Mallecks's page

Maybe some do all of that early stuff you talked about but you'd still end up fighting most of the dungeon. Do you have a motivation for each of the grunts such that you know which would take these side actions? Are you only talking about the named NPCs?

Just looked at an actual AP I'm running with an enemy camp. The camp is an oval but let's call it roughly 100ft by 100ft. There are 14 characters inside the gates. Every single one of them is a combatant. There are no cooks or maids or the like.

Of those 11 are stated as "fight to the death". The others aren't going to run away because what would their own people do to them if they ran from a fight? Unless they happen to be the last ones left, in which case the party still would have to deal with them for several rounds.

I think most people would deal with the problem at hand. There's 4 guys murdering people so that's what has to be immediately dealt with as quickly as possible. Splitting your force to deal with a "possible" side incursion from some possible alternate location doesn't make sense.

Me and my crew would all go and we would all kill the people I can see, then we'll spread out and look for more.

This is even a tactic in real life and in media. "I'll attack the front while you sneak in from the back". This works because it is understood that when you attack the front, people focus on the front.

Yes, in that situation it makes sense for all (or most of) 11 inhabitants to immediately attack the PCs.

Do the PCs enter the camp in broad daylight and announce themselves? They should be prepared for a result.

Do they enter the camp quietly and try to take out guards? Expect reinforcements shortly.

Do they enter the camp quietly at night? Maybe some enemies don't hear the battle because they are asleep. I'm not sure what structures are in this specific example, but the base DC will be zero before distance and barriers. Depending on conditions and levels, it is possible that not everyone hears the battle immediately.

Even if every person heard the combat... how many attack the PCs immediately? were they sleeping in their armor? Are they going to don their armor?

Again... every situation is different. there are scenarios where all enemies will immediately respond. In my last post, I was thinking of extremely large environments like castles, the encampment of an army, or very large dungeon where a whole community of beings live.

If the PCs attack a structure that has potentially hundreds of hostile creatures in it, it makes sense that not every single enemy is going to drop what they are doing and figure out what the sounds of a disturbance are. Most likely because in such large environments, the sound will not be heard, the creatures won't care or won't want to get involved directly unless it is their responsibility.

In the military, my duty was air craft maintenance. While on deployment, I was part of the designated task force to perform drills on defending our planes from attack. The scenario was basically if someone walked up to one our planes, planted an explosive and then blew it up. (Our aircraft were parked at the host country's civilian air port that was a 30 minute bus ride away from the main base and we only had a few buildings. Despite having probably 50-100 personnel on site away from the base, if an air plane was attacked our rapid response was to get 5 people to 5 designated zones in a certain amount of time. (several minutes).

So, in my real life experience, if enemies attacked multimillion dollar assets, the official military response is for almost every body to run away. Within several minutes, 1 person would show up to an area (to await reinforcements, which would take forever. They would have to be radioed an alert, then get ready for combat, then get into their vehicles and drive like 20 minutes to get where we are.

This is the type of situation I am describing.

Yes, if you have like 10 friends out in the woods and they getattacked, it makes sense for them all to immediately respond and the PCs should absolutely expect all the enemies gmto respond. If someone attacked the PCs, wouldn't they all respond? the answer is typically yes.

By this logic, how come every dungeon crawl doesn't devolve into a fight at the beginning? Fights are really loud and would be clearly audible through a door. People seeing fights would raise an alarm.

You should be fighting every combatant inside of a dungeon, including the boss, all at once, within the first 5 minutes

This depends entirely on the occupants of the compound.

Are they thieves? Maybe some thieves run down to attack the players. Other thieves go try to steal from the coffers.

Are the Evil? Maybe some of them are taking advantage of the chaos to kill rivals or further their own plans.

Are they dumb? Maybe they are just not able to mount an effective resistance.

Are they scared? Maybe some run away.

Are they lazy? Maybe some just figure that someone else will make the PCs go away.

Do the enemies have perfect information? Let's say that there is an attack the perimeter of a military encampment. Does literally every single soldier turn and bee line it to the this point? No. This is not effective. Those in the immediate vicinity will raise alarm that there is an attack. Some will rush to their aid. Others will leave to spread the information and begin to organize a response. The enemies likely aren't even sure how many people are attacking them when the word first spreads. Do they have back up? Yeah, 4 people just kicked down the door and started murdering people. This, obviously, caught you off guard. What else don't you know about? Did someone sneak in? What are they after? How many areas hold valuable resources? Are they trying to release a prisoner? Are they trying to steal money? Are they trying to stop a ritual? Are they trying to steal a valuable object? Are they trying to reach a treasure first? Maybe they're just crazy?

Depending on the specifics, I think that an organized and cohesive group would set up a center of operations (if necessary) and begin securing their structure. This requires man power. If 4 people just started attacking you, and you need to check all the tunnels, how many men do you send? Do you send 1 alone? What if he runs into another 4 people and they kill him? Send 4? How big is your dungeon? Depending on the size of the dungeon, a portion of it may only have a few men simply because they can't effectively defend that much space against an unknown threat (or a known threat of a particular strength.)

Depending on the specific scenario, it is possible that literally everyone will come to the aid. I just don't think this is a common outcome. If you want this to happen, plan accordingly. Did the PCs track the enemies back to a dungeon and start murdering everybody? Have all the enemies rush them and build the encounter appropriately.

Are they intelligent and/or organized?

What would happen if you suddenly heard your dog fighting something in your house?

What would happen on a military base if the gate is attacked? Or if anyone within the perimeter is attacked?

Once the state of alarm is raised in an area, they will probably hear only 1 of 2 things.

1. Sounds of the inhabitants organizing a response. Marching, orders, etc.

2. Nothing. Enemies are sneaking around looking for PCs or lying in wait. Opposed checks.

I find it very unlikely that a "dungeon" with doors to listen at would not really fall into the above two categories. Maybe if they had really long hallways, or there was another major distraction that would allow the sounds of combat to go unnoticed.

It is still useful to listen at doors. but like some of the examples provided, in most cases you are going to hear things like:

"They're coming! Hide!"
"We need a few men to secure each tunnel / hallway."

or random sounds like snoring or animal sounds. Maybe every now and then you find drunken enemies in an argument.

Reward players who do this by allowing them to avoid ambushes and set up ambushes for their opponent.

Punish players with...idk. Booby traps? Make the door a living door? put a pit in front of it? Cause a big loud sound that might deafen someone? Did they stealth up to the door? Have enemies on the other side of it listening for them.

When the vigilante ambushes an enemy or enemies unaware of his presence, he can attempt a Stealth check at a –5 penalty. The result indicates the DC of Perception checks to hear the vigilante’s attacks until an opponent’s first action, when the DC returns to the normal –10 for hearing battle. Other enemies present can still see the attack; this talent only prevents the sounds of battle from alerting others.

As a full-round action, the vigilante can move up to his speed toward an opponent who is unaware of his presence (or who considers him an ally) and make a single attack against that opponent. If the attack hits, he can attempt a drag combat maneuver against that enemy with a +4 bonus and without provoking an attack of opportunity. If the drag succeeds, the vigilante doesn’t need to have enough movement remaining to move with the enemy. The vigilante can’t use this ability on a true ally or a willing target.

