As per the official game term for "healing" it is not possible to heal nonlethal damage.
Quote:
After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing.
Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points. Changing the amount of nonlethal damage a target has tracked has zero impact on their remaining HP.See, here's where you make your misreading...again...as per the PRD
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.So, even by your misreading of healing, healing nonlethal is "healing" at a rate in "hit points". Healing is healing is healing is healing, nonlethal, lethal, ability points, all able to be healed as per the PRD.
If "healing" isn't healing in regards to non-lethal, please, show me where it tells us what it is, because the rule book clearly states that non-lethal is healed, and it is healed in hit points.
Hit Points (hp): Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally. [/b]Wounds subtract hit points, while healing (both natural and magical) restores hit points.[/b] Some abilities and spells grant temporary hit points that disappear after a specific duration. When a creature's hit points drop below 0, it becomes unconscious. When a creature's hit points reach a negative total equal to its Constitution score, it dies.
1. Wounds subtract hit points. Nonlethal doesn't subtract hit points.
2. Healing restores hit points. It is not possible for this to apply to nonlethal.Healing
After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing. In any case, you can't regain hit points past your full normal hit point total.Natural Healing: With a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.
If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you [/b]recover twice your character level in hit points[/b].
Magical Healing: Various abilities and spells can restore hit points.
Healing Limits: You can never recover more hit points than you lost. Magical healing won't raise your current hit points higher than your full normal hit point total.
Healing Ability Damage: Temporary ability damage returns at the rate of 1 point per night of rest (8 hours) for each affected ability score. Complete bed rest restores 2 points per day (24 hours) for each affected ability score.
1. All references to hit point damage in the healing section refer to modifying the HP value. (recover/restore) Nonlethal damage doesn't modify the HP value.
2. Nonlethal damage is not mentioned at all in the healing section.
Nonlethal Damage
Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest.Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: 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.
Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Staggered and Unconscious: When your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered. You can only take a standard action or a move action in each round (in addition to free, immediate, and swift actions). You cease being staggered when your current hit points once again exceed your nonlethal damage.
When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. While unconscious, you are helpless.
Spellcasters who fall unconscious retain any spellcasting ability they had before going unconscious.
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. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
The mechanic of "healing" as defined by the game doesn't interact with nonlethal damage. It's possible that it was used in a common way, instead of a technical way. However, as I stated in a different post, that would be extremely convenient for my position.
The rule defining how healing applies to nonlethal uses heal in part of its definition. Then goes on to specifically refer to nonlethal damage as a separate thing other than hit point damage.
With what I have seen so far, I would say I could probably be convinced that the game set up a specific definition for "healing" in regards to nonlethal damage that is to "remove X amount of nonlethal damage."
The mechanic of "healing" as defined by the game doesn't interact with nonlethal damage. It's possible that it was used in a common way, instead of a technical way. However, as I stated in a different post, that would be extremely convenient for my position.
The rule defining how healing applies to nonlethal uses heal in part of its definition. Then goes on to specifically refer to nonlethal damage as a separate thing other than hit point damage.
With what I have seen so far, I would say I could probably be convinced that the game set up a specific definition for "healing" in regards to nonlethal damage that is to "remove X amount of nonlethal damage."
This is what you think RAI, not RAW, RAW, nonlethal is healed, in hit points. You can theorize about how they intended it or not, it is stated quite plainly, Nonlethal damaged is healed, at a rate in hit points.
It doesn't refer to it as something separate, it is included as an addition. You heal 'real' damage, AND non-lethal damage.
The "healing" mechanic, as defined every, does not mechanically interact with nonlethal damage. At best, you can argue that the definition provided under "healing nonlethal damage" sets up a game definition that means "healing" = "removing nonlethal damage." Though, it isn't explicitly stated and that is not the definition of healing.
The "healing nonlethal damage" rule says you can heal nonlethal damage. However, this is not possible with the interaction of those two abilities. I can say they meant it as a common term, you can say they meant it as a technical term. Either way, we are arguing RAI and we will have to agree to disagree unless you can show how the technical term of healing applies to nonlethal damage. Can you provide an example?
I have a character at max HP of 10 HP and 8 nonlethal damage. Using the technical definition of healing, please describe nonlethal damage is "healed."
On my phone.Ok, so, you have some excess nonlethal damage coming in. You are going to treat it as lethal damage.
Do you write down in the "nonlethal damage tally" or do you subtract it from your hit points? Keep in mind, whatever you answer will apply to all lethal damage, since that is what you are treating it as.
I originally thought you were posting from your phone. Have I backed you into a corner significantly enough that you will just continue to ignore this particular discussion along with the others you continue to ignore and/or misrepresent?
You asked where I write the damage down. I "write" it on my phone.
My grandfather took me fishing when I was a kid very often. I didn't enjoy it. I'm not a fan of fishing.
You already know my answer to the question. Since you were "fishing" for an answer, I decided to be obtuse.
Also note, since this is the first dumb thing you said in the post, I didn't bother reading the rest. Yes, I am being a little bit of a jerk. I find this conversation somewhat frustrating, so I'm going to extra my fun/vengeance where I can. Specifically I find your obtuseness to obvious rules in the text frustrating and telling us that we need to ignore text, or completely change it's meaning in order to support your argument. This is then compounded that you insist that this method of ignoring text, and reading it in ways that makes the text harder to apply and use is the "correct" way.
If you don't like my attitude, feel free to stop replying to me.
Sheesh, you two keep digging a deeper and deeper hole.
Anyone else: Here's some more evidence that this is probably wrong.
You guys: But wait!If you interpret that even worse, we're still right!
I am trying to at least reach a point that we can say that we can agree to disagree.
