Butt_Luckily's page

If one of you sit at a table, as a player or GM, and I have my character use Nonlethal Damage with Power Attack, Vital Strike as my character is enlarged with a Earth Breaker, would you agree on his ability to do so, or consent to the table's agreement that my character can do this? Or would you bring the game to a halt with this interpretation of Nonlethal being Bacon?

If I were the GM, then it wouldn't be allowed. If I were a player, then I would raise my objection for the GM to decide. I've already said in numerous posts that I consider it a valid interpretation, and I don't know why you would suggest I would bring play to a halt.

I am sure that you can find a way to see how it wouldn't be possible to use Nonlethal damage with anything but a basic swing of a weapon

This isn't part of our position. You claim to understand our position, but have yet to ever accruately represent it in one of your posts.

Dealing Nonlethal Damage is not something that excludes the character from using Power Attack, as it is not a touch attack and uses a weapon to deal Melee damage.

To be clear, you can use power attack just fine, but you won't receive the bonus.

Nonlethal damage will still get reduced by DR, acts the same way when hitting Ablative Barrier, and gets healed by Regeneration, unless Nonlethal was taken from Starvation, thirst or exhaustion, and so on

This is all true in our interpretation. Once again, you've shown you do not understand the position you're arguing against.

The fact that the book refers to it as 'harm' means that it's damaging the character (as well as the fact that it's called nonlethal 'damage')... So what is it damaging or hurting? Hit points is the obvious answer, but surely that can't be the answer because... ummm.... because it's not hit point damage because... umm.... the book doesn't say 'nonlethal hit point damage' and because it's tracked differently than lowering your current hit point score.

Oh! Right! The book says: "Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you’re disabled."
That shows that nonlethal isn't hit point damage because... wait.... no.... that just says that hit point damage can eventually slow you down. So that doesn't disqualify nonlethal as being hit point damage.

I try not to belittle your position and to represent it as accurately as I can. It would be nice to receive the same respect. I have to yet see thaX demonstrate an understanding of our position, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is not maliciously misrepresenting it.

Anyway, nonlethal damage is not hit point damage because it doesn't reduce hit points. This is based on the weapons section, and the Effects of Hit Point Damage section is only used as inferential evidence.

Mallecks, here's a good question for you:

The entire Injury & Death section has to do with hit points, how to damage them, the affects of different levels of hit point damage, healing hit point damage, and gaining temporary hit points (and how they work when they've been damage and what happens when the affect granting them ends)... But you honestly believe that the nonlethal damage section is the only one in that entire section has nothing to do with hit point damage?

Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points and compared against a character's current hit points. I don't see any issue with nonlethal damage being in the Injury and Death section. Also, the entire nonlethal damage subsection is about how it is different than everything else presented in the section.

Effects of Hit Point Damage:

Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you’re disabled.
If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you’re dead.

According to this I'm not slowed down until my hit points are 0 or less. That's great news! That means that no matter how much nonlethal damage I take I'm not unconscious!

thaX has already made the same argument. It doesn't need nonlethal damage to override it. Just consider that the sentence is merely talking about the loss of hit points. Ability Damage also slows you down without reducing your hit points.

Nonlethal overriding the sentence: "All weapons deal hit point damage." makes sense to you but it overriding the sentence that directly follows it in the same paragraph that says: "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon." seems bonkers to you?

It doesn't seem bonkers at all. Once again, we are not saying that your interpretation is wrong. At this time, it appears to be a valid interpretation of the rules to me. Rather, people are telling us our interpretation is certainly wrong, and we are trying to provide explanations to their objections. We have no problem agreeing to disagree on the definition of hit point damage and its ramifications.

You say that nonlethal damage is it's own type of damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage, you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others, nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points, some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you, Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal, and curing an affliction doesn't cure hit point damage nor ability score damage so does that mean that nonlethal damage from afflictions is cured when the affliction is cured? ... See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?

What's your justification for ignoring all of these things?

1) Sure, shield other can't help nonlethal. It only transfers "real" wounds. Whenever there is an interpretation needed, one interpretation may cause some spells or abilities to make less sense to some people than other interpretations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hit point damage has some definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRB wrote:

Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you’re disabled.

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

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

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

Nonlethal introduces another way that you can be "slowed down" even though you're above zero hit points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I follow all the rules regarding nonlethal damage.

Mallecks wrote:

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

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

This is also how we read it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mallecks wrote:

Warped Savant wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most common way that your character gets hurt is to

take lethal damage and lose hit points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where can I find that normal attacks damage hit points?

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

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

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

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

So your saying that Nonlethal damage is Hit Points of a Nonlethal variety? Or are you saying that it isn't HP a part of the time?

Or that it is bacon?

So when it says that Nonlethal is not "real" damage, you think it isn't any type of damage at all, or you take that as to mean it is pig damage, resulting in bacon, or is it null damage, just an exercise in some sort of number crossword that somehow divorces itself from Hit Points because "Nonlethal?"

I choose to look at as a form of HP that effects the target and attempts to knock out that target instead of killing him. I am not sure why you would want to put limitations on the player and prevent the use of Power Attack and other abilities with Nonlethal damage, but it seems your beating this dead horse until the lethal damage well exceeds negative Con.