Once per round, when the vigilante succeeds at a hidden strike, he can instantly drop the damaged enemy unconscious for 1d4 rounds. A successful Fortitude saving throw negates this effect (DC = 10 + 1/2 the vigilante’s class level + the higher of the vigilante’s Strength and Dexterity modifiers). Whether or not a creature’s saving throw is successful, it can’t be affected by that vigilante’s mighty ambush again for 24 hours. Only a stalker vigilante of at least 10th level can select this talent.

The vigilante can use Stealth to hide even when being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of dim light (his own shadow doesn’t count), he can hide without anything to actually hide behind. Only a stalker vigilante of at least 8th level can select this talent.

At 6th level, whenever an assassin kills a creature using his death attack during a surprise round, he can also make a Stealth check, opposed by Perception checks of those in the vicinity to prevent them from identifying him as the assailant. If successful, those nearby might not even notice that the target is dead for a few moments, allowing the assassin to avoid detection.

Here's some examples from Vigilante and an ability that is explicitly called "Quiet Death" from the Assassin prestige class. You can probably make it work with these and there may be more from other prestige classes, I didn't really look too hard.

You can use one of your advanced talents to grab 1 stalker vigilante talent.

Note: This talent is appropriate for unchained rogues and for standard rogues, but is not available to other classes or alternate classes that can choose rogue talents (such as ninja).

Prerequisite: Rogue 10.

Benefit: The rogue can select a vigilante talent. For the purposes of selecting and using this talent, she counts as a 10th-level vigilante with the stalker specialization, regardless of her actual rogue level. Her sneak attack counts as a hidden strike with reduced damage for the purpose of determining the effects of her vigilante talent, which means, among other things, that she can’t apply any of the vigilante talents marked with an asterisk (*) to her sneak attacks.

If you go Stalker Vigilante...

Improved Drag, Greater Drag = +4 to drag
+2 Leveraging Weapon = +4 enhancement to drag
Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver = +2 to drag
Thorny Ioun Stone = +2 competence bonus to drag
Pull into the Shadows = +4 to drag
BAB = +7

Drag = +23+STR

This can probably get you at least 10 feet in most cases, so you can get pull them around a corner or away from a door or something.

Skill Focus Stealth = +6
Stealthy = +4
Ring of Chameleon Power = +10 competence bonus (And disguise self, so you can try to look similar to the person you just took out. Another guard or something)
Class Bonus = +3
Class Ranks = +10

Stealth = +33+DEX

Silent Dispatch + Pull into the Shadows + Mighty Ambush + Hide in Plain Sight =

Run out and attack your Target. If you hit, he has to make a Fort save or go unconscious. Probably use Drow poison too. After his 2 Fort saves to remain conscious, you get to drag him a few squares back into darkness or around a corner or something. The Perception check to hear this is at the Stealth Check -5 (+28+DEX after the penalty and before modifiers.)

If you have knocked him unconscious, perform a coup de grace. If there are no guards in the immediate vicinity to hear the command word, use your ring to disguise yourself as the guard (or a random guard... or a random person who would be in this area... depending on circumstances, you could even get the attention of another guard to come check out his ally who has been killed in the dark corner or w/e)

If you have not knocked him unconscious, pray that you beat his initiative to keep the Perception DC at your Stealth Check -5 from Silent Dispatch. Perform a Full Attack and hope you kill him or knock him unconscious with more Drow Poison.

As with any sneaky sneak, consider Wand of Silence and Wand of Invisibility/Greater Invisibility. This makes some of the problems easier to deal with.

I've seen a handful of useful abilities that you could probably make work. While you yourself must be quiet, the real challenge is going to be preventing the target from screaming when you stab them. That is why this is difficult.

For you to achieve exactly what you want, it may require jumping through a bunch of hoops, but you could get there.

Or...

Buy a wand of Silence and invest in UMD. This is probably the easiest solution, will work in more situations, and you can use the other abilities to help you or fill in the gaps.

I don't see how it is inconsistent for the effect to be nullified by silence but not protection from energy. They are completely separate things. Silence says they are immune to sonic effects. The other prevents sonic damage.

Let's say I have Magical Lineage(Wail of the Banshee) and use Elemental Spell to change the untyped damage to Fire damage. It will still be blocked by Silence, but not Protection from Energy(Sonic).

I don't feel that the provided definition is acceptable. Any reflective surface can be used for the spell?

Can I use a puddle of water? Can I use glass from windows, as they can reflect clear images at certain angles?

Could I use someone's eye? With the proper perspective, it would be possible to see a clear reflected image. Land the touch attack against an Evil Eye and you can use that.

Target one mirror

You transform a mirror into a portal to an extradimensional space.

You polish a metal item until it is reflective enough to be used as a mirror

Technically, it says you can use it as a mirror, not that it is treated as or becomes a mirror. I would say that this combination doesn't work.

Do you expect ranged attacks through the area of reverse gravity?

A cursory Google search shows that average arrow flight speeds are between 225 and 300 fps depending on the bow.

Assuming straight horizontal shot, a 225fps arrow will only take approximately 0.022 seconds per square. I would say that the effect of gravity probably doesn't really come into play at close distances that people usually play at (because of the restriction of map/play space). Travelling through the effect for 10 squares only pushes the arrow up about 0.25 meters. This also depends on the number of squares of regular gravity before and after the reverse gravity.

I would not take this into account, as it is not provided by the spell. (Your archer could feel unjustly penalized.) If I did take it into account, it would only be for shots travelling through a high number of squares, which is an unlikely event as the reverse gravity would probably need to be laid out in a way specific to this purpose (and I would give the archer at the least an WIS check to figure it out and just move to side)

Too much trouble. I just wouldn't do it.

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

Paragraph 1 = Description of what flanking is

The rest of the flanking subsection regards additional clarification/information on how to determine flanking.

Even in the strictest reading of the rules, nonadjacent creatures get flanking.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Using Lunge, Long Arms, Long Arm Bracers (works off of Alter Self) we can get a +15 range on our melee attacks. There's some debate about the size of a large whip on a large creature. It could be 20, 25 or 30 depending on how you think it should work. (double, double+5, or triple) Let's say it is 30, double the size just for this example.

All right, so now my Whip Master with an active Long Arms effect and an active Enlarge Person effect, uses his Long Arm Bracers (swift action) and Lunge (no action) to make melee attacks at a range of 45 feet.

On the otherside, my ally is using a standard reach weapon and otherwise all the same effects for a melee attack at a range of 35 feet.

A = Attacker
B = Target
C = Ally

A -> 8 squares -> B -> 6 squares -> C

A is attacking B. Do they get a flanking bonus?

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked

Yes, when drawing a line between the two attacker's centers, the line passes through opposite borders. The opponent is flanked. That's a fairly loose positioning requirement when dealing at such large ranges. You could probably be in a different row even, especially because they are both large creatures.

A
A
_-> 8 squares -> B -> 6 squares -> C
___________________________________C

That would probably still get a flanking bonus. I don't feel like actually checking with a map and a straight edge or math right now.

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

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.

(emphasis mine)

James, I am uncertain about this rule interaction.

If Nonlethal damage were hit point damage, wouldn't spells and effects that heal nonlethal damage be modified by the healing nonlethal damage rule, and remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage?

Warped Savant...

The FAQs you have provided are extremely problematic. It is not explicitly clear that it would prove my position wrong. It is possible that explanation was provided without Nonlethal damage in mind or that the damage bonuses are not granted to nonlethal attacks.