At this point it seems like you're so set that nonlethal isn't hit point damage your arguments are forcing you to pick and choose when game terms are defined and when they aren't.
The rules say that when you cure hit point damage you also remove nonlethal so that "proves" to you that nonlethal isn't hit point damage but when the rules say that nonlethal is healed and refers to hit points you have to ignore those two things to suit your argument.To suit your argument you have decided that the nonlethal section is changing the definition of the word "heal" (and changing it in such a way that when only talking about nonlethal it means something different than any other time it's referenced in the books) but you can't accept that, rather than changing the definition of "hit point damage," the nonlethal rules simply add to the definition.
Not really.
I am not changing the definition of the word heal. You guys are. How do I know? Because I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of how to "heal" nonlethal damage as per the game mechanic and only referred back to the rule I am asking an example of.
"All weapons do hit point damage."
Can you provide an example of how a weapon dealing hit point damage would work?
"All weapons do hit point damage."
This is basically the conversation we just had. How do you heal nonlethal damage? You heal it at 1 HP/CL/Hour. Yeah, but how do you actually heal the damage? You heal it at 1 HP/CL/Hour.
I am looking for how the mechanics of healing happen in regard to nonlethal damage. I am saying it is not possible as per the game definition. You are saying it can be done. All you have to do is explain it.
10 max hp. Full health. 8 nonlethal damage.
How is this healed per the definition of healing in the game? After 1 hour, you heal 1 nonlethal damage? Whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage, it is not possible for a nonlethal damage to be "healed" as it does not damage a statistic.
You are saying that despite "healing" as defined by the game has no meaning in the context, we can just assume its definition and that it means that you can heal nonlethal damage and it means... I'm not sure exactly what anyone thinks it means because they only keep referring back to the rule. I have suggested it could mean that it removes nonlethal damage, but this isn't defined anywhere.
What's more likely? They used the game term in a situation where it literally does not make sense and we are supposed to figure it out or they used the common definition?
Not really.
I am not changing the definition of the word heal. You guys are. How do I know? Because I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of how to "heal" nonlethal damage as per the game mechanic and only referred back to the rule I am asking an example of.
"All weapons do hit point damage."
Can you provide an example of how a weapon dealing hit point damage would work?
"All weapons do hit point damage."
Which part confuses you?
All weapons?Do?
Hit point damage?
Which part of that sentence do you find confusing?
10 max hp. Full health. 8 nonlethal damage.How is this healed per the definition of healing in the game? After 1 hour, you heal 1 nonlethal damage? Whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage, it is not possible for a nonlethal damage to be "healed" as it does not damage a statistic.
I'm going to blow your mind right now. Imagine, just for a second... that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. If it were damage to hit points, but in a subset different from lethal damage... would it make sense to you that it is "healed"?
Because you're right, if you don't consider it damage to hit points, then it is super confusing. How can you heal something that isn't damage? It doesn't seem possible. It makes the rules really confusing.
I'm going to let you in on a secret that no one realizes yet. Nonlethal damage is hit point damage. And it makes everything okay.
Mallecks, are you trying to say that you can't heal nonlethal and that it's simply removed? Even though the rules say you heal it?
Whereas, if you accept that nonlethal is hit point damage you're able to heal it in such a way that the rules say you heal it?
Hmmm... what does CLW do to a character who has only taken nonlethal damage?
Since nonlethal is a form of hit point damage that would mean that CLW would heal the rolled result (plus bonus based on level) twice. Once for the spell and once because of the rules as to what happens when you heal hit point damage.
Which would demonstrate why they worded it as "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage". (Because if it was "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also heals an equal amount of nonlethal damage" would indicate that you could create a loop that would cure all nonlethal damage by simply healing even a single point of damage. "Oh! I heal 1 point of hit point damage therefore I heal 1 nonlethal, which is hit point damage, therefore I heal 1 nonlethal, which is hit point damage, therefore....")
The logical reason that they reference "hit point damage" in the statement "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" is because you don't deal nonlethal damage based on healing stat damage.
I feel that that is unfair. I think the problem is that both sides operate very similarly and internally consistent within their interpretation.
This is not true.
The people claiming that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage are ignoring rules text in certain interactions in order to make their interpretation correct. This has been covered more than once.
Also, it should be noted that the quote you examine last IS NOT FROM THE RULES, but rather is something written by a person interpreting the rules on the PFSRD website.
Which part confuses you?
All weapons?
Do?
Hit point damage?Which part of that sentence do you find confusing?
I was using an example of how others were not providing an explanation of how a rule works, merely repeating the rule.
I'm going to blow your mind right now. Imagine, just for a second... that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. If it were damage to hit points, but in a subset different from lethal damage... would it make sense to you that it is "healed"?
Because you're right, if you don't consider it damage to hit points, then it is super confusing. How can you heal something that isn't damage? It doesn't seem possible. It makes the rules really confusing.
I'm going to let you in on a secret that no one realizes yet. Nonlethal damage is hit point damage. And it makes everything okay.
1. If we assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, what it make sense that it is healed? No. It wouldn't. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points and thus cannot be healed. This is an accurate interpretation of healing and nonlethal damage regardless of the labels you assign it.
2. It is equally confusing for nonlethal damage regardless if it is hit point damage. Healing restores hit points. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points, and thus, healing does not interact with it.
3. Nonlethal damage not being hit point damage certainly makes you believe that there are problems. The closest thing to there being a problem so far is whether or not Regeneration should heal nonlethal damage. I'm not sure I agree with the suggested interaction of the two rules, but even if I did agree, there is no logical requirement that Regeneration must heal nonlethal.
Mallecks, are you trying to say that you can't heal nonlethal and that it's simply removed? Even though the rules say you heal it?
