Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide Is Now Available!

It's literally only a problem if you decide to make it a problem.

We just ignore it, the same way we ignore the other acceptable breaks from reality.

It's literally only a problem if you decide to make it a problem.

I guess. People's suspension of disbelief breaks in different places.

But really, my bigger problem with it is that I would rather see characters built to work nonlethally, rather than just fighting as normal but not killing anyone by fiat.
As I've said several times, I'd like to see options to make that more attractive and effective. I'm curious if there are any such in the AP as originally written - since the need to capture people more often than usual was always there and it seems the "all damage is nonlethal" was a late addition.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that was already there - Zeitgeist had it (well, no penalty for nonlethal, but that's basically the same since you would get in trouble for killing people in-narrative) back in 2010 or 2011 or whenever it was first published.

Yeah I feel the you just auto do Nl damage was a bit of an overreaction since A, It already spells out later that as law enforcment you shouldent be murdering people and B, the time/ space may have been better served adding in new specific Nl spells rather than saying all spells are just Auto NL for reasons.

thejeff wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Especially since we’ve have had always automatic nonlethal options for attacks both physical and magical going back to P1.

Have we? I'm unaware of this, but PF1 has lots of options and it's easy to miss things.

So there are ways in PF1 to make all your spells do non-lethal damage? Does that include those with actual death effects and the like?

Yep, there were feats and I believe traits to make all your stuff non-lethal.

Death Effect isn’t damage so no.

Regardless, Non-lethal Fireballs have been in the game for a long while.

Merciful Spell didn't even increase the spell's level, so having it always-on isn't even a lore change.

Also it would probably have been a lot simpler if there hadent been penalties for doing NL damage with physical in the game to begin with.

Definite agree. I honestly drop the penalty in all my games, 1E and 2E.

Rysky wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Especially since we’ve have had always automatic nonlethal options for attacks both physical and magical going back to P1.

Have we? I'm unaware of this, but PF1 has lots of options and it's easy to miss things.

So there are ways in PF1 to make all your spells do non-lethal damage? Does that include those with actual death effects and the like?

Yep, there were feats and I believe traits to make all your stuff non-lethal.

Death Effect isn’t damage so no.

Regardless, Non-lethal Fireballs have been in the game for a long while.

Merciful Spell didn't even increase the spell's level, so having it always-on isn't even a lore change.

I actually find it amusing (but not surprising) that there's a feat that covers all spell casting damage, but near as I can tell no similar way to negate the penalties for any weapon damage - they all have conditions or requirements.

I'm reading the content warning and it specifically mentions body horror, torture, violence against children, animal cruelty, human experimentation, mental illness and suicide bombings. Will you be deleting that stuff now, or after someone complains about it?

No. Nothing will be deleted (unless you're asking a specific person in this thread, and not Paizo?). The AP is written, and possibly minor changes late in the game likely are aimed at preventing more brutality-related issues, not normal horror aspects in a fantasy game.

Frankly, though, adding in a trigger warning to a player's guide is genius. At the very worst, it enables a player to have a conversation with the GM about potential problems. This should 100% be a staple on future player's guides, and I'd mark it as real positive growth for the company and for the hobby.

We will have a better idea when the adventure path volumes start coming out, but I would imagine that the horror elements of this campaign would imply that routine law enforcement situations should be rare and actually get rarer as the adventure progresses. By the end, I would imagine most foes faced by the party would be horrifyingly monstrous abominations (whether of the mindless variety or the sinister inhumanly evil variety) and their cultists and hired thugs, not the petty criminals that standard police deal with.

Honestly I wish warnings like that would be standard on most media. Among writers that learned their craft in the fanfiction mines, there's periodic discussions that being able to tag their professional work as fully as they did their fics would be helpful for readers and writers alike.

So long as there is a way to avoid those tags for the subset of the audience who finds them overly spoilery.

So long as there is a way to avoid those tags for the subset of the audience who finds them overly spoilery.

Trying to gauge "overly".

Is the content warning in the PG overly spoilery?