However, I believe that nonlethal damage would be granted damage bonuses. Barring any additional information that could provide an alternative explanation, this convinces me that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

Even after all this time you're unaware of "damage" being referenced as hit point damage?

Damage wrote:

If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Doesn't that tell you that the term "damage" means hit point damage? At least when it's talking about weapon damage unless it's stated otherwise? Sure, it doesn't say "hit point damage" but it has the same definition you use for hit point damage.

It is the same definition I use for hit point damage, sure. So, in my interpretation, it is synonymous. Normal damage, lethal damage, hit point damage, and (in the cases of default assumption) damage all mean the same thing.

In your interpretation, it is not the same definition, and as such mean different things. Damage (default assumption) must be the Hit Point Damage subtype of Lethal Damage. It is not possible for the default assumption to mean "nonlethal damage" in either interpretation.

In an effort to prevent any confusion, (that it would be hit point damage in my interpretation, but not yours) I made the distinction in this case.

If the general term "damage" doesn't mean lethal damage how do we know what kind of damage a weapon does?

As for a Shadow's attack and DR... you're right, DR doesn't reduce damage from touch attacks.
I guess a better example would be a Magus using Spellstrike to deliver Chill Touch through their weapon. In your opinion, would DR stop some of the lethal attack damage as well as the 1 point of strength damage?
But okay, yeah.... you having DR reduce ability damage delivered via something that DR would prevent damage from makes the whole DR argument pointless.
Honestly, it never occurred to me that you would think DR would stop ability damage.

I'm not sure how Damage Reduction would interact with an effect that dealt different types of damage.

Let's say something has DR 5/- and, somehow, (maybe with Irontruth's homebrew method to determine what type of damage an effect deals) an effect deals 5 lethal and 5 nonlethal damage. What gets blocked? 5 lethal? 5 nonlethal? Could you divide it up? What if it was DR 10/-? Would it block both?

In any case....

I believe the FAQ for damage reduction vs spells dictates that the spell damage has to be B/P/S.

Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.

However, if a magical attack specifically mentions that it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, DR affects that damage normally, as if it were from a physical weapon. (Otherwise the magical attack might as well not have a damage type, as it would only interface with B/P/S damage in a very few corner cases, such as whether or not an ooze splits from that attack.)
For example, the ice storm spell deals 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage. If you cast ice storm at a group of zombies, the zombie's DR 5/slashing protects them against 5 points of the spell's bludgeoning damage. Their DR doesn't help them against the spell's cold damage because DR doesn't apply to energy attacks.

In this case, the damage type is Negative Energy. But is also isn't B/P/S, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

Cevah, I am confused by your point here. You can just say that because it is referred to in a specific clause, that it is required for the entire subsection. There is context.

Yes, it is required to make a melee attack to get the +2 flanking bonus.

Yes, it is also required that a creature must take up more than 1 square in order for the exception text to apply to a creature.

Both of these are true when you consider them in the context of the flanking subsection.

Anyone who takes the feats necessary to get Improved Snap Shot absolutely DESERVES to qualify for flanking. It's either half your feats or you're a monk, either way, you deserve to qualify as flanking.

Is it allowed as per rules, probably not. Unless you're a wizard, I'm sure they have a spell for that.

Either way, lots of ways outside of flanking to get sneak attack at range.

The benefit is to make ranged AoOs, which is a much, much better benefit than +2 attack.

Ah, okay, you saying that DR can reduce any type of damage that occurs from a normal attack makes everything else I asked not really matter.
Mine, for clarification, is that when the book refers to "damage" it means hit point damage unless otherwise stated. When it needs to be clarified for the type of hit point damage it means lethal unless otherwise stated.

I am unaware of any references to "Damage" meaning hit point damage. This is some type of extrapolation you have taken upon yourself to make. The default assumption is damage that "reduces a target's hit points." This explicitly excludes nonlethal damage, as it does not reduce a target's hit point.

I'm surprised that you think DR could stop ability damage (in some cases). A Shadow's melee attack is:

Melee incorporeal touch +4 (1d6 Strength damage)
so that means that, in your opinion, DR/- would stop that strength damage?

Damage Reduction does not work on touch attacks.

However, if the Shadow's melee attack met all the requirements for damage reduction, then it would be reduced.

So you don't have a default assumption when it says "damage"? Wouldn't that mean that DR then stops ability damage? That sure doesn't seem right. Please explain why DR doesn't stop ability damage if you're not using an assumption in regards to DR only stopping certain types of damage.

1. Most/All instances of ability damage / drain bypass damage reduction. However, if there an effect met the requirements for damage reduction and dealt ability damage/drain, then it absolutely would be reduced by damage reduction.

It's not relevant to this topic? Okay, so that means we both agree that DR stops hit point damage (because we both know it doesn't stop ability damage) therefore it stops both lethal and nonlethal damage.

Yeah, no, what DR stops and how you get that conclusion is completely related to if nonlethal is hit point damage or not.

2. I am unaware of any references to DR reducing hit point damage. DR reduces damage. If you feel this means damage that reduces hit points (default assumption) then it doesn't reduce nonlethal damage in your interpretation. If you feel this is the generic term "damage", then it would reduce any type of damage that meets the requirements for damage reduction.

3. I believe that DR would stop any ability damage that meets its requirements.

4. It stops both lethal and nonlethal damage that meets its requirements, as they are both forms of damage, not because they reduce hit points.

5. Please provide the specific text that DR interacts with "hit point damage." The term "damage" is used, and as stated above, this can either mean ALL damage or the default assumption (lethal only). Or, I suppose you could make try to make the case on some context-specific definition, but it seems to be the former.

You're aware that damage doesn't necessarily reduce your hit points. That's good to see!

No, I'm not going to give you an answer that doesn't involve "hit point damage" because, as I just said, I understand the book to mean that nonlethal and lethal are both forms of hit point damage. You don't so I'll wait to see how yo infer what kind(s) of damage DR reduces.

6. I don't infer any kinds. I don't believe the default assumption is used here. All damage types can be reduced by damage reduction (if it meets the requirements.)

7. The answer you provided doesn't use the term "hit point damage", as such, it applies equally to my position, as I noted above. If you say that Damage is the default assumption, that means lethal damage (damage that reduces hit points.) It is not possible for the default assumption to refer to nonlethal damage as well. If the default assumption could mean lethal or nonlethal, then how do you know which type of damage is dealt by an attack? It could be either lethal or nonlethal.

"Damage reduces a target's current hit points" isn't ignored in my opinion, it is added to with the nonlethal damage. But since, in your opinion, the only way you can damage hit points is by reducing the targets hit points what's your justification for DR stopping something that (again, in your opinion) doesn't reduce the targets hit points? (Read: Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points so why would DR reduce nonlethal damage and nonlethal isn't reducing a targets hit points?)

8. It seems that you are making the claim that Damage Reduction does not reduce damage that doesn't reduce hit points. What text are you using to come to this conclusion? As far as I know, Damage Reduction reduces any damage that meets its requirements.

Hopefully I've made this plain enough/said it in enough different ways that you're not confused by what I'm trying to get you to answer and that you can understand how this obviously matters to the topic.