Oh, and bacon!

If you are attempting to discuss whether or not our interpretation is consistent, then there is an assumption that you should be using our definitions. Otherwise, you aren't even talking about our interpretation, but some partial/mixed interpretation, and I can see why that would have problems.

Under the assumption that hit point damage is damage that is subtracted from a characters hit points, the unit of measure is not relevant. The reason nonlethal damage isn't considered hit point damage isn't because it's suddenly not measured in hit points. It's because it doesn't fall under the assumed definition of hit point damage. To go further, lethal damage is not hit point damage because it is measured in hit points. Lethal damage is hit point damage because it falls under the definition, which is that it is subtracted from a character's current hit points.

I tried to make it very verbose for you.

If you don't agree with the definition, then that's fine, and that can be what we discuss, but you can't really critique any ramifications of a particular interpretation unless, within the discussion, there is an agreement over what the terms and definitions mean.

Mallecks wrote:

willuwonu wrote:

They deal damage and don't fall under anything that DR doesn't affect, therefore DR reduces their damage.

I'm pretty sure Damage Reduction only applies to attacks.

I'm fairly certain that nothing says it only applies to results of attack rolls.

Damage Reduction

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Damage Reduction (Ex or Su) A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.

I would say that if the damage is not delivered via weapon or natural attack (or a magical effect that delivers P/B/S-typed damage, per the FAQ), then DR does not apply to it. Perhaps if a drug were to do P/B/S damage, DR could be argued to apply to it, despite the FAQ mentioning magical effects specifically.

CRB wrote:

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 your focused on HP damage, but if Nonlethal is not HP, then one would never heal Nonlethal damage. (as it is healed 1 Hit Point per hour) Am I missing something?

If you are attempting to discuss whether or not our interpretation is consistent, then there is an assumption that you should be using our definitions. Otherwise, you aren't even talking about our interpretation, but some partial/mixed interpretation, and I can see why that would have problems.

Under the assumption that hit point damage is damage that is subtracted from a characters hit points, the unit of measure is not relevant. The reason nonlethal damage isn't considered hit point damage isn't because it's suddenly not measured in hit points. It's because it doesn't fall under the assumed definition of hit point damage. To go further, lethal damage is not hit point damage because it is measured in hit points. Lethal damage is hit point damage because it falls under the definition, which is that it is subtracted from a character's current hit points.

I tried to make it very verbose for you.

If you don't agree with the definition, then that's fine, and that can be what we discuss, but you can't really critique any ramifications of a particular interpretation unless, within the discussion, there is an agreement over what the terms and definitions mean.

Because it doesn't matter which one it is, Damage is Damage. That is the point and one that refers to Damage, and all damage is to HP. It matters not if it is the "normal" damage, or subdual (Nonlethal) damage. It is still damage, and it effects HP.

This has been my and most other's points this whole time. It is what IronTruth has been trying to denote when playing devils advocate on the "Overflow" damage and how it is still HP. It is how the rules interact with the various abilities and how Power Attack is used with either forms of (HP) damage.

If you do not see this, your stance that Nonlethal is bacon seems like the only one you are going to accept.

I understand your point, but it isn't explicit in the rules whether or not that point is correct. You shouldn't just say "I said so, and this other guy said so, therefore you're wrong and the topic is closed"(Unless it's a dev, I suppose).

Do you have any rule to suggest that my definition of hit point damage, damage that is subtracted from a character's current hp, is incorrect?

I would add that it is the same with Lethal as it is with Nonlethal. The rules only makes an distinction with those two as far as denotion of their damage and how bad off the character is when that damage is enough to suffer consequences. Sure, Disabled is worse than just being Staggered, and Unconscious and Dying is worse then just Unconsciousness. That is why Nonlethal Damage is used, to lessen the chance of the target of dying outright.

Not only is the quote you referenced not even talking about nonlethal damage, but also that is the same way we use power attack. So I'm not sure why you would choose that point as the one that best wraps up your view on the topic.

You wrote this. You know that?

It says: quote me text that says X is Y, but your quote can't merely say that X is Y because I have decided that X is not Y.

This isn't a rational discussion. It really, honestly isn't. I'm not saying you aren't rational, just that this discussion isn't. Because by the same precise logic you're using I could just demand a quote saying that lethal damage is hit point damage, and that I won't accept anything that refers to lethal damage as hit point damage as good enough because I'm of the assumption that hit point damage is damage that has rules that refer to hit points (which strangely includes nonlethal damage).

This isn't going anywhere. The last couple exchanges have confirmed that the participants are entrenched. There's really nothing to be gained from another thousand posts.

Not really, because I don't think that damage that is measured in hit points is necessarily hit point damage, just as I don't consider damage that is measured in ability points to necessarily be ability damage.

I'm not sure that you suggesting that hit point is damage that "refers to" hit points would actually stand on the same merit.The difference is that there is a text reference to hit point damage as being damage that is subtracted from a character's hit points, and that there is a section labeled "Effects of Hit Point Damage" that all have to do with conditions that occur due to the reduction of hit points.