We will have a better idea when the adventure path volumes start coming out, but I would imagine that the horror elements of this campaign would imply that routine law enforcement situations should be rare and actually get rarer as the adventure progresses. By the end, I would imagine most foes faced by the party would be horrifyingly monstrous abominations (whether of the mindless variety or the sinister inhumanly evil variety) and their cultists and hired thugs, not the petty criminals that standard police deal with.

The blurbs for the individual volumes suggest they'll be dealing with mostly people - cultists and gangs admittedly, even into the late volumes. Not petty criminals certainly, since those will rarely be interesting challenges for high level characters, but also not monstrous abominations.

<snip>

The non-lethal sidebar is neat and definitely plays into it, but yeah, I still feel like my suspension of disbelief is beginning to creak at the mental image of a fireball non-lethally knocking someone out (not to mention the carnage such a spell leaves). On the flipside, I do wonder at the absence of Incapacitation tweaking. It's a good way to just non-lethally knock someone out, but I sympathise it could lead to just one-shotting enemies. I wonder if there's a middle-ground where 25% health or less the Incapacitation rule no longer count, so you can fling around your more-lethal-than-you-had-hoped spells and then finish it with an Incapacitation spell. It fixes my weird disposition about non-lethal fireballs (which is to fix spellcasters being stuck unable to do anything due to their DPS being lethal normally) and leans into what I believe are the current non-lethal rules (i.e. if the last attack that brings a foe below 0 is non-lethal they are just unconscious).

<snip>

Note: This isn't just directed at the person quoted.

Question(s):
Considering the damage output and collateral damage this spell results in, WHY is fireball (or similar spells, for that matter) being used by law enforcement to apprehend suspects/criminals?

Would spells like hold person or web not be better options for spellcasters in law enforcement to have in their everyday repertoire?

I mean, really, 'non-lethal fireballs' bugging people should not be the problem here... <siiigh>

Whatever... <shrug>

--C.

I felt off about the automatic nonlethal damage thing when I first heard about it, but after reading the text I think it seems pretty reasonable. These player characters have been specifically trained to take prisoners, and so they have all gained the special ability to deal nonlethal damage without penalty when using their abilities. Forcing players to find their own ways to perform nonlethal take-downs would limit their choices on how to build their characters, and when the whole party needs this ability it makes sense for it to be given to them for free as part of the adventure.

I would probably still allow a player character to use lethal force if they specifically requested it and the rest of the players were alright with it if there was a fair reason for them to do so (Like if a creature is immune to nonlethal or if it's mindless), or if their character is struggling with morality and does something they may regret later for some good role-playing. The antihero type of character that would do something like this is interesting when contrasted by the rest of the player characters fighting for a more righteous justice. The action itself may lead to the rest of the party attempting to arrest the given character, and they might have to deal with their own crimes before being allowed back on the force or have to retire the character.

Is the content warning in the PG overly spoilery?

My personal preference, as a player, is that any mention of content more specific than "this is the general genre, here are the kinds of characters we recommend and the kind we think would not work so well with that" is more spoilery than I want; but then, I have been very fortunate in the GMs I have played or am likely to play with, and do not do organised play or any such other thing that is likely to expose me to problems here; and furthermore I GM much more often than I play. I am not by any means opposed to content warnings being available, and I certainly have done the equivalent for my players in the past, probably in more detail than it would be reasonable to ask of Paizo (is there an AP that doesn't have a giant spider of some sort in it somewhere? Can't think of one, and I have been modifying and warning as appropriate for arachnophobic potential players, for example.) I just want to be sure that however this is presented will make it possible to avoid if that is what one wants.

Shisumo wrote:

Rysky wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Especially since we’ve have had always automatic nonlethal options for attacks both physical and magical going back to P1.

Have we? I'm unaware of this, but PF1 has lots of options and it's easy to miss things.

So there are ways in PF1 to make all your spells do non-lethal damage? Does that include those with actual death effects and the like?

Yep, there were feats and I believe traits to make all your stuff non-lethal.

Death Effect isn’t damage so no.

Regardless, Non-lethal Fireballs have been in the game for a long while.

Merciful Spell didn't even increase the spell's level, so having it always-on isn't even a lore change.