9. I still do not see how it is relevant. It is tangentially related, as the default assumption of the term "damage" provided in the Damage subsection of the Combat Statistics section of the Combat chapter is set up as "Damage reduces a target's current hit points." This is a similar definition that my position would use for Hit Point Damage. However, the specific interaction between "Damage" and "Damage Reduction" is the same regardless of what the definition for "hit point damage" is. So, however you think "Damage" and "Damage Reduction" work together, will work the same for both positions.

10. Hypothetically, if there were an effect that met all the requirements of Damage Reduction and it dealt ability damage instead of lethal damage, would you reduce it with Damage Reduction? If no, what rules would you be using to trump the Damage Reduction rules?

What in the books tell us when to use the default assumption and when not to? Surely, if there's times when you do and times when you don't it's listed in the rulebook somewhere...

I'll get to everything else when I have time.

I am unaware of any text that explains when to use the default assumption. It is possible that the default assumption is only restricted to the Combat Chapter or the Damage Section. It is possible it is supposed to use literally every single time. This issue is not relevant to the topic, because no matter what decision you make, it will also work exactly the same for me, because Damage Reduction doesn't use the term "hit point damage" and the two suggested definitions for hit point damage do not reference damage reduction. It is also possible that each instance requires context, making it up for interpretation.

HOW DOES THIS THREAD I SAW CREATED BUT NEVER LOOKED AT HAVE SO MANY POSTS???????

90% of this topic is a tangent where Irontruth is trying to say that my interpretation doesn't work with the way he uses Power Attack, and my trying to explain that the way he uses Power Attack doesn't work in either interpretation.

Damage: If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

The first line tells you that a weapon causes damage. DR stops damage. That's why DR stops both lethal and nonlethal damage in my interpretation.

Ok, so, are we going to ignore "Damage reduces a target's current hit points"? If you are going to ignore that part, then it is also ignored in my interpretation and Damage Reduction stops both lethal and nonlethal damage. As you can see, because Damage Reduction doesn't use the term hit point damage, it was able to be immediately applied to my position with no change.

If you give me an answer that doesn't use "hit point damage" it is almost certainly going to be applicable to my position with no changes.

You're argument to show that a sap can deal damage is that you can take a -4 to do lethal and therefore that statement remains true. "Damage reduces a target's current hit points" and since nonlethal doesn't do that (according to you, because there's no nuance in neither the hit point system nor how hit points can be damaged) as well as the fact that nonlethal isn't "real" damage (as you've pointed out the book says) then that means that, according to your own arguments, DR doesn't prevent nonlethal damage.

I'm confused, why does "Damage reduces a target's current hit points" suddenly matter for my position when it was ignored in yours? In any case, nonlethal damage is a type of damage, so a sap deals damage whether you are dealing lethal or nonlethal damage.

If you hadn't been using these two things to argue against us so strongly I'd totally be fine with you saying that I'm wrong and that's not how you read what damage is. But if you try to say that nonlethal suddenly counts as "real" damage to you I think I'd feel compelled to go through this thread of horribly circular arguments again and pull up the times you used 'nonlethal isn't real damage, it says so in the book' and have you try to justify those points again.

You haven't shown that Damage reduction doesn't work against damage that isn't "real". Do you have any references that shows that damage reduction doesn't work against damage that isn't "real"?

Ability damage and drain go against one or more of the character's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) ((Do you use Com?))

Yes, but what type of damage is Ability Damage? And what type of damage is ability drain? They are each their own type of damage. (Just like nonlethal damage)

Precision Damage is a type of damage that has it's own particulars and effects HP directly. This is additional damage that can be used with Nonlethal as long as a character is not taking a penalty to deal Nonlethal Damage. (Such as using a Sap or the Blugeoneer feet) It typically is sneak attack damage that a rogue deals in certain situations.

Precision Damage is a type of damage that can be assigned to any other type of damage. There can be precision ability damage, precision lethal damage, precision nonlethal damage, precision energy damage, etc.

The ability granting precision damage doesn't always require restrictions about the weapon dealing nonlethal damage. You are talking about sneak attack. Sneak Attack doesn't allow weapons that deal lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage, regardless of whether or not a character takes the -4 penalty to the attack roll. The only reason why the Bludgeoner feat works is because it's "Special" text explicitly defines it to work with a Rogue's sneak attack.

There are many types of abilities that provide precision damage, though a Sneak Attack is probably the most common, and precision damage is a special type of damage that has certain restrictions and interacts with other things in different ways. It is its own type of damage. (Just like nonlethal damage.)

Positive and Negative damage are a type of energy attacks and typically are either touch attacks or area effects.

This is incorrect. Positive Energy and Negative Energy are not energy attacks. Energy Damage is implicitly defined as a category of damage containing: Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, or Sonic damage.

This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature's hit points. The value of the energy resistance granted increases to 20 points at 7th level and to a maximum of 30 points at 11th level. The spell protects the recipient's equipment as well.

There is also an explicit definition provided by a developer.

Positive energy and negative energy are not "energy types," despite the unfortunately confusing use of the word "energy" in their name.

There are 5 energy types in the game that cause damage: acid, cold, fire, electricity, and sonic. In many cases, sonic is left off since it's one that so few monsters are resistant or immune to.

The sorcerer's elemental bloodline arcana and spell feats cannot affect positive or negative energy at all.

so, no, Positive Energy and Negative Energy are not energy damage. They are their own type of damage. (Just like Nonlethal Damage)

Force damage is a type of energy attack and typically are touch attacks, if not automatic hits from Magic Missiles.

Force Damage is not energy damage. See above for what energy damage is. Force Damage isn't that. It is its own type of damage that has its own qualities. It is its own type of damage. (Just like nonlethal damage.)

Bleed Damage is an ongoing effect that directly reduce HP.

Bleed Damage is not always HP damage. It is possible to be nonlethal damage, ability damage, etc. Bleed Damage is its own special type of damage (just like nonlethal damage.)

All but the ability damage/drain reduce HP, yet can not be used with Power Attack. (Con damage/drain only reduces the max HP the character has and does not actually damage HP)

Incorrect. Power Attack applies to all melee damage rolls that are not touch attacks and deal hit point damage.

You can Power Attack with a Battle Poi and get +2 Fire Damage, for example. As long as you meet the conditions, you are going to get the bonus, no matter what type of damage the melee attack is doing.

Why put these up as examples? Nonlethal Damage is still able to be used with a Melee weapon (and ranged weapons with Blugeoneer), and still effects HP as direct damage to the target. When using Nonlethal Damage in this way, why would it exclude any other ability that one could use with Lethal damage?

1. I was listing types of damage that are their own types of damage. Just like I am claiming nonlethal damage to be. Clearly, this has gone over your head.

2. Bludgeoner does not provide characters with the ability to make nonlethal ranged attacks.

3. Nonlethal Damage does not effect HP. This is explicitly in the rules.

4. I am confused by your question. Are you asking why it doesn't work with Power Attack? The answer would be that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.

All I see you, B Lucky, and Galiant Armor saying is "because Nonlethal."

The answer isn't "because Nonlethal". The answer is "because not hit point damage" and that is the language used by Power attack.

It is appears that you do not understand what the "nonlethal damage is not hit point damage" position is, what damage types are, or how certain feats work. Hopefully, this post cleared some of it up, but I do not have confidence as you so far have seemed unable or unwilling to even understand my position.

Mallecks wrote:

thaX wrote:

If you don't get the damage bonus, you would not have the penalty to hit. If I take the penalty to hit, I will get the bonus to damage. All or nothing, and both Lethal and Nonlethal deal damage from a melee weapon. Not Bacon.

