does the 1 lethal get reduced as well? Should the DR block the lethal first or the nonlethal first? If it blocks lethal first. It would block the 1 damage, and then maybe it has 2 left over for 9 incoming, so then 3 more bleeds over?
Option 3: The entire attack is nonlethal. It gets reduced by the DR. and the target takes all nonlethal damage. Any nonlethal in excess of HP becomes lethal.
Mallecks -- Perfect! I understand where you're coming from. (I disagree, but I think I completely understand and if you were my GM I wouldn't argue the point any further.)
Irontruth -- I agree with what you're saying. In my game, and by how I read the rules, nonlethal counts as hit point damage. It's more that I'm trying to understand where Mallecks is coming from and I think you're taking what Mallecks is saying differently than they mean. I think the part that Mallecks is saying that you aren't understanding properly is that in their game something doing nonlethal is doing nonlethal, whether or not the person taking the damage is taking it as nonlethal. When nonlethal damage rolls over to lethal the weapon is doing nonlethal (such as a sap) but the target is receiving lethal.
(I think, at this point, you're not going to convince Mallecks of anything different. I don't think it matters what you say nor what you quote, their opinion is based on their interpretation of the rules. As much as I agree with you, there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun in the rule books for you to point at that will convince Mallecks.)
As for what Gallant Armor said in regards to Ablative Barrier:
If you are dealing lethal damage and deal 6 or more points of damage (not counting power attack bonus damage) PA would work normally. If you deal 5 or less points of damage, PA wouldn't work.
If you are dealing nonlethal damage, PA wouldn't work no matter what damage is done.
I completely disagree with that. I think that's ridiculous.
I can't speak for GA, so maybe he has been persuaded away from that.
If someone power attacks, when they roll their damage, if the are doing HP damage, they get +2 to the bonus roll. Ablative Barrier is something that doesn't happen until after damage is rolled and has zero impact on whether or not your attack effect deals HP damage. That some may/all of the damage be converted to nonlethal has nothing to do with whether or not Power Attack bonus damage is applied.
FYI, I did have the opinion earlier in the thread, but I have been persuaded by the logic of others that since all of the damage dealt by a nonlethal attack is nonlethal even in the case of overflow damage, Power Attack would never work with nonlethal damage. If you are dealing lethal damage, Power Attack would be added before any other effect to diminish or alter damage.Mallecks -- Perfect! I understand where you're coming from. (I disagree, but I think I completely understand and if you were my GM I wouldn't argue the point any further.)
Irontruth -- I agree with what you're saying. In my game, and by how I read the rules, nonlethal counts as hit point damage. It's more that I'm trying to understand where Mallecks is coming from and I think you're taking what Mallecks is saying differently than they mean. I think the part that Mallecks is saying that you aren't understanding properly is that in their game something doing nonlethal is doing nonlethal, whether or not the person taking the damage is taking it as nonlethal. When nonlethal damage rolls over to lethal the weapon is doing nonlethal (such as a sap) but the target is receiving lethal.
(I think, at this point, you're not going to convince Mallecks of anything different. I don't think it matters what you say nor what you quote, their opinion is based on their interpretation of the rules. As much as I agree with you, there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun in the rule books for you to point at that will convince Mallecks.)As for what Gallant Armor said in regards to Ablative Barrier:
I completely disagree with that. I think that's ridiculous.If you are dealing lethal damage and deal 6 or more points of damage (not counting power attack bonus damage) PA would work normally. If you deal 5 or less points of damage, PA wouldn't work.
If you are dealing nonlethal damage, PA wouldn't work no matter what damage is done.
Except that isn't true. The rules blatantly state that nonlethal overflow is to be treated as lethal damage. The rules explicitly say this. It isn't even close to debatable. You've posted the exact words that say it isn't true at least a dozen times. Heck, you've even tried to use those words to argue in favor of your point.
I still don't understand. If someone is attacking with a sap, and the target they are attacking has non-lethal damage exceeding their hit points...
You claim that the attack will do lethal damage at the time you roll damage?
This is not the rules.
Give that a couple reads. Let me know which part is confusing you.