If there were a list called "Uses of Money", and I had something that couldn't do any of those things, I wouldn't get bent out of shape if someone suggested the possibility of that thing not actually being money.

Please explain how we resolve schroedingers power attack which is a result of your interpetation of how we determine whether the PA bonus damage applies or not. (Or better, simply provide the page number that explains it). Do we add the bonus damage before or after determining if DR will prevent the base damage?

We've pressed him on this several times. He hasn't yet provided an answer. I can only hope, now that it is at least the 4th person to ask him about it, that he'll consider it a question worth answering.

But, by what you've said many times about nonlethal overflow still counting as dealing nonlethal damage even though the target takes lethal... well, wouldn't that mean that attacks that deal nonlethal damage can do all of these things?

The context has been for power attack, in which we are pretty much only focused on the attack and damage roll itself. Depending on how one interprets the overflow rule, it would be accurate to say that the target took 3 nonlethal and 5 lethal damage, despite the attack dealing 8 nonlethal damage. In this way, "all further damage is treated as lethal". It happens "between" the attack and application to the target.

So, no, while it may be correct to say that an attack that dealt nonlethal would cause those conditions, it wouldn't be correct (in that interpretation) to say that nonlethal damage caused those conditions.

This is similar to using a knockback effect to knock an enemy off a cliff. The 100ft fall is not part of your effect, but your effect "caused" it.

Butt_Luckily wrote:

I don't think so. The spell transfers wounds, so I can very easily see it not working on nonlethal damage because, conceivably, they are not actually being wounded.

What about when the target takes lethal damage due to nonlethal overflow?

Would Shield Other work if the target had already rolled over into lethal damage?

Because, the stance of "I'm dealing nonlethal regardless of what the target is taking" (which is he current justification for why power attack doesn't work with nonlethal overflow) seems to conflict with how Shield Other would react with nonlethal overflow (if you pretend that it shouldn't work with nonlethal damage).

Power Attack: "The bonus damage does not apply to ... effects that do not deal hit point damage."
Shield Other: "... the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks ... that deal hit point damage."

As Irontruth has pointed out, "deal" and "taken" are not game terms, but we already know they are not equivalent. This means that it is up to interpretation.

The reason why it wouldn't work for power attack is because the scope of power attack is the attack roll and damage roll. No information about the target is used.

On Shield Other, the scope covers what is happening to the target. So I could understand why someone could interpret the spell in a way that it could function for nonlethal overflow, and I don't think I would really have that big of a problem with it.

In my opinion, however, I don't think that I would allow it to work for nonlethal overflow. It is unfortunate that some particular spell or ability appears more or less viable or makes more or less sense because of some particular interpretation, but this is probably something that happens most of the times an interpretation is needed.

When you can use Shield Other to prevent some lethal damage to a friend from a monks punch but you can't prevent some nonlethal damage to a friend from that exact same monks punch simply because the monk decided to do nonlethal instead of lethal.

In my books, that is kind of ridiculous.

I don't think so. The spell transfers wounds, so I can very easily see it not working on nonlethal damage because, conceivably, they are not actually being wounded.

The disagreement here probably comes from the odd nature of nonlethal damage.

The use of wording is the same. You might as well play Clintonesque "what the meaning of the word is is" games. In the quote I produced, Paizo referenced nonlethal damage with the exact same syntax that they use with lethal damage. It isn't - at this moment - a matter of measurement anymore. It's a matter of language. In the section of the Core that explains how nonlethal works and what it is, they include a sentence that treats nonlethal damage linguistically the same way we're accustomed to lethal damage being treated.

Which wording/syntax are you talking about?

And I don't think it's that pedantic. There are reasons in the text to believe that hit point damage is a reduction of hit points, and no actual text-based reasons to believe that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, only opinion-based or interpretation-based reasoning ("Shield other (or some other spells) should apply, because I think it makes more sense", "hit point damage is measured in hit points", etc). To be fair, the reasoning that nonlethal is not hit point damage is also interpretation-based reasoning, because the answer is not explicit.

Honestly, yes. Lethal and nonlethal damage are - per the Core - referred to as hit point damage; damage that is hit points.

Money is money, regardless of if it's a digital balance in my bank account that I can reference, or if it's paper currency that I can set on fire.

What hit points do is abstract the concept of durability, and the two types of them do exactly that, just as the two types of money act as a means for transacting trades for products and services.

Again, in my opinion my answer to your question is "still yes". Cold damage and fire damage are both energy damage despite the fact that they don't behave identically and are resisted by different things.

If it is insufficient for you that the CRB literally references hit points in the middle of nonlethal documentation, then this is all a colossal waste of time because your requirement for proof is unobtainable.

If you have a some text that refers to nonlethal damage as hit point damage, please provide it, as that would cause me to drop my interpretation pretty quickly. Be sure it's not merely referring to it as hit points, as that is not enough to call it hit point damage, because my assumption is that hit point damage is damage that is subtracted from a creature's hp.

As far as money = money, I'm not sure that's a totally fair comparison. If one is money, then the other is not "real" money. US currency and Monopoly money certainly aren't interchangeable. But, yes, they are both money.