This is incorrect. You take the penalty on all melee attack rolls regardless of whether or not you get the bonus.

If you use Power Attack and then cast Shocking Grasp, you would take the -1 penalty on the touch attack and would not receive the +2 damage bonus.

How is a touch attack used with Power Attack when it specifically says that it can not use such attacks?

We, as players, know we can't cast a spell and try to use Power Attack with it. (unless your a Magus using Spellstrike) It is an energy attack that is not a part of a melee weapon attack that Power Attack is based upon.

We take the penalty to get the damage bonus. One would not be excluded form the other. If the GM rules that Power Attack can not be used in a given situation, then my penalty is gone also.

The character would know what limitations he has for his ability, and how it would interact. You are confused because you look at Nonlethal as Bacon, not damage, Hit Points, or any type of hindrance at all. Why bother writing it down at this point? In your mind, it does nothing, and can't be used for anything.

This is incorrect. If you use Power Attack, you are getting the penalty on all melee attack rolls and only getting the bonus under the Power Attack conditions.

You said that if you get the penalty, you also get the bonus. I have provided a generic example where this is incorrect. Here's another one.

A monk uses a flurry of blows against Target. He gets two attacks. He uses Power Attack on the first attack and gets the penalty and the bonus. He replaces his second attack with a trip combat maneuver. His Trip combat maneuver suffers the Power Attack penalty and (obviously) doesn't get a bonus to damage, because it doesn't have one. The penalty isn't suddenly gone because the player gets no benefit.

You keep saying that the rules are consistent with GA's interpretation, but have been going in circles with this explanation and not really answering the most important question.

If Nonlethal "damage" is not Hit Points, then what is it? Bacon? Tomato? Some sort of math exercised for Pathfinder players? A new type of puzzle? Glutton free?

I'm sorry you don't understand this. However, it is clear that you are unable or unwilling to understand how something can be its own type of damage.

Ability Damage is its own type of damage.
Ability Drain is its own type of damage.
Precision Damage is its own type of damage.
Positive Energy is its own type of damage.
Negative Energy is its own type of damage.
Force Damage is its own type of damage.
Bleed Damage is its own type of damage.

and it is even possible for some effects to deal "untyped" damage.

Nothing really seeing a leap of logic here for Nonlethal to be its own type of damage. It certainly isn't defined as belonging to a different type of damage.

Mallecks wrote:

Nothing is ignored in my position.

Core Rulebook page 191 wrote:

Nonlethal Damage

Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is
not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal
damage is healed quickly with rest.
Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal
nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being
exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take
nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much
you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal
damage number from your current hit points. It is not
“real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage
equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see
below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.

You are ignoring this.

When it equals current HP, when it exceeds current HP. If this isn't Hit Points, it would not use Current HP as a standard to measure against for conditions that Nonlethal "Damage" would impart.

If it isn't HP, then it would not matter what the character HP is, max, current or lack thereof...

Nonlethal Damage (or lethal damage) is not "hit points." They are measured in hit points, but that doesn't make them hit points. Hit Points is the character statistic that isn't damage.

You have not provided a reason why something couldn't compare against HP and not be HP.

If X is greater than Y, then why would X be a type of Y? Here's an example...

If the cost of an apple is greater than 1 dollar, then it is expensive. This doesn't make the cost of an apple "money" or "dollars". The cost is an abstract concept that describes how much it would reduce my total amount of money. Now, lets say that I have in-store credit. My credit at the store is still measured in dollars. But guess what? It isn't money either. Dollars is just the unit that abstractly describes the amount of credit I have. Changes to my credit doesn't change how much "money" I have. It isn't "real" money.

Hopefully this makes sense, but you seem unable or unwilling to understand my position or even how certain abilities work, so I have a feeling you are just going to bring it back up.

Well, it says against most creatures cover or concealment is enough. So, you have to take the creatures abilities into account. A blurry rogue in an open field does not prevent a human from observing him.

Damage Reduction says: The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Damage says: Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Therefore hit point damage is the default when discussing 'damage' unless it says otherwise. Since you think nonlethal damage isn't ht point damage that would mean that, since a creature with DR only ignores some hit point damage, nonlethal damage isn't reduced.

This issue is the same for both interpretations. However you feel this works in your interpretation works the same for mine, because the term "hit point damage isn't used.

I am seeing Damage and Damage Reduction. If you feel the default assumption is used here, that is an issue with the default assumption and/or damage reduction.

Lethal/hit point damage being the default is how we know what Cure Light Wounds heals. Heck, here's a post where you say that lethal damage is the default assumption. (Not having either Lethal Damage or Hit Point Damage be the default when the books say 'damage' opens up all sorts of problems.)

This is incorrect. The default assumption is not required for CLW. The rules state that healing damage is to restore hit points. It is not explicitly stated, but contextually it seems that healing nonlethal means to remove nonlethal damage.

But hey, if you don't want to talk about that, let's take a look at other things you still haven't addressed, Mallecks:

-You say that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage

This is a meaningless argument. There is no reason to assume that all subsections within a section all considered to be the same topic as a paragraph of the first subsection of the section.

It would be more convincing if the section was titled "Hit Point Damage." However, it isnt. It is Injury and Death, and as such, it is an appropriate place to have the nonlethal rules. (There are probably examples of rules that placed inappropriately, but I don't even have to make that argument, because it is appropriately placed.)

-you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others (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?)

This is incorrect. I would say that the rules that determine what type of damage an attack deals override the general "All weapons deal hit point damage."

You would probably say that the nonlethal damage rules override the "this damage reduces hit points. "

-nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points

Ability Damage and Ability Drain are both measured in ability points. We do not consided them to be the same catgeory.

It is possible for Ability Drain to be the result of a damage roll, making it damage that is measured in ability points that isn't ability damage.

Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points. That doesn't mean it is hit point damage.

-some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal attack damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you (Shield Other would stop some damage from a lethal monk punch but not damage from a nonlethal punch from the same monk)

Sometimes magic effects don't translate well to reality. I can provide you a description of how it *could* work, but the bottom line is going to be "it's magic."

-Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal damage from attacks (but it can cure lethal and nonlethal environmental damage once the creature is out of whatever is causing it), but Fast Healing can cure both lethal and nonlethal damage from attacks or environmental hazards

I believe the only way that environmental damage can ever be healed is through natural recovery.

-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?

Do you have any specific examples exist for this? Hypothetically, it could mean that, but I haven't felt the need to try to go fetch an explanation has i am unaware of this being a thing that happens.

See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?
What are your justifications for ignoring these things?

The book flat our states that hit point damage reduces hit points and that Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce hit points.

At least my definition is actually pulled from the text.

What exactly is your definition of hit point damage and where are you pulling it from? I have summarized the opposing position as "damage that is measured in hit points" but that isn't Irontruth's definition, although his definition wasn't based on rules text either.

Why is the only use of "hit point damage" in the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule being used to reference it as a separate concept? And also, why would Nonlethal Healing Spells be modified by that rule?

Why is hit point damage used as an effect in some cases if it is a category of damage? Are there examples of other effects dealing "category damage"? (Sassone Leaf Residue)

Nothing is ignored in my position.

Actually, you can be concealing the weapon and have them not notice it. Hold it behind your back? In any case, if the weapon is concealed at the start of the surprise round, it is unlikely that you can make use of underhanded.