You have to know how much nonlethal damage has been done in order to make the conversion correctly. Therefore the conversion has to take place last in the order of operations. The most logical order would be:
1. Calculate damage including bonus damage for Power Attack, Sneak Attack, etc.2. Apply DR, Shield Other, Ablative Barrier and any other effects that reduce damage.
3. Convert any nonlethal damage over max hit points to lethal damage.
The conversion happens after the damage, therefore the conversion can't impact the damage that was dealt.
So you concede that Power Attack applies to nonlethal. Glad we got that over.
FYI, I did have the opinion previously, but I have been persuaded by the logic of others that since all of the damage dealt by a nonlethal attack is nonlethal even in the case of overflow damage, Power Attack would never work with nonlethal damage. If you are dealing lethal damage, Power Attack would be added before any other effect to diminish or alter damage.
Awesome, good to know. That means that I probably understand where you're coming from now too. (Even though, as I said to Mallecks, that I disagree with you. But I see where you're coming from and it makes sense as to why you wouldn't allow someone to do nonlethal with power attack.)
That OOO was for the general case, not specifically for dealing nonlethal damage. If an attack dealt nonlethal then it would not receive the bonus damage from power attack.So you concede that Power Attack applies to nonlethal. Glad we got that over.I still don't understand. If someone is attacking with a sap, and the target they are attacking has non-lethal damage exceeding their hit points...
You claim that the attack will do lethal damage at the time you roll damage?
This is not the rules.
Give that a couple reads. Let me know which part is confusing you.
You have to know how much nonlethal damage has been done in order to make the conversion correctly. Therefore the conversion has to take place last in the order of operations. The most logical order would be:
1. Calculate damage including bonus damage for Power Attack, Sneak Attack, etc.2. Apply DR, Shield Other, Ablative Barrier and any other effects that reduce damage.
3. Convert any nonlethal damage over max hit points to lethal damage.
The conversion happens after the damage, therefore the conversion can't impact the damage that was dealt.
A nonlethal attack with overflow does lethal damage. You've quoted this rule and pointed it out yourself. If you found text that contradicts this, you should share it.
If all you have is your conjecture as you try to make your pet theory fit the text, then all you have is your pet theory that has holes in it.
Attacking and dealing damage (lethal or nonlethal) are not effects therefore the statement in Power Attack of "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." doesn't matter when it comes to lethal versus nonlethal weapon damage.
Neither type of damage is an effect and therefore the statement doesn't prevent the extra damage to being applied.
How do you parse "effects that do not deal hit point damage" if you exclude attacking and dealing damage from the term "effect"? Since power attack can only apply to attacks and specifically effects that deal hit point damage, it stands to reason that the damage from an attack constitutes an effect at least for the purposes of PA.
Oh, that's easy... There is nothing in Power Attack that says that the bonus damage is added to effects that do hit point damage (otherwise you could argue that a +1 Icy Burst Mace gets the power attack bonus damage twice; once from the weapon attack and again from the effect). Since attacking and weapon damage aren't effects (but a magic weapon special ability is) the effects of power attack are added to it. Therefore if you aren't doing damage with your weapon but you are doing an effect through it via a class skill, special ability, you're a Magus casting through your weapon... something like that.... those things have effects listed. Those effects aren't getting a bonus from Power Attack.
Got to agree that damage is an effect (I was going to argue the other side a couple of days ago, but persuaded myself). It is an effect of a successful attack roll (while not absolutely explicit in the rules, the very first sentence under Damage is “If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.” which is a clear cause and effect statement).
"Effect" is not defined as far as I can tell so it's open to interpretation. It seems reasonable to consider weapon damage an effect of an attack.
You're right, it is not defined. Just like how Hit Point Damage isn't clearly defined.
Lethal damage damages hit points (I don't think that can be argued).Nonlethal damage is damage that has an effect on hit points. (It is tracked with hit points, if your hit points are lowered to below the number of nonlethal damage you've taken that means you're unconscious.) Is this a fair statement that is supported by the rules as written?