I'm sure you won't like this analogy, just like I don't like yours, because we disagree under which umbrella lethal and nonlethal damage lie. You think they both are hit point damage, whereas I only consider them both damage.

In my opinion, ability damage also impacts a character's durability, robustness, or healthiness, but that doesn't mean I consider it hit point damage.

Edit: To expound on this...

And why not? Because Ability Damage is actually explicitly defined. The answer is not because it is measured in ability points.

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

Ability damage is damage that does not actually reduce an ability, but does apply a penalty to skills and statistics that are based on that ability. The fact that the damage is measured in some unit is actually not relevant to the definition.

If there were some form of damage that did actually reduce your ability score, then I would say that thing is not Ability Damage, despite being measured in ability points.

/End Edit

I see why you think what you do, but, unfortunately, the answer is not explicit in the rules.

As a reminder, I am not searching for any proof. People are questioning how it is possible to hold such an interpretation, and I am trying my best to answer. If proof is provided that the interpretation is explicitly wrong, then, obviously, I have no problem dropping it. I would hope that you feel the same about your interpretation.

Having found myself with actual time on my hands.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook, page 192.
"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."

Yes. Nonlethal damage is considered hit point damage.
...

It has never been suggested that nonlethal damage is not measured in hit points, just that the fact that it is measured in hit points is not enough to qualify it as hit point damage (in our interpretation. We have no problem with those that consider nonlethal damage hit point damage, on the justification that it is measured in hit points).

The view is that hit point damage is something that:

All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon.

Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.

When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.

If one doesn't want to include the weapon line (like bbangerter), that is probably OK, because the effects of hit point damage can only occur through the reduction of hit points anyway.

The possible values for nonlethal damage are 0<x<Max HP.

Nonlethal will never:
Disable you.
Cause you to be unconscious and dying.
Cause you to die.

In fact, there is a separate section, Nonlethal Damage, which details totally different effects that occur in totally different circumstances.

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.

Nonlethal Damage will (and, if you want to include the Weapons line, hit point damage will never):

For creatures with regeneration, an infinite amount of nonlethal damage can be applied, and at no point would any of the "Effects of hit point damage" occur.

Is it so unreasonable to not consider something X when it never does anything on "X does these things"?

Perhaps.

I would consider the typical effect here, a damage roll, to be something like 1d8+2 lethal damage. I don't know that I would consider the result of the effect, 5 lethal damage, to still be the effect, but would still call it hit point damage.

But let me help you out here, the argument you should be making is that nonlethal weapons are a specific exception to the general rule of all weapons deal hit point damage. (That's the only meaningful answer to explain the net as a weapon above). In this case, regarding nonlethal, you'd still be wrong (lots of contextual clues in the rules show this to be the case, but I can't "prove" reading comprehension), but at least with it you have a logical argument to be made instead of the nonsensical "because I can invoke the specific rule of dealing lethal with a nonlethal it satisifies the general statement".

I did suggest that nonlethal weapons are exceptions to the rule, this was a few of my posts ago (I think it may have been right before a flurry of posts, so perhaps it was overlooked).

Really, though, I think there may be more than one possible justification that one could find convincing. So, what is likely, I think, is that we would say that however one justifies the second sentence, "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon",in our opinion would also apply to the first sentence, "All weapons deal hit point damage".

As an aside, not to you specifically Mallecks, but I've seen it posted a couple of times now (I think by Butt_Luckily, but I can't be bothered to go verify it) regarding how can a exceptionally deadly attack be used when not trying to kill someone. The problem with that particular argument is that the phrase "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength." in the PA feat is fluff/flavor. It does not dictate the mechanics of how PA works. The rules are quite full of little discrepancies like this between fluff and actual game mechanics. Fluff can be used to help ascertain intent of the rules when the mechanics themselves are not clear. But the mechanics of PA are pretty clear.

Yes that was me primarily. My hangups with nonlethal definitely contribute to that argument. I think it makes perfect sense to not apply to nonlethal damage, but if it did, then it wouldn't be that much more confusing than nonlethal in general. I try to keep this in areas of discussion that are more RAI, and I do not consider it part of the primary argument.

1: Power Attack applies to hit point damage. (Page 131 if you're interested)

2: Lethal damage is hit point damage. (Page 189 if you're interested)
3: Nonlethal damage that exceeds the target's capacity is lethal damage. (Page 191 if you're interested)

I know I've made the clarification several times before. Power attack does not apply to hit point damage. It applies to effects that deal hit point damage.

I was saying that lethal damage isn't really tracked at all. Your hp is tracked, and lethal damage reduces your current hp.

This is in comparison to nonlethal, which actually is tracked and actually is compared to a characters current/max hp.

I don't know for sure if it's a distinction anyone cares about, but a few people have said something similar to "they're the same, just two different tracks that are compared against hp" which isn't actually true.

Oh,and again, at this time, we haven't really brought up any issues

Welcome back!

I don't believe we've questioned why someone would think that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. Perhaps in the beginning of the thread, where initial arguments were being shored up, but not for some time.