I actually find it amusing (but not surprising) that there's a feat that covers all spell casting damage, but near as I can tell no similar way to negate the penalties for any weapon damage - they all have conditions or requirements.

”Bolt highly recommend the Bludgeoner feat!”

thejeff wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Merciful Spell didn't even increase the spell's level, so having it always-on isn't even a lore change.

I actually find it amusing (but not surprising) that there's a feat that covers all spell casting damage, but near as I can tell no similar way to negate the penalties for any weapon damage - they all have conditions or requirements.

”Bolt highly recommend the Bludgeoner feat!”

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Bast L wrote:

.A world where guards never use lethal force against murderous aggressors is a very different kind of place.

These specific guards, not all guards in the setting.

One option might be to say that the Arcanamirium has cast a ridiculously vast spell over the entire city (powered, some whisper, by the presence of the Starstone itself), that like a mythal in the Forgotten Realms setting, prevents lethal damaging attacks on anyone in the city from deputized enforcement agents of the city (and yet also grants them the ability to inflict nonlethal damage with all of their normally lethal weapons and spells, without penalty).

It could even become a plot point, as agents of the Skinsaw Man find this whole 'can't murder' thing to be sacrilege, and are trying to find out what is maintaining the spell and can be stolen / killed / defaced to make it fail (even better if it fails catastrophically, and makes all attempts to do nonlethal damage turn lethal, or all currently suffered nonlethal damage to turn lethal, or whatever) 'cause they're jerks.

Question(s):
Considering the damage output and collateral damage this spell results in, WHY is fireball (or similar spells, for that matter) being used by law enforcement to apprehend suspects/criminals?

Would spells like hold person or web not be better options for spellcasters in law enforcement to have in their everyday repertoire?

I mean, really, 'non-lethal fireballs' bugging people should not be the problem here... <siiigh>

Whatever... <shrug>

--C.

That's kind of my point: non-lethal fireballs are weird, but the real question is why change the rules to make such spells safe to use, rather than encouraging existing (or new) options that seem to fit better.

We probably will get new NL options in the backmatter of the issues.

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Who said it wasn’t?

thejeff wrote:

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Who said it wasn’t?

I didn't say anyone did.

We probably will get new NL options in the backmatter of the issues.

I am curious about that. What they had planned before they decided to take the more drastic step of making everything nonlethal. We'll have to wait to find out, I guess.

Hey you all realize non-lethal fire damage is a thing right in this edition?

TOZ wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Who said it wasn’t?

I didn't say anyone did.

Merciful Spell also requires a full round action for most spontaneous casters. Really troublesome for my flame oracle.

Erik Mona wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning

That's an excellent point. We'll be switching it out in the morning.

The updated PDF has been uploaded, and I will be emailing out a notification to folks who already have the PDF momentarily.

Thankies, much appreciated Katina.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning

That's an excellent point. We'll be switching it out in the morning.

The updated PDF has been uploaded, and I will be emailing out a notification to folks who already have the PDF momentarily.

thejeff wrote:

TOZ wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Who said it wasn’t?

I didn't say anyone did.

Merciful Spell also requires a full round action for most spontaneous casters. Really troublesome for my flame oracle.

That was a stupid rule in 3.5 and shouldn’t have been carried over to P1.

I actually forgot about it till you mentioned it, probably cause it’s been handwaived or forgotten in every game I’ve been in.

Hey you all realize non-lethal fire damage is a thing right in this edition?

It was a thing in pathfinder 1e as well, most commonly under the same circumstances of hot weather.

Thinking about nonlethal fireball as a burst of heat opposed to a burst of flames is one way to rationalize the changes.

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

As are many less-than-lethal weapons in real life, for example rubber bullets, bean bags, and batons. Other less-than-lethal weapons use what would be considered energy damage in Pathfinder, for instance electricity for tasers and acid for tear gas. There are not, to my knowledge, any less-than-lethal incendiaries, which makes a "nonlethal fireball" somewhat more of a stretch, but it's been an option for a long time in Pathfinder no matter how ludicrous. So have nonlethal edged and piercing weapons, through the merciful quality. Neither PF1 nor PF2 is simulationist enough to represent the imperfect non-lethality of less-than-lethal weapons, but it's easy enough to add a percentage roll to see if you succeed at dealing your intended non-lethal damage.