Chemlak -- Fair enough; there's at least one instance which indicates that taking damage is an effect. I'll concede that point.
...That OOO was for the general case, not specifically for dealing nonlethal damage. If an attack dealt nonlethal then it would not receive the bonus damage from power attack.So you concede that Power Attack applies to nonlethal. Glad we got that over.I still don't understand. If someone is attacking with a sap, and the target they are attacking has non-lethal damage exceeding their hit points...
You claim that the attack will do lethal damage at the time you roll damage?
This is not the rules.
Give that a couple reads. Let me know which part is confusing you.
You have to know how much nonlethal damage has been done in order to make the conversion correctly. Therefore the conversion has to take place last in the order of operations. The most logical order would be:
1. Calculate damage including bonus damage for Power Attack, Sneak Attack, etc.2. Apply DR, Shield Other, Ablative Barrier and any other effects that reduce damage.
3. Convert any nonlethal damage over max hit points to lethal damage.
The conversion happens after the damage, therefore the conversion can't impact the damage that was dealt.
A nonlethal attack with overflow does lethal damage. You've quoted this rule and pointed it out yourself. If you found text that contradicts this, you should share it.
If all you have is your conjecture as you try to make your pet theory fit the text, then all you have is your pet theory that has
You can keep repeating this BS argument all you want, you still haven't provided a citation that backs you up.
The feat clearly says that lethal damage is eligible for the bonus. You've only changed your tune on this once you realized that this was a glaring hole in your argument. Changing your tune doesn't fix the hole, it just changes the wording of how your argument is bad.
Power Attack applies to lethal damage. Nonlethal overflow is treated as lethal damage. Therefore, Power Attack must apply to nonlethal overflow.
The problem is that your interpretation of nonlethal creates a paradox where Power Attack doesn't apply to damage that Power Attack applies to. Your interpretation makes this happen. The easy way to solve this problem is to realize that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, and boom, the problem is resolve comfortably. In fact, the problem never exists at all.
Power Attack is only added/removed due to the conditions of the ATTACK when you check to see if it is a touch attack or not. If it isn't a touch attack, then the type of attack is irrelevant.
Are you arguing that nonlethal attacks aren't melee attack rolls?
While hit point damage may not be clearly defined, it's use clearly shows it's meant to mean damage that reduces current hit points. Nothing has been shown to override that besides ignoring the text completely."Effect" is not defined as far as I can tell so it's open to interpretation. It seems reasonable to consider weapon damage an effect of an attack.You're right, it is not defined. Just like how Hit Point Damage isn't clearly defined.
Lethal damage damages hit points (I don't think that can be argued).
Nonlethal damage is damage that has an effect on hit points. (It is tracked with hit points, if your hit points are lowered to below the number of nonlethal damage you've taken that means you're unconscious.) Is this a fair statement that is supported by the rules as written?Chemlak -- Fair enough; there's at least one instance which indicates that taking damage is an effect. I'll concede that point.
Except that you aren't following this guideline. You are claiming that the lethal damage overflow doesn't qualify as hit point damage, because it doesn't benefit from Power Attack.
Also, your guideline means that we don't add Power Attack damage to any attack that doesn't get past DR without Power Attack.
Correct, and if they have taken enough damage for it to be overflowed, it is treated by them as lethal damage. Not treated as lethal damage after DR is applied, or immunities are applied, but treated as lethal damage.
There are several problems when treating the damage as lethal at the time of the damage roll.
For instance, if I attack with a sap to deal nonlethal damage, and it overflows into lethal damage, do I retroactively get -4 to my attack?
Also, this creates situations where attacks are both lethal and nonlethal.
Also Also, if an attack is both lethal and nonlethal at the same time, what is the order of operations that one applies DR to it, in the case of the Invulnerable Rager, who gets double DR against nonlethal?
Nonlethal attacks dealing lethal damage doesn't make sense. The conversion text is...
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
In order for a character to treat nonlethal damage as lethal damage, the character must receive the nonlethal damage. How can the character treat nonlethal damage that they don't have as anything if they don't have it yet.
Lethal damage damages hit points (I don't think that can be argued).