But, really, the fact that the unit of measure is hit points is a great enough justification on its own, if that's your interpretation.

However, I don't think I would agree that hit point damage should be defined as being "tracked against hp". If that were the definition, then lethal damage would not be hit point damage.

As stated before, the answer is not found explicitly in the rules. Just as it doesn't say nonlethal is not hit point damage, it doesn't say nonlethal is hit point damage.

And again, it was never suggested that nonlethal damage is not damage.

As far as sap master goes, I don't really see the point you are trying to get me to see. It works just fine whether or not you consider nonlethal damage hit point damage. If a rule doesn't mention hit point damage at all, why should anything about it change depending on if nonlethal damage is hit point damage or not?

All I know is that Power Attack applies to lethal damage. You are telling me that there are situations where it doesn't, but I don't see that in the rule book. Feel free to show me where it says it doesn't apply to lethal damage in specific circumstances.

I've never claimed that Power Attack does not apply to lethal damage. My claim is that the nonlethal overflow rule is not used by power attack to determine eligibility of the damage bonus.

------

Cavall, I hope I didn't seem dismissive before. The shape of the thread has been posters saying "You cannot possibly use your interpretation, because it is internally inconsistent". We are merely defending that it is consistent.

So when I say things like "Nonlethal attacks should not be exceptionally deadly", that is just further answering those that question how the viewpoint is possible.

I have hangups with nonlethal in general, and that may contribute to my viewpoint, but really the question is if there is some problem with the interpretation. You have some great points, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but we haven't said we have any problems with anyone else's interpretation (other than power attack checking whether a target has lost hit points after applying damage to determine correctness of application).

If I were to consider nonlethal damage hit points damage, "just hitting harder" may be sufficient. (even for piercing damage?)

------

thaX, the question for "What kind of damage is Nonlethal damage?" is similar to "What kind of damage is ability damage?"

So instead of just making the comparison, I guess I'll ask. What kind of damage is ability damage?

As a side note, it was never suggested that hit points was measured in anything other than hit points.

And we understand your point just fine. Its just that that point is not enough to definitely say nonlethal damage is hit point damage. If that is convincing enough for you, then that's great, but not really saying anything is wrong with our interpretation. It just explains why you accept your interpretation.

Do this every game in PFS, and I wonder why the rules are so far from your grasp at this point that you want to punish the player for trying to not kill those he is attacking.

The thought that Nonlethal is it's own little thing and has nothing to do with HP is baffling to me, and I wish I had some bacon right now to eat.

If you are trying to not kill something, I don't think you should be able to simultaneously make attacks that are exceptionally deadly.

Its not that baffling. Nonlethal damage doesn't change the amount of HP a character.

So now you're claiming that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage. Cool.

In your view, where the test of power attack involves checking against the target, I suppose this might be true. Also, I don't think anyone else checks for application of Power attack in this way.

In our view, if you are using any information from the target to check for bonus eligibility, you have already gone out of scope of Power Attack.

Nonlehtal damage is not in itself a particular damage separated from everything else like Cold damage, Ability Damage, or Negitive levels. It is under the "Death and Dying" section where it talks about Hit Points and how it is used by the character and what it represents. Lethal Damage is the "Normal" damage that is most commonly used, Nonlethal Damage is another way to effect HP.

What else do you need to know?

The answer for whether nonlethal is hit point damage is not explicitly in the rules. So rules you present will just be corroborating evidence for your view. I already understand your view of the rules. The question is if there is a problem with ours.

Damage Reduction uses both synonymously. Unless you're claiming that all DR happens twice, applying to both what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.

The damage reduction use of deals and taken merely means that any use of the terms will have to be open to interpretation. A character with improved evasion should not reduce the damage dealt to everyone else hit by the spell.

I think I disagree. An effect is usually something like "1d8 Cold damage". Or "Heal 1d8+1 per caster level". Nearly all effects have some modifier to them. I think I would refer to the determination of the effect as the result of the effect as opposed to the effect itself.

Of course, referring to the result of the effect as "the effect" is probably acceptable short-hand, but we've been pretty specific about language in this thread.

You both have said that Nonlethal is not HP damage at all. That assertion means that it is nothing, and should be considered Bacon Point instead. Tell me how it is damage, that it is not HP damage, and what type of damage it is instead. You have not done that.

I'm pretty sure this is all covered already.

How it is damage: It Is literally named damage. It is rolled as a damage roll, or is the kind of damage dealt by an attack or effect.

How it is not hit point damage: It doesn't reduce hit points, not does it accomplish anything under the "Effects of Hit Point Damage" portion of rules.

What type of damage it is: It is its own kind of damage. The question you are asking is similar to asking "What kind of damage is hit point damage?" or "What kind of damage is ability damage?"

I can post the whole thing here, but really, posting four pages of material on a single post is overdoing it. Nonlethal is Damage, can we at least agree on this much?

We never said nonlethal damage wasn't damage, and have already corrected more than once your assertion that we did not consider nonlethal damage damage.

I mean, when one is dealt damage, independent on if it is Lethal or Nonlethal, why does it make a difference which HP track the damage is on to determine if an ability from a class or feat can be used? Both get the character closer to unconsciousness, and both are considered Damage that is not Negative levels, stat damage or the like.