Whereas, if you accept that nonlethal is hit point damage you're able to heal it in such a way that the rules say you heal it?
Whether or not healing is hit point damage, it is not possible to heal it as defined by the rules. Nonlethal damage does not deduct hit points. Healing restores hit points. These two things do not interact.
The only definition provided for healing nonlethal is as follows...
1. To heal nonlethal damage naturally at a rate of 1 / CL / Hour.
2. When you heal lethal damage you remove an equal amount of nonlethal.
The second part of the definition is fine. The first part of the definition does not make sense. It uses the word heal, which doesn't natively apply to nonlethal damage. We can't use the nonlethal healing rule, because this is the nonlethal healing rule.
or...
"Heal" used in that sentence is the common term and not the game's technical term.
Can you provide an example of the game's healing mechanic being applied to nonlethal damage?
Again....as per the rules...
Nonlethal DamageNonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest.
With rest...naturally. Like lethal damage...but at a faster rate...how much faster, well...surprisingly that's in the rules too
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.There it is, in game mechanics...you heal it naturally, at a rate (in hit points) of 1HP/Lvl/Hour. Now, your claiming this can't be right because non-lethal is not hit point damage...so either you're wrong, or the rules are wrong.
That's what the rule says. I am looking for an example of that rule working. I'm not claiming it is wrong because nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, I am claiming it is wrong because nonlethal doesn't damage hit points, regardless of whether it considered hit point damage or not. Healing restores hit points. Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points. These two things do not interact.
You could also use a cure spell, say Cure Light Wounds which would do
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5).And when we look at non-lethal damage it further explains this
When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
So you rolled a 6, it would heal 6 lethal damage, AND 6 non-lethal damage.
As I stated before, you can argue that "healing nonlethal" means any time that you remove nonlethal damage. However, that is not what the rule says.
Hmmm... what does CLW do to a character who has only taken nonlethal damage?
It depends on your interpretation of the rules. I will provide the relevant ones.
You can never recover more hit points than you lost. Magical healing won't raise your current hit points higher than your full normal hit point total.
When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.
Max 10 HP, 8 nonlethal damage.
Someone casts CLW and heals this person for 5 damage. There are two interpretations.
1. You can't be healed past your max. The spell CLW in this example will not cure any hit point damage, therefore it heals zero nonlethal damage.
2. The spell itself heals hit point damage. As per the Healing nonlethal rule, this means the spell or ability also heals an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Does the "when" of "when a spell or ability heals hit point damage" applies to when it is cast / exists or when the hit point damage is actually cured?
I believe that number 2 is the case. If someone casts a CLW spell, the "effect" of the spell would be that it is going to "cure X damage" regardless of damage the target has. In the example provided, we would say that the target was cured for 5, not 0. However, just like Regeneration, I am OK with healing spells only removing nonlethal if I can be persuaded of the first case. There is no logical requirement that a spell that heals lethal damage must also heal nonlethal damage. I only believe it does because of the rule.
Since nonlethal is a form of hit point damage that would mean that CLW would heal the rolled result (plus bonus based on level) twice. Once for the spell and once because of the rules as to what happens when you heal hit point damage.
Which would demonstrate why they worded it as "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage". (Because if it was "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also heals an equal amount of nonlethal damage" would indicate that you could create a loop that would cure all nonlethal damage by simply healing even a single point of damage. "Oh! I heal 1 point of hit point damage therefore I heal 1 nonlethal, which is hit point damage, therefore I heal 1 nonlethal, which is hit point damage, therefore....")The logical reason that they reference "hit point damage" in the statement "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" is because you don't deal nonlethal damage based on healing stat damage.
1. Let's assume that CLW can directly heal nonlethal damage as you suggest.
There is a creature that has 5 lethal damage and 10 nonlethal damage. They are healed for 5 damage. Which is healed first? The lethal or nonlethal? They are both hit point damage... and the CLW could heal the nonlethal by itself... and there are no rules that I am aware of that dictate lethal damage must be healed first.
Could they heal all 10 nonlethal instead of the 5 lethal? Why does the 5 lethal existing change the effect of the spell?
2. It is also possible that hit point damage is used in the nonlethal healing rule because nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
1. If we assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, what it make sense that it is healed? No. It wouldn't. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points and thus cannot be healed. This is an accurate interpretation of healing and nonlethal damage regardless of the labels you assign it.
2. It is equally confusing for nonlethal damage regardless if it is hit point damage. Healing restores hit points. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points, and thus, healing does not interact with it.
3. Nonlethal damage not being hit point damage certainly makes you believe that there are problems. The closest thing to there being a problem so far is whether or not Regeneration should heal nonlethal damage. I'm not sure I agree with the suggested interaction of the two rules, but even if I did agree, there is no logical requirement that Regeneration must heal nonlethal.
I asked you to imagine for a moment if it was true... and your response was to refuse to do so. You didn't actually examine the idea at all, you decided it was wrong without considering it.
All this stuff is confusing to you, and there are so many holes, because you are choosing to view the rules in a way that is incorrect. The problems created by your stance mount, while no problems exist for mine.
Mallecks, are we discussing the exact wording of the rules or what the obvious intention is meant by them?
Because, sometimes, rulebooks are written in such a way that, in order to save on word-count for many different reasons, so long as the obvious conclusion can be drawn they don't spell things out as if it's a technical manual and instead something that people don't hate reading.
1. If we assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, what it make sense that it is healed? No. It wouldn't. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points and thus cannot be healed. This is an accurate interpretation of healing and nonlethal damage regardless of the labels you assign it.
2. It is equally confusing for nonlethal damage regardless if it is hit point damage. Healing restores hit points. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points, and thus, healing does not interact with it.