Nonlethal damage is damage that has an effect on hit points. (It is tracked with hit points, if your hit points are lowered to below the number of nonlethal damage you've taken that means you're unconscious.) Is this a fair statement that is supported by the rules as written?
Nonlethal damage has no effect on hit points. Again, this is illustrated with the question...
If I am at 10HP and I receive 1 nonlethal damage, how much HP do I have?
The answer is 10HP. The amount of nonlethal damage a character has has zero impact on their HP. A character is affected by certain conditions (staggered/unconscious) based on the relationship between the two.
The problem is that your interpretation of nonlethal creates a paradox where Power Attack doesn't apply to damage that Power Attack applies to.
The problem is your misunderstanding of how to use Power Attack. We can discuss it in here
Power Attack is only added/removed due to the conditions of the ATTACK when you check to see if it is a touch attack or not. If it isn't a touch attack, then the type of attack is irrelevant.
Please refer to previously linked thread to learn more of how Power Attack works.
Are you arguing that nonlethal attacks aren't melee attack rolls?
The argument is that nonlethal attacks deal nonlethal damage. The damage that exceeds the target's HP does not modify the type of attack it was. This causes problems where Saps overflowing damage would retroactively miss and cause situations where attacks can be both lethal and nonlethal at the same time.
Except that you aren't following this guideline. You are claiming that the lethal damage overflow doesn't qualify as hit point damage, because it doesn't benefit from Power Attack.
No. The claim is that nonlethal damage isn't HP damage. After the target receives damage that exceeds HP, it is treated as lethal damage. (aka: reducing hit points, isn't healed at a rate of 1 character lvl / hour, etc)
Lethal Damage overflow IS hit point damage, but it doesn't benefit from Power Attack because the lethal damage overflow doesn't happen when you roll damage. Power Attack grants +2 bonus damage on melee attack rolls. These two things just happen at different times.
Also, your guideline means that we don't add Power Attack damage to any attack that doesn't get past DR without Power Attack.
Wrong. Power Attack is applied to any melee attack that meets its conditions at the bonus roll. DR happens after damage is rolled. Power Attack has already happened. These two things just happen at different times.
...
Nonlethal overflow does hit point damage. Power Attack applies to hit point damage. The text of the feat is very clear on this.
Saying that Power Attack doesn't apply in this situation is a violation of the rules.
Saying that Power Attack applies part way through the damage process, is a strange situation not talked about in the rules.
You've gone from trying to claim that a strange situation is legal, to claiming a clear violation of the rules is correct. When presented with evidence, you two have actually decided to make your argument worse.
I understand how Power Attack works. It is you two that are failing at comprehending it.
Power Attack applies to lethal damage. If you don't apply Power Attack to the nonlethal overflow, you are not actually treating the overflow as lethal damage. But the rules say that you do treat it as lethal damage.
Power Attack applies to lethal damage.
Is nonlethal overflow lethal damage or not?
Nonlethal overflow does hit point damage. Power Attack applies to hit point damage. The text of the feat is very clear on this.Saying that Power Attack doesn't apply in this situation is a violation of the rules.
Saying that Power Attack applies part way through the damage process, is a strange situation not talked about in the rules.
You've gone from trying to claim that a strange situation is legal, to claiming a clear violation of the rules is correct. When presented with evidence, you two have actually decided to make your argument worse.
I understand how Power Attack works. It is you two that are failing at comprehending it.
Power Attack applies to lethal damage. If you don't apply Power Attack to the nonlethal overflow, you are not actually treating the overflow as lethal damage. But the rules say that you do treat it as lethal damage.
Power Attack applies to lethal damage.
Is nonlethal overflow lethal damage or not?
We aren't making progress and you claiming things about the "Nonlethal damage is not considered hit point damage" argument that are not true. Since this topic has started, people have changed positions, inconsistencies have been pointed out that have caused people to change what they think, etc.
As it stands now...
1. Hit Point Damage is damage that reduces hit points.
2. Nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points, therefore, it is not hit point damage.
3. A nonlethal attack's effect will always be nonlethal damage.
4. In order for nonlethal damage to be converted to lethal damage, the target must first take the nonlethal damage that exceeds the hit points.