In your opinion, the difference may not matter. In ours, it does.

Is there something about Nonlethal that makes it less likely to incapacitate the character? Why do you want to limit players in this way?

Unfortunately, whether or not something is more or less likely to incapacitate a target is not the determination for whether or not the damage is hit point damage.

That isn't a section, that is a bullet point within the Injury and Death section, in the subsection Loss of HP. This section does have the Nonlethal Damage subsection in it, and should be a part of these rules instead of being considered Bacon or nothing. Concentrating on one little part of the rules and ignoring the rest is not the way to understand and use the rules to any type of manual, be it a game, rules of the road, or a recipe for Candied Bacon

Is there a minimum size for how big a section in the rules is? I was merely trying to direct your attention to the appropriate place.

Anyway, I do not feel it is accurate that I am considering only one little part of the rules. I have discussed portions of text from different sections of rules, applications of interactions between various rules, and even discussed my thoughts on RAI.

-----------
Irontruth, This may be a small point I disagree with Mallecks on. I feel his distinction of stopping the treatment of the damage taken as nonlethal is at least needless. It may be some more verbose application of "dealt vs taken", but that can be just left as dealt vs taken being open to interpretation depending on the ability. Even if one were to say that the damage taken by the target were nonlethal and caused a loss of hit points, this would not conflict with power attack not providing the bonus to a Nonlethal attack.

thaX, I'm not sure which of my posts you're talking about. I checked my last few posts and I haven't mentioned a hit point section.

I did mention an Effects of Hit Point Damage section. I can't get a page number right now, but based on the prd appears to be in the same section you're looking at, Injury and Loss, between What Hit Points Represent and the Massive Damage(Optional Rule).

Did I mistake which section you said I was talking about?

Also, I don't recommend following Irontruth's example in insulting other users.

Edit: Ninja'd

thaX, I don't see what you are getting at. Nothing in the section you quoted is found in the Effects of Hit Point Damage section.

Damage reduction only applies to damage, non lethal is not damage (nothing is actually reduced by it), therefore damage reduction has no effect. Ability damage on the other hand, reduces a statistic (an ability score), and is therefore reduced by DR.

In my interpretation, nonlethal damage is damage because it literally calls itself damage, and is rolled as a damage roll, or is the kind of damage dealt by an attack. It behaves differently, which is why it's its own kind of damage, but it is still damage.

How often will it come up? Rarely, if ever.

Do I IGNORE the rules? No.
Do I apply the rules, even if that application is usually automatic and has no noticeable effect? Yes.

Oh sure, if that's how you want to treat it. That's the same thing we do. The rule is always applied, to no effect.

If Nonlethal is not HP, then the Rogue can not Sneak Attack with Nonlethal damage. That is, because of the belief that Nonlethal is not HP damage, but Bacon instead, then the Rogue can not use Sneak Attack while dealing Nonlethal damage. Even when using a sap, which specifically say that it can. Do you see the rules conflict here, or are you saying that is different than the Power Attack interaction?

I do not see anything in the rogue sneak attack entry about hit point damage. Perhaps you should quote the actual rule you have concern with.

I do not accept the flawed premise.

I didn't even provide you a premise. I asked you a direct question with a follow-up.

The paragam you presented is a circle and doesn't explain what Nonlethal damage is, but that it is somehow connected to HP. You maintain, however, that it isn't HP damage while being measured as such. That the Healing rules pushed your understanding to this point is amazing and a very good first step in understanding how Nonlethal (HP) damage works.

You asked what nonlethal damage is, and the answer is nonlethal damage. It is its own kind of damage. The fact that it is measured in hit points is not enough to make it hit point damage in our interpretation. I understand your view and reasoning. But the current discussion is whether there is an internal consistency problem with our interpretation. This assumes an agreement on our definition of hit point damage.

If you'd like to return to and continue the original discussion of whether or not nonlethal is hit point damage , then we can try to press with it. I worry this will lead to confusion when posters may be responding to which discussions, but if you want...

Do you accept that hit point damage is not explicitly defined in the rules? If not, could your provide your explicit definition? If so, do you agree that what hit point damage is is open to interpretation?

So, in your stance and GA's understanding of the rules, can a Rogue use sneak attack with Nonlethal Damage, or is the rulebook wrong in the Sap entry?

I don't know why you mention GA, he has not posted in some time. I cannot speak for his understanding of the rules.

In any case, a rogue can use a weapon with the nonlethal quality to sneak attack with nonlethal damage. I am not sure what problem you see here. It would be better discourse if you were more direct with what you are trying to ask.

If I didn't already know that you didn't understand the rules, this would definitely confirm it.

You're "I find it interesting" shows a basic lack of understanding of the things I've been saying. At this point it doesn't seem worth my time to try to clarify, but suffice to say that you're not understanding the difference between your position and my position, or my criticism of your position.

The reason why I don't understand your version of power attack not using the same justification of nonlethal overflow counting and damage reduction not counting for retroactive changes is because you've never provided an explanation for why that would be the case.