Underhanded explicitly states it is to be used in the surprise round, no matter how much rationalizing you want to say that it is talking about the flatfooted condition.

A rogue with this talent gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon. Furthermore, if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about, she does not have to roll sneak attack damage, and the sneak attack deals maximum damage. A rogue can only use the underhanded talent a number of times per day equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0).

Flatfooted isn't even in the description of the ability, so I don't see how it is relevant. You could use Underhanded against a target that isn't flatfooted (such as with Uncanny Dodge).

Regarding the whole Damage Reduction tangent:

This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity

So, this is an actual use of normal attack, instead of one we have to try to make up.

Let's see what these are....

Aid Another, Charge, Combat Maneuvers, Feinting, Mounted Combat, Throwing Splash Weapons, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

So, as these are categorized as "Special Attacks" by the rules, are we suddenly going to start considering TWF or charges to bypass damage reduction?

At the very least, if we are going to be hyper-specific about language, can we refer to abilities that actually impact the discussion? (aka: text that uses the terms "hit point damage" or maybe "nonlethal damage".)

Damage Reduction does not use the term "Hit Point Damage", so I am confused why anyone would think it suddenly starts behaving differently. Please provide the actual text that is causing confusion. If it does not use the term "hit point damage" then it should work EXACTLY THE SAME in both interpretations.

If you don't get the damage bonus, you would not have the penalty to hit. If I take the penalty to hit, I will get the bonus to damage. All or nothing, and both Lethal and Nonlethal deal damage from a melee weapon. Not Bacon.

This is incorrect. You take the penalty on all melee attack rolls regardless of whether or not you get the bonus.

If you use Power Attack and then cast Shocking Grasp, you would take the -1 penalty on the touch attack and would not receive the +2 damage bonus.

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an elven curve blade sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon.

I would expect it to work on any Finesse weapon (which is a weapon quality that the Elven Curved Blade has.)

At 1st level, a mirror witch creates a direct link to the power of her patron. She chooses a patron as normal, but instead of gaining a familiar that serves as the conduit to her patron, she uses a mirror (worth at least 10 gp) to speak to a fragment of her patron’s power. This fragment teaches her magic and acts as a counselor.

The mirror is essentially an immobile familiar. The mirror witch can activate it with a minute-long ritual that calls the patron fragment to manifest itself through the mirror. While this connection is open, she can prepare spells, add new spells to the mirror, and use the mirror’s special abilities. In place of the boost granted by an ordinary familiar, the mirror grants the mirror witch a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks regardless of whether the mirror is nearby. The mirror can’t be used for abilities that require the presence of a familiar, such as the blight hex.

If the patron mirror is destroyed, the mirror witch can replace it 1 day later through a special ritual, attuning a new mirror to a different fragment of her patron. The mirror witch must purchase or procure a new, suitable mirror and spend 500 gp per witch level she has. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete, and when it is finished, the mirror witch establishes a connection with a new fragment of her patron and loses access to spells stored in the previous mirror, as normal for a lost witch’s familiar.

As the mirror witch progresses in level, the mirror’s defenses increase, and the connection between it and the mirror witch becomes stronger, allowing the patron to manifest more of its personality—see the Patron Mirror section below.

This ability replaces the witch’s familiar.

Some text implies that it isn't a familiar. (Example: ... instead of gaining a familiar that serves as the conduit to her patron....)

Some text implies that it is a familiar. (Example: In place of the boost granted by an ordinary familiar..)

Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don’t usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

Based on this, I would argue that it is not possible for any inanimate object to benefit from AC based on this, but there could be additional information somewhere that would show they do.

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round.

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can’t take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

So, I stand corrected. You cannot suddenly decide to start casting defensively, you have to continue the action.

You can definitely take the 5-ft step though. Not as broken as it seemed. Are you a Whip Master Shadowdancer? =)

Attacks of Opportunity is a section described in the CRB on page 180 before the section on Actions in Combat. I would say that an AOO is not an action, and therefore what you describe is legitimate.

However, a 5-ft step is also a no action, so the sorcerer may be able to 5-ft step away after your character's dimension door to get out of range of the AOO.

This. Also, it may be possible for the caster to cast defensively with new information of the shadow dancer standing behind them.

Although, I'm not sure exactly how much leeway there is in changing a triggering action when a readied actions happen.

Butt_Luckily -- Let me start off by apologizing. I did not intend to belittle you. I'm sorry that I said things that came across that way.

Butt_Luckily wrote:

...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.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood. I thought that you and Mallecks were saying that interpreting nonlethal as hit point damage was wrong. It's good to see that you can understand our perspective.

I can see why you and Mallecks have the stance you do ("Damage reduces current hit points") but looking at how some things interact when you don't consider nonlethal to be hit point damage really doesn't sit right with me.

If the rest of this conversation is simply Irontruth pointing out what he sees as flaws in your thinking, well, I don't have much to add because I disagree with most (if not all) of the points he's trying to make.

Currently, there are two issues being that nonlethal healing spells are modified by the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule and the uses of hit point damage that are problematic by treating it as a category instead of a type. (Blood Leaf Residue)

Talonhawke has provided an explanation to handle the latter, but it is an extension of the interpretation that is not based on rules text, iirc.

Butt_Luckily is accurate in my conceding the Regeneration not healing nonlethal damage. I do not agree that the Regeneration behaves in a way that would prevent it from being modified by the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule. However, it was easier to just concede the point and move on, as it wasn't a point that would make the position logically invalid.

I believe that both positions can be logically consistent. It just depends which pros/cons you want to play with. I would like to fully explore both sides of the issue, but we've been bogged down on how to properly apply Power Attack.

I'm willing to address things like this once you admit that Power Attack applies to all hit point damage. You keep wanting to spiral the conversation out into other things without resolving the first thing. Do you think it productive for us to disagree on MORE things before we agree on ONE thing? That seems pretty dumb.

Or is your goal to have a never ending debate where we never agree on anything?

Power Attack provides a bonus to melee damage rolls based on whether or not the effect deals hit point damage.

Disabled starts with "When your current hit point total drops to exactly 0, you are disabled." But you're trying to claim that it has nothing to do with hit point damage? That's... interesting.

Dying starts with: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying." Tell me again how your hit points dropped to a negative score without this being about hit point damage...
Dead: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying." No, nothing to do with hit point damage at all... Clearly you're dead through something other than hit point damage!
Stable Characters and Recovery: "On the character’s next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points..." Still think each of these headers aren't about hit point damage?
Healing: "After taking damage, you can recover hit points through
natural healing or through magical healing..." Really? Not about hit point damage... it must mean recovering hit points that were lost through some other means?
Temporary Hit Points: "Certain effects give a character temporary hit points." Sure, it's right in the title but clearly isn't about hit points! We'll just ignore that it goes on to talk about how to deal with temporary hit points that were damaged.

But sure, let's ignore the fact that 7 out of 8 headers are clearly discussing something to do with hit point damage because otherwise it edges too closely to your view being wrong... let's look at the one thing that your entire argument seems to stand on...
Effects of Hit Point Damage:
Damage doesn’t slow you down until...

The argument that 7 out of 8 things in a list are X therefore 8 must also be X is a very unconvincing argument.