5. Power Attack's damage increase is based on the effect of the attack roll.
Example:
Nonlethal Attack against character with 10 HP and 9 lethal damage.
1. The attacker makes a nonlethal attack roll and succeeds.
2. The attacker makes rolls damage. The effect of this attack is always nonlethal damage. [Power Attack is checked. After this step, we never look at it again.]
3. The target takes X nonlethal damage. In this example, we'll say they take 3 damage.
4. This damage is modified by spells, abilities, effects, whatever. [Damage Reduction, Ablative Barrier, etc.]
5. The target has nonlethal damage exceeding their total HP. The excess is treated as lethal damage.
The ONLY way that ANYTHING could possibly invalidate this stance, is if something happens between steps 1 and 2. The rollover of nonlethal damage becoming lethal damage does not happen before the damage is rolled. The target must first take the damage in order for it to exceed their total HP and then be converted.
It seems like you are trying to say that the way the target of the attack is going to receive the damage somehow modifies the way the attacker is attacking after the attack happens. I think Gallant Armor may have thought something like this (I can't remember if it was exactly this) but he has been shown that it was illogical, and I don't think anyone is claiming it now.
Can you show any examples or reasoning that the qualities of the target would modify anything about the damage roll specifically?
5. Power Attack's damage increase is based on the effect of the attack roll.
This is only true if you're talking about touch attacks versus normal melee attacks.
Are you claiming that nonlethal attacks are touch attacks?
As for you're example, you're inventing so much crap (and by crap, I mean excrement) that I don't even know where to begin.
The creature treats any damage damage taken over the overflow as lethal damage. Rather here's how it should play out.
Invuln Rager with dr 2/- has 3 hp till over flow
Hit by two attacks that deals 10 damage each
First Attack:
Because they haven't overflowed non-lethal yet the damage is treated as non-lethal. The damage is reduced by 4, and they take 6 damage, 3 of which are non-lethal, and 3 of which are actually lethal now. (they're also unconscious now)If they'd power attacked (they still can take the - to hit) nothing would have been applied if I used your standpoint for this thread (you don't apply power attack to nonlethal damage), because the initial damage was treated as non-lethal by the barb.
Second Attack:
Because they have overflowed non-lethal the damage is treated as lethal. The damage is reduced by 2, and they take 8 damage, all of which are lethal now.If they'd power attacked (they still can take the - to hit) that damage would have also been applied if I used your standpoint for this thread (you don't apply power attack to nonlethal damage), because the initial damage was treated as lethal by the barb.
No.
It's possible that something has been confused as the arguments have progressed. Where people have been presenting their own arguments and each others arguments and everything else....
Power Attack against Invulnerable Rager: Power Attack when nonlethal is not considered hit point damage.
20 HP and 17 nonlethal damage, DR4/lethal, DR2/-. Two attacks that do 10 nonlethal damage each.
Attack 1:
1. Attack roll succeeds.
2. Deal 10 nonlethal damage. [Power Attack ineligible, it is not hit point damage.]
3. The target modifies the incoming damage from 10 nonlethal to 6 nonlethal.
4. The target takes 6 nonlethal damage.
5. The target has 23 nonlethal damage and 20 HP. 3 of the nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
Attack 2:
1. Attack roll succeeds.
2. Deal 10 nonlethal damage. [Power Attack ineligible, it is not hit point damage.]
3. The target modifies the incoming damage from 10 nonlethal to 6 nonlethal.
4. The target takes 6 nonlethal damage.
5. The target has 26 nonlethal damage and 20 HP. 6 of the nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
That's the current argument for nonlethal damage not being hit point damage in that situation.
5. Power Attack's damage increase is based on the effect of the attack roll.
This is only true if you're talking about touch attacks versus normal melee attacks.
Are you claiming that nonlethal attacks are touch attacks?
Why do you believe this would be the case?
Simple question: Where in the rules does it say that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage?
Why do you believe this would be the case?