Personally, I like the idea of the characters having to make investments toward making nonlethal damage practical, whether in feat, weapon, background, or spell selection, rather than it simply being an assumption. It reinforces that they are making the special effort to be exceptional "good apples" in a system that doesn't necessarily incentivize that behavior, and demonstrates that tangibly in the opportunity cost. On the other hand, such investment is probably not feasible for all character concepts from level 1. If I were ever to run AoE (which I almost certainly never will), I'd direct players to build toward non-lethal combat options and phase out the auto-nonlethality as they do so, probably substituting in some other reward.

That sounds like a good piece of texture to the game. A good idea.

Thank you for the players guide!

thejeff wrote:

TOZ wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Who said it wasn’t?

I didn't say anyone did.

Merciful Spell also requires a full round action for most spontaneous casters. Really troublesome for my flame oracle.

And has to be prepared that way for prepared casters, so it's harder to switch back and forth as needed.

That's a fair difference I wasn't thinking of.

Great players guide. I love the changes to the default assumptions, and I think they will lead to increased story opportunities. Dealing nonlethal damage without penalty may help lead to a more serialized feel, with recurring villains. It's a staple of the cop genre to know some of the criminals around town, and that often doesn't come across in fantasy games. Sure, you don't want to use it too much so that the players feel cheated out of a victory, but I trust paizo to ride that line (if they even choose to do things this way).

Some of the reactions to this are pretty disgusting. Some of the earlier comments read as being pretty giddy about using this as a way to live out twisted torture fantasies. Like a kid excited to find a bug that won't die, no matter how many legs they pull off.

Question(s):
Considering the damage output and collateral damage this spell results in, WHY is fireball (or similar spells, for that matter) being used by law enforcement to apprehend suspects/criminals?

Would spells like hold person or web not be better options for spellcasters in law enforcement to have in their everyday repertoire?

I think it's just down to lowering the spell-repertoire of casters who are already in a slightly tricky power position (I kind of made a post recently about it) and fireball was just the most overt weird example (mildly because a player in my group just got it and is flinging it around rampantly). I believe you're right if you have a group who is really happy to lean into the guard mentality, just I suspect I have a group that kind of will struggle a bit.

Personally I think this is a better way:

- You want to deal non-lethal damage?

- Use a sap!

That is, there are specific weapons already in the CRB you can use to avoid the -2 penalty.

And I would be surprised if Paizo isn't about to give us a feat where you can avoid the penalty with a specific weapon (or even all bludgeoning attacks!).

And if you can't deal even with this, and you demand completely cost-free access to nonlethal force, you can always play a Monk Constable.

tl;dr: There is no problem here (talking *only* about the narrow nonlethal issue) unless you make one.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TOZ wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's still limited: in this case to bludgeoning damage.

Who said it wasn’t?

I didn't say anyone did.

Merciful Spell also requires a full round action for most spontaneous casters. Really troublesome for my flame oracle.

And has to be prepared that way for prepared casters, so it's harder to switch back and forth as needed.

That's a fair difference I wasn't thinking of.

On demand merciful fireball is still pretty fun, even with the increased action cost. I haven’t used it on prepared casters given it’s not as flexible.

I read the "nonlethal rule" as just indulging in the fantasy of "all those guys Batman pummels mercilessly are going to be okay with no longterm effects."

So, I do want to weigh in a little about the decision to use non-lethal combat.

On the one-hand, having an option to use non-lethal damage at no penalty is great. Having non-lethal damage have a penalty creates an incentive to use harmful methods. Removing this restriction is certainly a welcome change.