If there were a section called "Prime Numbers" and each subsection were about a specific prime number, there would be infinite subsections. Even though there are infinite subsections in this "Prime Number" section, only 1 of them is even. (2)

7/8 involve hit point damage. That doesn't require the 8th to also be about hit point damage. It, also, makes sense that most of the sections would be "about hit point damage" as the section summary explicitly says that hit point damage is the most common way of taking damage.

However, I do not consider the "Death" section to be about "hit point damage." I consider it to be about "death." That doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with hit point damage, it just means that isn't the focus of that subsection.

Zero of the sections in the "Injury and Death" section of the Combat chapter are 100% dedicated to hit point damage.

There are probably rules that exist in sections where they don't necessarily "belong." However, in this case, I feel that the Nonlethal Damage rules are appropriately placed in the Injury and Death section of the Combat chapter.

Nope, I tally all the modifiers before the roll happens. The damage isn't appearing out of no where, it is there the whole time, but isn't activated until certain conditions are met. The bonus damage is present the whole time.

Right, so all the natural attacks in my example provided get a +0 damage from STR. They all happen within the same Full-Round action, so are all being modified until the action is complete.

All modifiers are tallied before the roll happens.

Claw 1 = 1d4+STR
Claw 2 = 1d4+STR
Bite = 1d3+STR

but the value of STR is changing throughout the full attack and the value of STR continues to change until the action is over.

*This is with your arbitrary homerule that rolls can be modified after the roll is made but before the action is over. Even though there are no rules backing this up and rolls can be modified at any point in time, including in subsequent turns. As you are unable to provide a rule that shows I can't.

Your innate understanding of the moon renders you immune to the curse of lycanthropy.

Additionally, you may disrupt a lycanthrope‘s connection to the moon with a successful touch attack. This action automatically forces the lycanthrope into its humanoid form, in which it must remain for a number of rounds equal to your oracle level. Upon reaching 5th level, you can use this ability to force others into a rage, as the spell. Using this ability is a melee touch attack. You can use this ability once per day at 5th level plus one additional time per day for every 5 levels above 5th.

Curse of Lycanthropy is a special ability described in the Universal Monster Rules.

Here's a link

A natural lycanthrope's bite attack in animal or hybrid form infects a humanoid target with lycanthropy (Fortitude DC 15 negates). If the victim's size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope's size, this ability has no effect.

Format: curse of lycanthropy; Location: individual attacks.

While I agree that the Lycanthropy oracle curse is a "curse of lycanthropy" they are probably referring to this monster rule.

Well, to be more specific, you are persisting the conditional modifier past when the roll is made. This is not reflected in the rules for rolling.

You make the roll and total the values of any dice and any modifiers. There is no mechanism for modifying this the total result of the roll at a later time except where explicitly defined with certain abilities.

You not only want to modify a roll after it happens, you want to modify a roll after the results have been revealed. (with the conditional Power Attack.)

Much like your strength drain example, conditions only matter at the time of the roll. Iterative attacks that are somehow causing you to lose STR would result in subsequent attacks to lose benefits that are derived from the Strength score.

However, with your interpretation of rolling, a Full-Attack action is a single action. So, strength would actually retroactively apply to all attacks made within that action, because of the persistent nature of the conditional modifiers.

Creature gets 3 claw/claw/bite and 16 STR. Each time they hit Target, they suffer 2 STR drain.

Claw 1 = 1d4(+STR)
Claw 2 = 1d4(+STR)
Bite = 1d3(+STR)

Creature performs a Full-Attack Action. It is a single action, so all rolls can still be modified. Each attack gets +0 damage from STR.

Modifiers are only relevant at the time the roll is made. Any modifications after that point require special text that allows for the result of the roll to be modified that is not present in Power Attack.

This is the situation created by your interpretation. If you don't like it, change your interpretation of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Or find a rule that excludes it.

Nothing about the definition of hit point damage changes how bonuses/penalties to rolls work, creates brand new types of conditional bonuses/penalties, changes when rolls are considered "made", or changes how to determine the type of damage dealt by an effect.

Several of the questions had nothing to do with nonlethal damage or hit point damage, but were just straight up problems caused by your interpretation of rules outside the topic's actual discussion.

If you provide an argument against my definition for hit point damage, and the argument is invalid in examples where the definition of hit point damage isn't used, then it isn't a valid argument.

Why do you feel that the target must take damage in order to determine the type of damage of the effect? We can update the definition slightly, if it was confusing you.

Hit Point Damage is damage that is defined as reducing hit points.

Thus, when you perform a nonlethal attack, you use the rule for determining the type of damage the attack deals (such as the nonlethal weapon quality), we can check the rulebook and see that it is defined as not reducing hit points and is not hit point damage.

This is what we were saying all along, but maybe it was confusing to you. Reading it out of context, I could see the misunderstanding.

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?
That seems like a really weird thing to me...

The number of subsections concerning a particular topic within a section doesn't change the other subsections within a section.

In any case,

I only consider the "Effects of Hit Point Damage" Paragraph to be about hit point damage. The Disabled section is about being disabled, not hit point damage. The dying section is about dying, not hit point damage. ect...

Mallecks wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

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

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

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

I have no problem with actions being discrete, separate events. Please provide the rule you are using to say a roll can be modified after the roll, but not after the action.

Tell me the rule you're using to determine when the roll "ends". You keep saying "after the roll" but haven't shown me a rule that makes this clear. I can't answer a question that you can't define.

And then you still have to show that I can't put on conditional damage, that I've told you I can calculate prior to the target applying the damage.

1d8+3(+2 more if the target takes hit point damage)

See, I can calculate it prior to rolling.

--------------

1d8+3(+2 unless the effect is a touch attack or doesn't deal hit point damage)

The conditional bonus provided by power attack doesn't use information about the target to determine if you get the bonus or not.

Which rule are you using to determine the type of damage the attack deals?
------------
3. You have refused to explain how your new conditional bonus works with Power Attack / Energy Resistance.

If Creature performs a lethal attack against Target with DR5 and gets 5 damage (+2 if the effect deals hit point damage)

Does the creature take the 0 damage or 2 damage?
------------
4. You have refused to explain how Stoneskin applies to conditional bonuses.

If a Creature performs a lethal attack against the Target with an active Stoneskin spell that has 10 points remaining on its effect and you deal 8(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage), what happens? Does Stoneskin have 0 or 2 points of DR remaining?
------------
5. How does your new conditional bonus work with the minimum damage rule?

Creature Power Attacks Target and is sickened. The attack deals 1d8+1-2(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage) and Creature gets a 1 on the die. The attack is 0(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage). The penalty has brought the roll below 1, so the minimum damage rule kicks in. What happens?

does the target take 1 Nonlethal, 2 Lethal, or 3 Nonlethal?
------------
6. How does your homebrew method of determining the type of damage an effect deals work with Sap Adept?