5. Power Attack's damage increase is based on the effect of the attack roll.
This is only true if you're talking about touch attacks versus normal melee attacks.
Are you claiming that nonlethal attacks are touch attacks?
Because you referenced "attack roll". The only exclusionary clause in Power Attack is in reference to "touch attacks". If you want to claim that the "attack roll" is an exclusionary cause for Power Attack, the only type of "attack roll" that is exclusionary is a touch attack.
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Please highlight the exclusionary language you want to apply.
I'm finding your retorts to me right now, as enlightening as when you thought you "had" me on the "can't act while Dead" discussion.
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
The effect of an attack roll to make nonlethal damage would be an "effect that does not deal hit point damage." Causing it to be ineligible for use with Power Attack.
The bolded text doesn't say anything about an attack roll.
The effect and attack roll are separate things. They're linked, and related, but they are not synonyms. You cannot replace one with the other; they are not interchangeable.
The bolded text doesn't say anything about an attack roll.
If you review my stance, you will see that Power Attack is ineligible at the damage roll, which is the effect of the attack roll. I never said anything about checking the attack roll.
Even if the attack WAS a touch attack, you wouldn't check it at the attack roll. You would check it at the damage roll anyway.
EDIT:
Ok, I see what you are saying.
You are saying that damage rolls are not the effect of attack rolls?
No, I am pointing out to you that the attack roll and damage roll are two separate rolls. Not all attack rolls include damage, and not all damage rolls include attack rolls. An attack roll can have many effects, one of which is a damage roll. That does not mean that the damage roll and attack roll are THE SAME THING. They are different things.
When a feat talks about damage rolls, you don't add/subtract the number from attack rolls. The same applies to things that talk about attack rolls. These are distinct game mechanics. They do interact with each other a lot, and attack rolls often have the effect of causing a damage roll. But that doesn't mean that damage effect means attack roll.
If Power Attack said:
"The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks, nonlethal attacks, or effects that do not deal hit point damage."
Then what you're saying would be true, but the italicized portion does not exist. Unless you have a citation that says something very similar.
No, I am pointing out to you that the attack roll and damage roll are two separate rolls. Not all attack rolls include damage, and not all damage rolls include attack rolls. An attack roll can have many effects, one of which is a damage roll. That does not mean that the damage roll and attack roll are THE SAME THING. They are different things.
When a feat talks about damage rolls, you don't add/subtract the number from attack rolls. The same applies to things that talk about attack rolls. These are distinct game mechanics. They do interact with each other a lot, and attack rolls often have the effect of causing a damage roll. But that doesn't mean that damage roll means attack roll.
Right, so...
1. Choose to use Power Attack
2. Make an melee attack roll at -1
3. If attack roll is successful, the effects of the attack roll happen.
4. Damage rolls is an effect of a success roll, time to add Power Attack damage. Checks to see if the attack was an attack roll was a touch attack or an effect that does not do hit point damage. [Here, depending on which side of the nonlethal argument you are on, the bonus damage is either applied or not applied.]
I'm not treating the attack and damage rolls as the same thing. Damage rolls are effects. Nonlethal damage rolls are effects that would not do hit point damage.
Except, we know that Nonlethal damage rolls CAN do hit point damage. It says in the nonlethal damage rules, to treat all overflow as lethal damage.
If you don't add Power Attack, than you are treating that overflow damage as something like lethal damage light, some new category that acts just like lethal damage, but isn't eligible for certain bonuses that normally apply to lethal damage.
Power Attack applies to lethal damage. If nonlethal is TREATED JUST LIKE LETHAL, than Power Attack must be applied to it as well, otherwise you are NOT treating it like lethal.
Do you have a source that says that nonlethal overflow is treated the same as lethal... except in [blank] circumstances?
or
Do you have a source that says that Power Attack does not apply to all lethal damage?
Last Edit:
To recap, interpreting nonlethal damage as something other than hit point damage has one of two results.
1) It causes damage calculations to function in an awkward way that has never been clarified once in the history of the game in the 10 previous years that it existed.
or
2) It creates a new category of damage that is treated like lethal damage, except that it isn't treated like lethal damage.