3. Nonlethal damage not being hit point damage certainly makes you believe that there are problems. The closest thing to there being a problem so far is whether or not Regeneration should heal nonlethal damage. I'm not sure I agree with the suggested interaction of the two rules, but even if I did agree, there is no logical requirement that Regeneration must heal nonlethal.
I asked you to imagine for a moment if it was true... and your response was to refuse to do so. You didn't actually examine the idea at all, you decided it was wrong without considering it.
All this stuff is confusing to you, and there are so many holes, because you are choosing to view the rules in a way that is incorrect. The problems created by your stance mount, while no problems exist for mine.
Incorrect, I assumed that "nonlethal damage is hit point damage" when examining the situation in the first case. Regardless of whether or not we apply the label "hit point damage" to nonlethal damage. It does not damage hit points, it is tracked separately. Healing does not have a mechanical effect on the nonlethal damage, no matter what you call it. Because healing restores hit points and nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points.
Mallecks, are we discussing the exact wording of the rules or what the obvious intention is meant by them?
Because, sometimes, rulebooks are written in such a way that, in order to save on word-count for many different reasons, so long as the obvious conclusion can be drawn they don't spell things out as if it's a technical manual and instead something that people don't hate reading.
How does one conclude what is an obvious intention? Butt_Luckily has identified several posts in the past on this topic that have come to either conclusion. So, it isn't like we are breaking new ground here.
Okay, let me try this again...
Mallecks, are we discussing RAW or RAI?
Okay, let me try this again...
Mallecks, are we discussing RAW or RAI?
RAW
Okay, glad we were able to clear that up...
So, the rules kind of contradict themselves in that the game terms for healing doesn't work with the way that they define nonlethal damage. And since you can't technically heal nonlethal as written your stance is that this is proof that nonlethal doesn't count as hit point damage. Is that correct?
Plus the fact that the statement "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" references both hit point damage and nonlethal damage as if they're two different things.
Forgive, there's been a lot quoting things back and forth which has lead to a couple of things being brought up for many pages now, all worded with slightly different arguments. Let me know if there's other points that I'm missing.
Okay, glad we were able to clear that up...
So, the rules kind of contradict themselves in that the game terms for healing doesn't work with the way that they define nonlethal damage. And since you can't technically heal nonlethal as written your stance is that this is proof that nonlethal doesn't count as hit point damage. Is that correct?
Plus the fact that the statement "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" references both hit point damage and nonlethal damage as if they're two different things.Forgive, there's been a lot quoting things back and forth which has lead to a couple of things being brought up for many pages now, all worded with slightly different arguments. Let me know if there's other points that I'm missing.
I don't believe nonlethal damage is hit point damage because hit point damage is defined as damage that reduces hit points. Nonlethal damage doesn't do this.
Also, nonlethal damage is never referred to as hit point damage. It is never treated as hit point damage. It interacts differently with mechanics than hit point damage.
The "Healing Nonlethal Damage" rule is only being discussed at length in the recent posts because of the point of regeneration. I was trying to say that nothing ever "heals" regeneration. However, I realized in posts discussing it that regeneration would qualify as "healing nonlethal" as per the second clause of the "healing nonlethal damage" rule.
In general, the way "healing nonlethal damage" interacts with the other rules has little-to-no impact on the overarching debate of whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage. The text of the healing nonlethal damage rule is evidence that they are different concepts, but not necessarily so. The rule can be logically consistent whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
|
Okay, glad we were able to clear that up...
So, the rules kind of contradict themselves in that the game terms for healing doesn't work with the way that they define nonlethal damage. And since you can't technically heal nonlethal as written your stance is that this is proof that nonlethal doesn't count as hit point damage. Is that correct?
Plus the fact that the statement "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" references both hit point damage and nonlethal damage as if they're two different things.Forgive, there's been a lot quoting things back and forth which has lead to a couple of things being brought up for many pages now, all worded with slightly different arguments. Let me know if there's other points that I'm missing.
I don't believe nonlethal damage is hit point damage because hit point damage is defined as damage that reduces hit points. Nonlethal damage doesn't do this.
Also, nonlethal damage is never referred to as hit point damage. It is never treated as hit point damage. It interacts differently with mechanics than hit point damage.
The "Healing Nonlethal Damage" rule is only being discussed at length in the recent posts because of the point of regeneration. I was trying to say that nothing ever "heals" regeneration. However, I realized in posts discussing it that regeneration would qualify as "healing nonlethal" as per the second clause of the "healing nonlethal damage" rule.
In general, the way "healing nonlethal damage" interacts with the other rules has little-to-no impact on the overarching debate of whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage. The text of the healing nonlethal damage rule is evidence that they are different concepts, but not necessarily so. The rule can be logically consistent whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
Well... your VL and VC are going to tell you you are wrong. Every other GM at a Con is going to tell you you are wrong. Everyone on here is trying to tell you you are wrong. So the sooner you admit you are wrong, the better off you will be. It is ok to be wrong, by the way. It is called "learning." To continue to claim "it could be this" when it's been beat to death with 300+ posts (more on other threads) is just you being obtuse and refusing - intentionally - to learn the rules correctly. When the world says "NO" - the answer is probably no. Just the way it goes sometimes. Non-lethal is a kind of hit point damage. It just isn't the same kind as "real" (right out of the rules, they use "real" in quotes) hit point damage. The use of quotes indicates "as if the same, but not exactly." So you're wrong if you think it isn't hit point damage. It is "hit point damage." The same as before, just in quotes because it is non-lethal.
I'm going to see if I can address these all.