Creature attacks with a sap and deals SA. The damage roll is 1d6+1d6(+1 if the attack deals nonlethal.) If Target has nonlethal damage = max HP, then they lose the benefit of Sap Adept?
------------
7. How does your homebrew method of determining the type of damage an effect deals work with Ablative barrier + Sap adept?
Creature attacks with a light mace and deals SA. The damage roll is 1d6+1d6(+1 if the attack deals nonlethal.) If the target has an active Ablative Barrier effect, then some of the damage will be converted to nonlethal. Does that mean the attack deals nonlethal damage and you get the bonus damage even though you rolled a lethal attack?
------------
8. You didn't respond to it, so just to make sure. Based on some of the examples provided, do you now agree that there is a distinction between when a damage roll is made and when the target takes damage such that it is accurate to say that the "roll is over" once you initially total the results?
-------------
9. Assuming no on Q8: Based on this new conditional bonus, wouldn't that mean there is conditional penalties? This is especially concerning when using your definition of rolling where total results can be modified as long as "no game time passes" or "it is the same action". This example also uses your homebrew rule for determining the type of damage an attack deals.

Creature makes an attack roll and its attack roll is 1d20+BAB+STR(-4 if the attack deals nonlethal damage. Target has AC 14 and an active Ablative Barrier effect.

Creature's attack roll is 16. Creature hits Target and Ablative Barrier converts some damage to nonlethal. No game time has passed and/or it is the same action, so the attack roll is modified because the attack now deals nonlethal damage and is subject to a -4 penalty, making the attack miss. However, if the attack misses, then it doesn't deal nonlethal damage, so it loses the -4 penalty and can no hit the target.

I'm not sure how to move on here.

----

I think I had more, but I forgot while I typed these up.

These rings once displayed the smiling face of a former king, and were forged in limited quantities to celebrate the end of his reign. As the years passed by, the rings were cast aside or lost. Recently, several resurfaced, but changed by unknown means— the former king’s face now bears a sorrowful expression, and flames loom behind him.

As a standard action, you may charge the ring with a +1 profane bonus by sacrificing 2 of your hit points. These hit points remain lost and cannot be healed by any means until the ring’s power is expended. You may do this multiple times, up to a maximum of a +5 profane bonus stored in the ring.

As an immediate action, you can add the stored profane bonus to any single attack roll, damage roll, skill check, or saving throw, which expends the charged energy from the ring. You must declare this use after rolling the die but before you learn the result of the roll. You must expend all the ring’s power at once. Once the charge is expended, you can heal your lost hit points normally. Expending this charge does not ruin the ring, and you may charge it again by sacrificing more hit points.

The charge in the ring can come from multiple donors, but none of the donors can regain their sacrificed hit points until the ring’s charge is spent or the ring is destroyed. For this reason, owners of a ring of terrible cost guard the item carefully.

This magic item seems to suggest that there is some amount of "time" that exists between rolling the die and the results happening. According to your (Irontruth) interpretation of rolling dice, the roll is happening all the way up until the action is over. (Despite being unable to provide a timing rule to back this up.)

Also, Irontruth, using your homebrew method of determining the type of damage dealt by an attack..

How does Sap Adept/Sap Master work?

Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage, you gain a bonus on your damage roll equal to the number of sneak attack damage dice you rolled.

If lethal overflow means the attack deals hit point damage (according to your homebrew rule) then would that mean a Rogue can't use Sap Adept / Sap Master when only dealing lethal overflow?

Rogue Nonlethal Sneak Attacks Target for 1d6+1d6. Target has Flagellent and Nonlethal = Total HP.

X+Y(+1 if attack deals nonlethal damage)?

What about with Ablative barrier?

Rogue Lethal Sneak Attacks Target for any damage. Ablative Barrier causes at least 1 damage to be converted to nonlethal damage. They get the full benefits of Sap Adept/Sap Master because the attack dealt nonlethal damage?

-------------------

Also, if the action isn't over, does that mean that mean that the attack rolls can be modified too? No "game time" has happened between the attack roll and the damage roll and the target taking damage.

I make an attack roll and the target has ablative barrier up. My lethal weapon dealt nonlethal damage, therefore I performed an attack with a weapon that normally deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage, but I didn't take a penalty on the attack? (If you have a problem with this, just reverse the example and use lethal overflow instead.)

I would argue that the swarm counts as a single creature, so Tripvine doesn't target each component creature of the swarm.

In this way, I don't even think that Tripvine works against a swarm. They would be immune.

In any case, Swarms are immune to trips, so it doesn't matter.

Not really.

If the dim light condition is in the entire area, it makes sense that the concealment provided is good enough to allow for a stealth check.

Let's pretend that there was an effect that made only your square count as dim light.

If you run dive behind the table by being observed, they will easily track the movement of the pocket of dim light behind the table.

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

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

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

I have no problem with actions being discrete, separate events. Please provide the rule you are using to say a roll can be modified after the roll, but not after the action.

And, for reference, these are the instructions detailing what a roll is.

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

1. Choose to use Power Attack

There are logical requirements. AFAIK, all steps that require a roll can not move forward without a total for that roll.

At 11th level, a daring infiltrator can spend 1 panache point to reroll a Bluff check after the roll is made but before the results are revealed. She must take the result of the second roll, even if it is lower. Additionally, a daring infiltrator with at least 1 panache point gains a +5 bonus on Bluff checks to pretend to be someone’s superior (socially or in the military). If she succeeds at the check, the target obeys any reasonable orders she gives as it would those of an actual superior in the situation. This deed replaces bleeding wound.

This ability shows that the "roll is made" before it is possible for the results to be revealed.

So, to make my criticism more in line with game language...

What rule are you using to modify the total results after the roll is made?

Also, which rule are you using to disregard the rules for determining a type of damage in favor of your "damage taken" determinism?

Edit:

As an orphan, you have always looked to Folgrit for protection. Once per day, you gain a +1 trait bonus on any saving throw. You must use this ability after the roll is made but before the result is revealed.

Here's an ability that allows you to add a bonus after the roll is made. Why make the distinction if you could always do it anyway?

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

or for that matter..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please provide the specific text you feel is an issue.

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

Mallecks wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

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

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

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

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

It is possible that I missed it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

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

getting started wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irontruth disagrees for reasons he's discussed.

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

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

This is more or less accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is possible that the magic of the teleport spell handles these issues? It is magic after all. Magic fills the void based on the surrounding material?

If this is REALLY relevant, it may be in your best interests to discuss it with the GM beforehand. Anything outside the spell text is flavor. I can see people saying there are zero signs at the destination location or people saying there are lights/sounds/smells?/etc.

I think it is usually best to not concern yourself too much with physical implications of the rules.

Do incorporeal creatures cast shadows? Do ghost touch weapons/armors cast shadows? What if a PC holds it? What if a ghost holds it? What if they are struggling over the weapon?

These were relevant discussions for a character I wanted to play a long time ago. I wouldn't expect it to play the same at every table.

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

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

This is incorrect.

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

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

These are two separate concepts.

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

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

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

The rules for rolling dice are provided:

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

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

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

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

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

Power Attack vs DR:

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

Power Attack vs Minimum Damage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to make sure we are on the same page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mallecks wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mallecks wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think casting a spell is considered a fine detail. I don't believe casting a spell out in the open requires any more of a perception check than noticing someone drawing a sword and swinging it at you.

Mallecks wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's assume that we are in a standard room with good lighting.

A rogue with Blur is being observed. So he hides behind something. He runs to the window and hides behind the curtains. The person will see a blurry rogue run to the window and hide behind the curtains.

I'm not seeing how the actual blur effect is helpful in hiding. I agree that the general stealth rules would allow it, but it would be an example of the rules disagreeing with "reality." Blur doesn't help you hide.

Good thing it was cleared up later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.

Nonlethal: These weapons deal nonlethal damage (see Combat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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