However, as many have pointed out here already, I feel like this addresses the symptom rather than the disease, so to speak. Using conventional combat, lethal or otherwise, as a means of conflict resolution for an AP about law enforcement seems to be a bit...er, laden with problems. While implying that guards in this world are always trained to not kill is, indeed, a very welcome bit of lore, there is the issue that even "non-lethal" options are still incredibly harmful. 40mm rounds are "non-lethal" but can still cause extreme contusions, broken bones, organ damage, etc. etc., and in some cases death. These are "non-lethal." Chokeholds are "non-lethal" but can cause mild brain damage in a best case scenario and just asphyxiate someone at worst. Tear gas can cause severe allergic reactions and exacerbate breathing difficulties.

In other words, I feel like this AP, if the goal is to handle it respectively, would prioritize using non-combat conflict resolution, not just non-lethal. I feel having a system akin to the 1E Ultimate Intrigue "debate" system would have been a necessary first step prior to rolling out a police AP. Heck, Chapter One of War of the Crown had almost all of the major conflicts handled with diplomacy and sabotage, barring a few exceptions (which were honestly my least favorite part of that chapter for that precise reason). Otherwise, the concerns others have raised will certainly happen. People will still fling around dangerous, incendiary class abilities and spells willy-nilly against potentially innocent suspects (given that the Red Herring is a trope baked into the genre this AP appears to be invoking), and making them non-lethal doesn't change the brutality of these choices. I feel that it would be infinitely preferable for the AP to be designed as possible to resolve with almost no combat whatsoever (except against completely unambiguous opponents, like demons or mindless undead).

One final note: I did find the "reassurance" that anyone coming at the players with killing intent will be clearly telegraphed as such. As I illustrated above, I'd heavily prefer that this not be an issue because no one will ever be coming at you with killing intent. And even if they are, you should still be able to somehow resolve things with a minimum of blood-shed. If that reference is in regards to non-sentient or metaphysical beings, then great! If it refers to sentient mortal beings...even if they came at you with killing intent, the purpose of law enforcement (imo) is to take in a suspect non-lethally anyway, and then have their violent actions be a point against them in the proceeding trial (though there are some issues there too, but that's outside the scope of likely this AP and this post). Police are meant to be an executive body, not a judicial one. They should not be given the capacity to execute someone, and even self-defense should be something that is heavily scrutinized. Because goodness knows, ordinary civilians are scrutinized for using violent and lethal means for defending themselves. Police should have even more scrutiny directed at them for resorting to such methods, given the authority and influence their station grants them otherwise.

In any case, those are my thoughts. I heartily commend Paizo for putting in the changes that it did, even if I do not agree that they are sufficient. I believe this is still good progress in the right direction and am thankful they went to the effort to make them. But yes, I still think more work needs to be done. Thank you for your time, everyone.

The path they took was the simplest one to preserve encounter balance, but blows my suspension of disbelief out of the water and seems likely to lead to comedy and a total lack of restraint.

I am now curious if there were rules in the AP about non-lethal damage, that are now superseded by the "all damage is nonlethal" bit in the player's guide. Perhaps such rules manage to strike a balance more to my taste.

That's what 'blew' your disbelief out of the water? Not that dragons can fly. Or how teleportation works. Or fireballs and such having no blast wave. Or the million other objectively ridiculous and utterly silly things that we accept every single game because we acknowledge it's a fantasy game we're all here to enjoy rather than a hard science textbook. It was... being able to do non lethal with all attacks.

Well then.

Erik Mona wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning

That's an excellent point. We'll be switching it out in the morning.

The updated PDF has been uploaded, and I will be emailing out a notification to folks who already have the PDF momentarily.

FYI folks, there was another change made to the PDF. I don't know the exact nature of said change beyond that it was a design change. I've updated the file, but our system won't allow me to send out another notification email for it so soon. If you've downloaded the new version in the last two hours, you'll want to refresh your downloads and try again.

Thanks again for your patience!

thejeff wrote:

The path they took was the simplest one to preserve encounter balance, but blows my suspension of disbelief out of the water and seems likely to lead to comedy and a total lack of restraint.

I am now curious if there were rules in the AP about non-lethal damage, that are now superseded by the "all damage is nonlethal" bit in the player's guide. Perhaps such rules manage to strike a balance more to my taste.