You are right:
1) As written, you can't heal nonlethal damage. (But the book more often describes reducing nonlethal damage as being healed instead of removed. In fact, I believe that the statement in the next point is the only time nonlethal damage is described as being 'removed' in the CRB.)
2) "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" does give the idea that they'e two different things. (But they had to somehow identify that you don't remove nonlethal when stat damage was healed.)
3) You do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. (But nonlethal reduces the amount of lethal damage you can take before you pass out so nonlethal does have an effect on hit points.)
4) It is not referred to as hit point damage. (But again, we're aware that it reduces the amount of damage you can take before you pass out.)
Is there anything in this that you disagree with?
|
|
I'm going to see if I can address these all.
You are right:
1) As written, you can't heal nonlethal damage. (But the book more often describes reducing nonlethal damage as being healed instead of removed. In fact, I believe that the statement in the next point is the only time nonlethal damage is described as being 'removed' in the CRB.)
2) "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" does give the idea that they'e two different things. (But they had to somehow identify that you don't remove nonlethal when stat damage was healed.)
3) You do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. (But nonlethal reduces the amount of lethal damage you can take before you pass out so nonlethal does have an effect on hit points.)
4) It is not referred to as hit point damage. (But again, we're aware that it reduces the amount of damage you can take before you pass out.)Is there anything in this that you disagree with?
1) when real hit point damage is healed, you remove "real" (non-lethal) hit point damage in equal amounts. 2) This illustrates their similarities, not their difference. One real, one "real." Both healed with the same spell/healing. 3) This, again, is because non-lethal hit point damage is not "real" hit point damage. It is hit point damage. Just not real hit point damage. It is it's own pool. In quotes. Just like real damage, it is "real" in a sense of being hit point damage.
4) It is referred to as "not "real" damage" - meaning it IS just like real hit point damage, just recorded differently.The only confusing part of this entire thing is that they use quotes. Failure to understand the statement "not "real" damage" is the entire cause of confusion. And thanks to rules lawyers, quotes apparently invalidates everything instead of delivering the meaning it is meant to confer. The meaning is quite clear to anyone who does not decide to ignore the "not "real" damage" statement. It means exactly that it is just like real damage, only recorded differently (added up instead of subtracted from). It IS hit point damage, of the not "real" type (non-lethal).
Maouse -- I don't disagree with you but since it's Mallecks that I'm trying to understand I'm attempting to make sure that I fully understanding where he's coming from based strictly on rules as written.
You're saying the same type of things that people have been saying to Mallecks for way too many posts and pretty much this entire thread is people repeating the same things at each other over and over again which is getting us nowhere.
Incorrect, I assumed that "nonlethal damage is hit point damage" when examining the situation in the first case. Regardless of whether or not we apply the label "hit point damage" to nonlethal damage. It does not damage hit points, it is tracked separately. Healing does not have a mechanical effect on the nonlethal damage, no matter what you call it. Because healing restores hit points and nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points.1. If we assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, what it make sense that it is healed? No. It wouldn't. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points and thus cannot be healed. This is an accurate interpretation of healing and nonlethal damage regardless of the labels you assign it.
2. It is equally confusing for nonlethal damage regardless if it is hit point damage. Healing restores hit points. Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points, and thus, healing does not interact with it.
3. Nonlethal damage not being hit point damage certainly makes you believe that there are problems. The closest thing to there being a problem so far is whether or not Regeneration should heal nonlethal damage. I'm not sure I agree with the suggested interaction of the two rules, but even if I did agree, there is no logical requirement that Regeneration must heal nonlethal.
I asked you to imagine for a moment if it was true... and your response was to refuse to do so. You didn't actually examine the idea at all, you decided it was wrong without considering it.
All this stuff is confusing to you, and there are so many holes, because you are choosing to view the rules in a way that is incorrect. The problems created by your stance mount, while no problems exist for mine.
Except nonlethal can damage hit points. It is literally in the rules.
If you say it isn't in the rules, or deny this fact, then you are either stupid or lying, because it is in the rules. You two keep denying this, but the rules EXPLICITLY say that nonlethal can cause hit point damage, and spell out the process for it.
Non-lethal is a kind of hit point damage. It just isn't the same kind as "real" (right out of the rules, they use "real" in quotes) hit point damage. The use of quotes indicates "as if the same, but not exactly." So you're wrong if you think it isn't hit point damage. It is "hit point damage." The same as before, just in quotes because it is non-lethal.
1. Please provide evidence where Nonlethal is defined as a kind of hit point damage.
2. Please provide evidence that the use of quotes around a word means "as if the same, but not exactly" and how exactly one determines which qualities remain the same and which ones differ between the two concepts being compared. When I see the use of the quotes around the word real in the nonlethal damage definition, I believe they are scare quotes.I'm going to see if I can address these all.
You are right:
1) As written, you can't heal nonlethal damage. (But the book more often describes reducing nonlethal damage as being healed instead of removed. In fact, I believe that the statement in the next point is the only time nonlethal damage is described as being 'removed' in the CRB.)
2) "When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage" does give the idea that they'e two different things. (But they had to somehow identify that you don't remove nonlethal when stat damage was healed.)
3) You do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. (But nonlethal reduces the amount of lethal damage you can take before you pass out so nonlethal does have an effect on hit points.)
4) It is not referred to as hit point damage. (But again, we're aware that it reduces the amount of damage you can take before you pass out.)Is there anything in this that you disagree with?
1. As our conversation has developed, it has revealed that it IS possible to heal nonlethal damage in two cases.
1a. Healing at the natural rate. [This is the contentious clause. As it does not make sense with the technical term of healing.]1b. When healing lethal, you remove an equal amount of nonlethal.