I'm just applying the definition of hit point damage you gave me and seeing how it applies to other rules. You tell me that we can ignore them, but there doesn't seem to be a justification for this ignoring. The "overflow" rule isn't a separate rule, it is an inherent part of how all nonlethal damage works.

I don't believe I misrepresented this.

Anyway, the justification is that it doesn't apply to the scenario. Similar to how a character without power attack can't use power attack.

The overflow rule is certainly a separate rule. Its not in the section "Dealing nonlethal damage" but, in your opinion, is a deviation in how one deals nonlethal damage. This makes it a specific rule that applies in certain scenarios, and that scenario never occurs in the power attack determination.

I do find it interesting that you hold us to different standard for power attack than you yourself use. You repeatedly point out the concern over a target losing hit points from an attack that doesn't deal hit point damage, but consistently dodge the point of an attack that deals hit point damage not causing a loss of hit points.

Why should one be an issue and not the other? Either power attack cares about whether or not the target loses hit points or it doesn't.

So non-lethal damages hit points is your interpretation?

Only that nonlethal damage is not considered hit point damage. If the rule doesn't mention hit point damage, then I don't see why anything about it should change.

So, the question remains, if Nonlethal damage is not HP damage, then what is it? Bacon?

Nonlethal damage is nonlethal damage, and it is measured in hit points.

And? Where is it said that it is not HP yet is measured by HP while being Bacon instead of HP ....

I don't really understand what you are going for here. Try to be more specific. We know that is it not hit point damage because it doesn't reduce hit points, and that it is measured in hit points at least from the healing rules.

It doesn't? What? Damage Reduction (DR) reduces the amount of damage of Hit Points (HP) by the listed amount, how is that not measured in HP? Here is the entry from the CRB.

...
Where in that entry does it include Nonlethal? If you maintain that Nonlethal is not HP damage, why would it include being Damage at all? The Appendix 1 entry is more detailed, and mentions a normal attack. Do you maintain that Nonlethal is not considered a normal attack, as it isn't HP damage, or does DR work as intended with both types of (HP) damage?

Nonlethal damage is damage because it is rolled on a damage roll and is named X damage. DR reduces damage from weapon rolls. If nonlethal is dealt by a weapon, it is applicable for damage reduction.

You are aware that there are Rogues focused on only dealing nonlethal damage, right? As in, dealing so much nonlethal damage with one hit that their foes outright die. That's a clear example of an "exceptionally deadly" nonlethal attack.

While I agree that an exceptionally deadly nonlethal attack is hard to imagine, the whole concept of nonlethal damage is hard to imagine.

In what way could a 7 ft tall Goliath deal nonlethal damage when bringing down his Earthbreaker? What can he aim for when he brings down certain death upon you, to avoid creating human paste?

I agree, non lethal is hard to imagine, and is ill-defined. So, in my opinion, dealing nonlethal damage changes the way the weapon is used. Because of this, it may be possible to have the result of a nonlethal attack be exceptionally deadly, but not possible to actually deliver it in an exceptionally deadly way. What makes the result deadly is all about the target, and I don't really consider the target part of the equation. If I brush aside a bug with my hand and kill it, was my attack exceptionally deadly? I would say no.

"Lethal" and "deadly" are direct synonyms, so it would be the same as saying the attack is an exceptionally lethal nonlethal attack. In general, I don't think something can be A and not A simultaneously.

Edit: sorry for edit, accidentally posted midway through.

Just as you still use Power Attack when Lethal Damage does not reduce HP (because of Temperary HP or DR), you will still use Power Attack with Nonlethal Damage, no matter when or if it reduces "real" HP. This has been Irontruth's point here, not that it matters on a particular instant.

Irontruth's point is that, under our definition of hit point damage and his interpretation of nonlethal overflow, the overflow damage should count as hit point damage and qualify for power attack.

If that's how he wants power attack to work, then attacks that do not do hit point damage (because of Temporary HP or DR), should not have the power attack benefit added. This is following HIS suggestion for how to use Power Attack. What you described is more in line with how We think power attack should work. The bonus is applied/not applied totally independent from whatever actually happens to the target.

Look, it isn't hard. Both of these are forms of Damage, and the damage dealt is not Ability damage or the like, it is regular Damage. One subtracts from HP while the other measures itself against the other's current status. Both are a form of HP damage, and in extreme cases, Nonlethal turns into Lethal.

Except that, in our view, "one subtracts from HP" is literally the definition of hit point damage. So the one that only measures itself against the other isn't. Because we are currently discussing only our interpretation, there is an assumption of agreement on our definition of hit point damage.

The character hits with an attack after factoring in Power Attack, and deals out the damage that includes Power Attack when he hits. This is with Lethal and Nonlethal. Nothing excludes either option in that feat. GA has you thinking that Nonlethal is this mythical bacon pool that is divorced from HP completely, or is somehow damage but not HP damage, or is a tomato? Maybe?

Nonlethal damage is nonlethal damage, and is measured in hit points.