That's what 'blew' your disbelief out of the water? Not that dragons can fly. Or how teleportation works. Or fireballs and such having no blast wave. Or the million other objectively ridiculous and utterly silly things that we accept every single game because we acknowledge it's a fantasy game we're all here to enjoy rather than a hard science textbook. It was... being able to do non lethal with all attacks.

Well then.

Possibly because those things are all baked into the genre from early D&D or often long before, while not being able to kill people with sharp weapons and fire isn't.

Katina Davis wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to put a picture of a pickled punk right next to the content warning

That's an excellent point. We'll be switching it out in the morning.

The updated PDF has been uploaded, and I will be emailing out a notification to folks who already have the PDF momentarily.

FYI folks, there was another change made to the PDF. I don't know the exact nature of said change beyond that it was a design change. I've updated the file, but our system won't allow me to send out another notification email for it so soon. If you've downloaded the new version in the last two hours, you'll want to refresh your downloads and try again.

Thanks again for your patience!

Thanks to you for all your efforts.

In other words, I feel like this AP, if the goal is to handle it respectively, would prioritize using non-combat conflict resolution, not just non-lethal.

Due to the sensitive themes of this Adventure Path, you as the Game Master should keep the following points in mind as you run Agents of Edgewatch:

• Never push your players to engage in combat if the situation can be resolved peacefully.
• Encourage PCs to attempt to resolve encounters diplomatically before resorting to violence.

One final note: I did find the "reassurance" that anyone coming at the players with killing intent will be clearly telegraphed as such. As I illustrated above, I'd heavily prefer that this not be an issue because no one will ever be coming at you with killing intent. And even if they are, you should still be able to somehow resolve things with a minimum of blood-shed. If that reference is in regards to non-sentient or metaphysical beings, then great! If it refers to sentient mortal beings...even if they came at you with killing intent, the purpose of law enforcement (imo) is to take in a suspect non-lethally anyway, and then have their violent actions be a point against them in the proceeding trial (though there are some issues there too, but that's outside the scope of likely this AP and this post). Police are meant to be an executive body, not a judicial one. They should not be given the capacity to execute someone, and even self-defense should be something that is heavily scrutinized. Because goodness knows, ordinary civilians are scrutinized for using violent and lethal means for defending themselves. Police should have even more scrutiny directed at them for resorting to such methods, given the authority and influence their station grants them otherwise.

That's what the point of the nonlethal damage rule is, though, isn't it?

The PG says:
1) you can only ever do nonlethal damage.
2) if you are forced into a fight, they are trying to kill you.

The means that the fights you're getting into are potentially lethal to you, but even so you're not allowed to respond with equivalent force. I actually liked that the direct implication is that the PCs are being held to a higher standard than the people they are fighting. If this is going to be an aspirational portrayal of law enforcement, then that's exactly how the game should be approaching things, isn't it?

It does ring a little hollow when the PCs are expected to use nonlethal methods even when the opposition is trying to kill them, when it just so happens that your "disintegrate" spell mysteriously does nonlethal damage.

Sure, you could say "don't pick that spell" but essentially saying "don't play an Imperial Bloodline sorcerer" which would otherwise seem like a good choice aside from the 6th level spell it grants.

Pretty sure disintegrate still kills people, nonlethal or not.

I love the hamster(?) that is replacing the pickled punk.

I wonder, though, why I never get these emails about products that have been updated, even though I have opted in to all emails in my account setting.

Pretty sure disintegrate still kills people, nonlethal or not.

2d6 of nonlethal damage per level.

But nonlethal damage doesn't reduce your hit points, it adds up and you fall unconscious when it exceeds your current hit points, so a nonlethal disintegrate will never disintegrate you.

Shisumo wrote:

Pretty sure disintegrate still kills people, nonlethal or not.

2d6 of nonlethal damage per level.

"Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated."

But nonlethal damage doesn't reduce your hit points, it adds up and you fall unconscious when it exceeds your current hit points, so a nonlethal disintegrate will never disintegrate you.

Not the way it works in PF2, actually. Damage is damage and reduces your hit points. The only places where nonlethal changes anything are where nonlethal immunity comes up or, more relevantly, when you drop to zero from nonlethal damage: "When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more)" (core pg 459).