Given the above, you can in fact "heal" nonlethal. It is the game definition of healing nonlethal. If you are not healing at the natural rate or healing lethal and then removing nonlethal, then you cannot heal nonlethal.
2. They could have worded the ability many ways. I personally consider this as evidence that the two are separate concepts. However, I agree that it is still logically consistent whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage. The only difference would be in situations where you double dip for nonlethal. Both sides are logically consistent.
3. You do not deduct nonlethal damage from your current HP. The fact that this means you can take less lethal damage before you become staggered or fall unconscious has zero impact on hit points. The nonlethal damage is modifying the condition of the character, not changing their hit points.
Constitution damage, drain, and negative levels all "change how much lethal damage you can take before you pass out" and we don't consider these hit point damage either. That alone isn't enough to be considered hit point damage.
In fact, and I may be going out on a limb here.... any damage that damages the hit point statistic is hit point damage. That's really the only requirement.
4. Unconsciousness as a condition is caused by more things than hit point damage. The fact that nonlethal damage causes it is meaningless.
Except nonlethal can damage hit points. It is literally in the rules.
If you say it isn't in the rules, or deny this fact, then you are either stupid or lying, because it is in the rules. You two keep denying this, but the rules EXPLICITLY say that nonlethal can cause hit point damage, and spell out the process for it.
1. Nonlethal damage cannot damage hit points. The rules state...
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points.
And
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.
We were discussing this point earlier, but you decided you didn't want to continue that discussion. When incoming nonlethal damage is in excess of your HP, it is treated as lethal damage. It isn't tallied in your nonlethal damage tally, it is deducted from your HP. If you feel uncomfortable with the term "convert" that's fine, we can just say "treat as" since that is the game term. However, it loses all qualities of nonlethal damage and gains all qualities of lethal damage.
2. The fact that enough nonlethal damage CAN cause lethal damage in a specific situation doesn't mean that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. Nonlethal damage can cause unconsciousness or the target to be staggered, and I don't think we consider nonlethal damage a condition.
EDIT:
Scenario 1:
A caster casts a Merciful Fireball and hits 4 creatures. They roll 10 damage.
Creature 1: 10 HP, 0 nonlethal damage.
Creature 2: 10 HP, 8 nonlethal damage.
Creature 3: 10 HP, 0 nonlethal damage. Reflex saves for half.
Creature 4: 10 HP, 8 nonlethal damage. Reflex saves for half.
What is the effect of the spell? Would it be anything other than 10 nonlethal damage?
Scenario 2:
A caster casts CLW on a target with 3 lethal damage and 6 nonlethal damage. They roll a 3.
Assuming that nonlethal damage is hit point damage and can be cured directly as some have suggested...
How does CLW interact with the damage? Does it cure lethal damage first or the nonlethal damage first? The healing spell applies to both "types" of hit point damage simultaneously.
1. As our conversation has developed, it has revealed that it IS possible to heal nonlethal damage in two cases.
1a. Healing at the natural rate. [This is the contentious clause. As it does not make sense with the technical term of healing.]
1b. When healing lethal, you remove an equal amount of nonlethal.
Given the above, you can in fact "heal" nonlethal. It is the game definition of healing nonlethal. If you are not healing at the natural rate or healing lethal and then removing nonlethal, then you cannot heal nonlethal.2. They could have worded the ability many ways. I personally consider this as evidence that the two are separate concepts. However, I agree that it is still logically consistent whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage. The only difference would be in situations where you double dip for nonlethal. Both sides are logically consistent.
3. You do not deduct nonlethal damage from your current HP. The fact that this means you can take less lethal damage before you become staggered or fall unconscious has zero impact on hit points. The nonlethal damage is modifying the condition of the character, not changing their hit points.
Constitution damage, drain, and negative levels all "change how much lethal damage you can take before you pass out" and we don't consider these hit point damage either. That alone isn't enough to be considered hit point damage.
In fact, and I may be going out on a limb here.... any damage that damages the hit point statistic is hit point damage. That's really the only requirement.
4. Unconsciousness as a condition is caused by more things than hit point damage. The fact that nonlethal damage causes it is meaningless.
1) So you can heal nonlethal, but only in specific ways. Got it, I agree that when someone casts a CLW it heals lethal and removes the same amount of nonlethal. Now, out of curiousity/to hear your opinion about it, CLW says "...you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)". If someone only has nonlethal damage do you agree that CLW would cure 1d8+1/CL of their nonlethal damage? (Please note that the spell doesn't say "hit point damage") And as a funny side note, I wonder if anyone has ever tried to argue that CLW could cure stat damage based on the fact that it doesn't say that it cures hit point damage...
2) I can see where you're coming from with this one. I'm glad to know that you can see why some people aren't taking that statement to mean that hit point damage and nonlethal damage are two different things. (I think this quote from the book is the main thing holding up this conversation from coming to a satisfying conclusion.)
3) Fair enough. I think that nonlethal damage from a weapon/environmental hazard is more related to hit points than you do but I don't think there's anything I can say that will change your mind so I'm not going to try.
4) My point was more that the rules don't refer to nonlethal as hit point damage and that's a large part of your argument. Which makes sense because you're right, it's not referred to as hit point damage. Some people have surmised that it is but it is not actually stated in the rulebook.
With all of this said, I don't think there's anything that someone (short of a developer) could say to you that would change your stance on this topic.
I also don't think there's anything that someone (again, short of a developer) could say that will change the minds of people that disagree with you.
Is there anything left to discuss? I'm pretty sure we've covered everything that could possibly change anyone's mind about this subject.