Power Attack works as written, with both forms of damage (Lethal and Nonlethal), just as all of us has been using it since the CRB came out. GA's interpretation is not going to change that, and I am not breaking any rules when Oops (My PFS character) uses an Earth Breaker with Power Attack while dealing Nonlethal Damage. For anyone to tell me otherwise is nit picking rules and focusing on small parts instead of READING the whole entry and taking it in context with how it is used.

I have read the whole entry. How would you describe an "exceptionally deadly" nonlethal attack?

In any case, we understand you believe something different. The current discussion is whether or not there is an internal consistency problem with our interpretation.

It is a conclusion that is the result of this interpretation

Not really, because DR doesn't mention hit point damage as far as I am aware. Because that is the only difference being introduced, I don't see why any rule that doesn't mention hit point damage would change at all.

Lol...

"I'm not ignoring it, I'm just [synonym for ignoring] it."

If that's the way you want to read it, then that would be the justification.

It's fine guys, non-lethal ignores DR and thus there is no need for this argument. Can't power attack with it, oh well, but you can kill anything with it that doesn't have immunity to non-lethal or something else that prevents it from dying (aka regenerate).

This is not suggested by our interpretation.

Feel free to provide justification for why you are selectively choosing to ignore parts of the NONLETHAL DAMAGE rules.

Nothing is being ignored. It just isn't relevant to Power Attack.

Similar to how the text for power attack is not relevant to a character without the power attack feat.

I do find it interesting that you hold us to different standard for power attack than you yourself use. You repeatedly point out the concern over a target losing hit points from an attack that doesn't deal hit point damage, but consistently dodge the point of an attack that deals hit point damage not causing a loss of hit points.

Why should one be an issue and not the other? Either power attack cares about whether or not the target loses hit points or it doesn't.

I'm also not sure I'd agree with your "can" interpretation. If a feat/ability were added for a character to treat 1 point of Ability Damage as lethal damage, would you agree that Power Attack would then apply to ability damage?

If I told you that you only ever added your strength modifier to damage, and never 1 1/2 times, because we need to follow the general rule and not a specific rule, you would find that convincing?

I never said nonlethal damage is never hit point damage. I said that whatever your interpretation of the overflow rule doesn't matter in relation to power attack.

This example is not totally analagous, but I think we can try to press forward. If asked "How much of your strength bonus should be included on a damage roll?", the answer is 1x, because it is asked in a generic way.

Sure, you could throw in your conditionals in the answer, and we can do the same for nonlethal.

1x, unless it is wielded in two hands, then 1.5x

Similarly, with your interpretation of nonlethal overflow:

Its not hit point damage, unless it deals an excess amount over the targets maximum hit points, then it is.

When you ask the question "Is nonlethal damage hit point damage?", there is no amount of damage, no maximum hp.

You could even ask "Is 1d8 nonlethal damage hit point damage?" and the answer is no. There is no amount of damage or maximum hp. If you asked, "Is 10 nonlethal damage against a target with 20 hp, 15 nonlethal damage, and no damage reduction hit point damage?", then, with your interpretation, the answer would be yes. However, this kind of question is not asked by power attack.

Except that that can't possibly be true, because the rules for nonlethal state parameters under which it does meet the qualifications for hit point damage. It's literally in the rule book, and if you claim it isn't, you're lying.

And we're back here again.

The specific overflow rule does state parameters where it could, in your opinion, qualify nonlethal as hit point damage. Even if I were to agree with that, those parameters solely occur at the application of a damage result.

Asking the generic question "Is nonlethal damage hit point damage?" does not include a target, amount of damage, or maximum hp, so there's no reason to include it.

It appears we won't agree on this one. I think you're wrong for including specific rules in scenarios that don't meet their parameters, and you think I'm wrong for excluding specific rules when their parameters aren't met.

Do you have any other issues?

The timing is irrelevant.

The determination of "is nonlethal damage hit point damage?" will always produce the same answer. Check it before or after the damage roll, outside of combat, whatever.

And you can have that interpretation all you want. It just isn't RAW.

That was never the claim.

The rules are not explicit on the points of contention, so anything anyone does for those are interpretation.

It is equally supported RAW as whatever you do.

Do you have any other problems with viewing nonlethal damage as not hit point damage?

Irontruth: No explicit rules, of course. This is my interpretation for determining whether an effect deals hit point damage. If you have rules I am in violation of, please let me know. If there are no rules explicitly covering it, whatever you do to make the determination is interpretation.

thaX: The current discussion is whether or not the interpretation of nonlethal damage not being hit points is internally consistent. This assumes an agreement on at least the definition of hit point damage for the interpretation.

I understand you do not agree with that, but that is not the point of the current discussion.

The rationale is not that nonlethal doesn't do hit point damage 100% of the time.

It is that the general rule "Dealing Nonlethal Damage" does not meet the criteria of hit point damage.

Even if you were to consider nonlethal overflow specific rule to still count as nonlethal, and be hit point damage, it still wouldn't change the determination in relation to power attack. This is because, when making the determination for power attack, the determination is against the kind of damage on the roll, not the application of the result.

I think you'll find most people only consider specific rules when they are applicable.

You should probably make a new topic about whatever written rule that says to do this, because I think most people will have to change how they play the game.