We were discussing this point earlier, but you decided you didn't want to continue that discussion. When incoming nonlethal damage is in excess of your HP, it is treated as lethal damage. It isn't tallied in your nonlethal damage tally, it is deducted from your HP. If you feel uncomfortable with the term "convert" that's fine, we can just say "treat as" since that is the game term. However, it loses all qualities of nonlethal damage and gains all qualities of lethal damage.
The damage doesn't actually change types. It is still nonlethal damage.
If I treat you like a brother, it does not mean your genetics (or mine) change to account for this fact. We don't actually become blood related, or members of the same family.
"Treating" something like something else doesn't change what it is. It just changes the rules for how it interacts with other things.
The target still takes nonlethal damage, but the damage is applied as if it were lethal. The whole thing is still nonlethal though.
We were discussing this point earlier, but you decided you didn't want to continue that discussion. When incoming nonlethal damage is in excess of your HP, it is treated as lethal damage. It isn't tallied in your nonlethal damage tally, it is deducted from your HP. If you feel uncomfortable with the term "convert" that's fine, we can just say "treat as" since that is the game term. However, it loses all qualities of nonlethal damage and gains all qualities of lethal damage.The damage doesn't actually change types. It is still nonlethal damage.
If I treat you like a brother, it does not mean your genetics (or mine) change to account for this fact. We don't actually become blood related, or members of the same family.
"Treating" something like something else doesn't change what it is. It just changes the rules for how it interacts with other things.
The target still takes nonlethal damage, but the damage is applied as if it were lethal. The whole thing is still nonlethal though.
The subject's severed body members (fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, tails, or even heads of multiheaded creatures), broken bones, and ruined organs grow back. After the spell is cast, the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise.
Scenario 1:
Regenerate also cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +35), rids the subject of exhaustion and fatigue, and eliminates all nonlethal damage the subject has taken. It has no effect on nonliving creatures (including undead).
So, if a creature had 50 HP and had taken 99 nonlethal damage. You are suggesting the nonlethal total is 99 of which 49 is treated as lethal damage, but it is still nonlethal.
Someone casts regenerate the creature. It heals a total of 25 lethal damage. How much total nonlethal damage is left on the creature? Does it remove all of it and it is back up to full health?
Scenario 2:
A lvl 2 creature is has 10 HP and has taken 11 nonlethal damage and has fallen unconscious. After 1 hour, it will "heal" 2 nonlethal damage. (We will assume that "healing nonlethal" means removing nonlethal damage, though this is not explicitly stated.)
Does the creature now have 1 lethal damage + 8 nonlethal damage or 9 nonlethal damage? Because it was STILL nonlethal, but only being "treated as" lethal.
Warped Savant, the major thing that is happening here, is that a GA, BL and myself are pointing out that there are no explicit rules that would cause someone to define nonlethal damage as hit point damage. Everyone else is talking down to us because we are "ignoring rules."
The Nonlethal Damage is Hit Point Damage camp is saying that their way is the only way, despite not being able to prove it explicitly in the rules. They are saying that our position CAN NOT be true, not that they disagree with our position.
I am fine with the nonlethal damage is hit point damage because it is damage measured in hit points. Is it 100% logically consistent? Maybe. It hasn't been explored as much as the other side.
It is others who are not fine with the fact that nonlethal damage is not defined as hit point damage anywhere in the rules.
Warped Savant, the major thing that is happening here, is that a GA, BL and myself are pointing out that there are no explicit rules that would cause someone to define nonlethal damage as hit point damage. Everyone else is talking down to us because we are "ignoring rules."
The Nonlethal Damage is Hit Point Damage camp is saying that their way is the only way, despite not being able to prove it explicitly in the rules. They are saying that our position CAN NOT be true, not that they disagree with our position.
I am fine with the nonlethal damage is hit point damage because it is damage measured in hit points. Is it 100% logically consistent? Maybe. It hasn't been explored as much as the other side.
It is others who are not fine with the fact that nonlethal damage is not defined as hit point damage anywhere in the rules.
Got it.
You and I both agree that "hit point damage" isn't clearly defined, rules as written, right? That both sides in this discussion could be right?(I, for one, choose to treat lethal and nonlethal as two different types of hit point damage because that's what makes the most sense to me. Sure, there are some things in the rules that don't work exactly as written, but I'm fairly confident I can see what the writers were intending.)
I think I'm going to back out of this thread now as I don't think anything new will come of it.
Scenario 1:
Regenerate also cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +35), rids the subject of exhaustion and fatigue, and eliminates all nonlethal damage the subject has taken. It has no effect on nonliving creatures (including undead).So, if a creature had 50 HP and had taken 99 nonlethal damage. You are suggesting the nonlethal total is 99 of which 49 is treated as lethal damage, but it is still nonlethal.
Someone casts regenerate the creature. It heals a total of 25 lethal damage. How much total nonlethal damage is left on the creature? Does it remove all of it and it...
I'm going to ask a question here, because it's important and I think you can kind of work your own way to an answer here with the answer to this question:
Unless a specific rules tells you to track a specific set of damage separately, do you normally make any sorts of notes about the source/type of damage when you record it? Or do you just record it all as damage?
The answer is that unless given specific instructions, you just write it down as damage. Nonlethal has specific rules, but once you "treat it as lethal" you just write it down like normal damage.
Honestly, you "question" nonlethal as hit point damage without bothering to read the rules and trying to apply strange logic to it that has never existed. The "question" of how to treat it has been dealt with for the last 10 years and people have been playing and thinking about it just fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... Fifty Posts.
Non Lethal is healed as a creature regenerates. The only exception is those Non Lethal hp that is the result of Starvation and such, which is not healed until the creature can resolve the effects of Starvation. Fast Healing switches off when the creature passes out.
Now, I know regen was passed over in the last 10 or 15 posts, but I believe this is important to note and explain. Non Lethal is HP damage, it is just on a separate track to keep note of it in relation to Lethal damage and to know when the creature passes out.
If you think it can't be used with Power Attack or that Sap Master breaks because Non Lethal isn't "real" HP thus can't damage a target, you will find that others will still use those abilities without your consent and unless your the GM, will be allowed to do so.
|
Wow... Fifty Posts.
Non Lethal is healed as a creature regenerates. The only exception is those Non Lethal hp that is the result of Starvation and such, which is not healed until the creature can resolve the effects of Starvation. Fast Healing switches off when the creature passes out.
Now, I know regen was passed over in the last 10 or 15 posts, but I believe this is important to note and explain. Non Lethal is HP damage, it is just on a separate track to keep note of it in relation to Lethal damage and to know when the creature passes out.
If you think it can't be used with Power Attack or that Sap Master breaks because Non Lethal isn't "real" HP thus can't damage a target, you will find that others will still use those abilities without your consent and unless your the GM, will be allowed to do so.
I think the vast majority of us agree with this statement.
Even the people arguing against Nonlethal as HP damage agree with it, they're just arguing that the semantics of the rules say otherwise.
You know when you're having a discussion about how something is bad, and everyone agree's that it is bad, but there's that one guy who insists on playing Devil's Advocate? He says he agrees with the group, but insists on turning the discussion into a debate... That is this thread.
Using the technical definition of healing, please describe nonlethal damage is "healed."
So far as I can ascertain pathfinder does not use healing as a technical term in any context I've been able to find. (If I've missed it, can you please point out the rule for me that defines it specifically).
What I see in the rules is the common definition of healing used rather liberally, and interchangeably with other words that mean the same thing.
Healing of HP damage, healing of non-lethal damage, healing of ability damage. etc.
In fact if we look at the cure xxx line of spells they "cure" damage, they don't heal it. It's pretty rare for the rules to have a technical term for something but then use a different word when describing something that does that thing (I believe it does happen, but rarely, and I can't think of any instances off the top of my head).
Regeneration, the spell, cures damage. Regeneration the (ex) ability heals damage. Fast healing the (ex) ability "regains hp". Restoration the spell cures ability damage and restores ability drain. Heal (the skill) allows long term care to provide for characters to "recover" more quickly from hp and ability damage.
|
|
B-L
You would heal just the normal HP for Non Lethal, just as if Lethal Damage had been healed.
The poison does not specify Non Lethal damage, so it takes Lethal damage.
Bleed would be removed if any damage was healed, it matters not whether it is Lethal or Non Lethal damage that is healed. (Likely, the poison was administered with a low damage weapon and a low strength to have only Non Lethal damage to heal. Any negative total to damage (1D2-2 for a tiny dart) is 1 non lethal damage instead)
So far as I can ascertain pathfinder does not use healing as a technical term in any context I've been able to find. (If I've missed it, can you please point out the rule for me that defines it specifically).
What I see in the rules is the common definition of healing used rather liberally, and interchangeably with other words that mean the same thing.
Healing of HP damage, healing of non-lethal damage, healing of ability damage. etc.
In fact if we look at the cure xxx line of spells they "cure" damage, they don't heal it. It's pretty rare for the rules to have a technical term for something but then use a different word when describing something that does that thing (I believe it does happen, but rarely, and I can't think of any instances off the top of my head).
Regeneration, the spell, cures damage. Regeneration the (ex) ability heals damage. Fast healing the (ex) ability "regains hp". Restoration the spell cures ability damage and restores ability drain. Heal (the skill) allows long term care to provide for characters to "recover" more quickly from hp and ability damage.
After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing. In any case, you can't regain hit points past your full normal hit point total.
Natural Healing: With a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.
If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points.
Magical Healing: Various abilities and spells can restore hit points.
Healing Limits: You can never recover more hit points than you lost. Magical healing won't raise your current hit points higher than your full normal hit point total.
Healing Ability Damage: Temporary ability damage returns at the rate of 1 point per night of rest (8 hours) for each affected ability score. Complete bed rest restores 2 points per day (24 hours) for each affected ability score
Healing Nonlethal Damage
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
If an effect does any of the things listed above, then I would say it is a healing effect. If it doesn't do any of the things listed above, I would say it is not a healing effect. Hopefully that statement doesn't get me in trouble, I didn't really look around too much.
Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.
Here from the ability damage section of the rules, you can see that healing naturally is referenced again but the term healing isn't used. Then says it "can be healed through the use of spells" but that isn't defining how healing is done, so this kind of winds up in the same boat as nonlethal. Much like how earlier I said it can be argued that "healing nonlethal" could be "removing X nonlethal damage" the same could be said that "healing ability damage" could be "removing X ability damage."
However, healing to hit points seems pretty clear. It restores hit points, it doesn't remove hit point damage.
I also couldn't find anything for the term "cure," that indicated it is something that is defined by the game. I could be wrong. Too many pages of spells, diseases, poisons, etc.
So, for example..
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
Let's say the creature was of the "instantly heal"ing variety. Would it be vulnerable to effects that block or diminish healing?
Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.Here from the ability damage section of the rules, you can see that healing naturally is referenced again but the term healing isn't used.
If the term "healing" isn't being used, than neither is the term "ability damage".
You are literally claiming that words in the sentence aren't in the sentence.
Based on that, I now feel confident in declaring you to be in support of nonlethal damage as hit point damage is RAW, because I've never seen you say it isn't.
Yep. I messed up. Too many quotes pasted in and got confused. (I was looking at "Healing Ability Damage" from the healing section when I typed it.)
Regardless, ability damage is in the same boat as nonlethal. It can be argued that "removing X damage" is healing the damage, but it isn't defined that way.