Ablative Barrier - Lethal Damage

[necronus]

"Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/—. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged."

Go to [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/spells/ablativeBarrier.html[/url].

Ablative barrier states that it converts 5 points of lethal damage into nonlethal, per attack.

Spells and other abilities that do damage such as Fireball do what kind of damage. Does a fireball do lethal fire damage, and since hitting a person with a fireball is an attack that does damage does the Ablative Barrier protect against this.

The rule books are very vague in regards to damage, and I need a clarification for my table. Thank you in advance.

Or a link to definitive answers, thanks again.

[Sleet Storm]

There is no such thing as lethal fire damage. Damage has a single descriptor,never more(unless the damage is split in half like Flamestrike),a Fireball does fire damage.Energy damage is not affected by Ablative Barrier.

Also Fireball is not an attack,attacks use attack rolls.

[Umbranus]

All damage that is not specifically nonlethal is lethal. You can die by being hit with fire damage, it's lethal. Ablative barrier works nice vs energy damage as it is not nonlethal.

And everything that makes an invisible guy visible is an attack. So if fireball is no attack it will not make you visible to use it while invisible.

[Zaister]

I would rule that ablative barrier affects only attacks that would otherwise be affected by damage reduction. I base this on the second clause which makes the spell grant specific DR against attacks that deal nonlethal damage. So, for example, damage from a scorching ray spell would not be affected, even though it requires attack rolls.

By the way, "nonlethal" is a damage qualifier that can be added onto any other damage type. For example, the frostbite spell specifically deals nonlethal cold damage, and an attack with, say, a sap deals nonlethal bludgeoning damage.

[Atarlost]

More than that any weapon that normally does lethal damage can do nonlethal damage for a -4 attack penalty and any spell that normally does lethal damage can do nonlethal damage with the merciful metamagic feat.

[necronus]

Atarlost wrote:

More than that any weapon that normally does lethal damage can do nonlethal damage for a -4 attack penalty and any spell that normally does lethal damage can do nonlethal damage with the merciful metamagic feat.

Merciful Spell (Metamagic)

Your damaging spells subdue rather than kill.
Benefit: You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type. A merciful spell does not use up a higher-level spell slot than the spell's actual level.

As far as everything I have read, even though it defies logic, only weapons do Lethal damage.

I have read on these boards that spells bypass all damage reduction as well.

Lastly, did they intend to make this spell soak both physical and provide a different form of resistance for elements.

As far as I know there are no spells that provide protection from both with the same affect.

DR isn't Resist and Resist isn't DR.

Where does it describe spells doing lethal damage? As far as I have read it only describes weapons doing lethal damage.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Atarlost]

That energy damage is not subject to DR is a reason for the spell to not apply, but all damage is lethal unless something says otherwise.

[Umbranus]

Zaister wrote:

I would rule that ablative barrier affects only attacks that would otherwise be affected by damage reduction. I base this on the second clause which makes the spell grant specific DR against attacks that deal nonlethal damage. So, for example, damage from a scorching ray spell would not be affected, even though it requires attack rolls.

That way of handling it could work well. But it would be a houserule as long as the spell itself doesn't treat it as DR.

And if the part about lethal damage would be a DR, it would negate the damage, not turn it into nonlethal.

I like the RAW version better.

[necronus]

Umbranus wrote:

Zaister wrote:

I would rule that ablative barrier affects only attacks that would otherwise be affected by damage reduction. I base this on the second clause which makes the spell grant specific DR against attacks that deal nonlethal damage. So, for example, damage from a scorching ray spell would not be affected, even though it requires attack rolls.

That way of handling it could work well. But it would be a houserule as long as the spell itself doesn't treat it as DR.

And if the part about lethal damage would be a DR, it would negate the damage, not turn it into nonlethal.

I like the RAW version better.

What do you mean by RAW version?

Also I was thinking, if all spells bypass damage reduction then:

Person A gets hit with merciful fireball for 20 nonlethal(NL) damage, and they have ablative barrier up (even though they have 5/- NL) they would take the full 20 NL.

Person B is an Sorcerer, Undead Bloodline, has the power (Death's Gift (Su): At 3rd level, you gain resist cold 5 and DR 5/— against nonlethal damage.) uses Ablative Barrier, wouldn't he still take the 5 nonlethal damage since AB is a spell and all spells bypasses DR?

Person C is a Skeletal Champion with Ablative Barrier up, gets an additional type of DR because, undead are not subject to nonlethal damage.

Person D is an alchemist with the following discovery: (Mummification (Ex): The alchemist has mastered preserving flesh and applied this knowledge to his own body, turning himself into an undeadlike creature. After learning this discovery, the alchemist must perform a 30-day regimen of a special diet, rigorous exercise, and drinking a mildly poisonous alchemical tea. At the end of this regimen, he falls unconscious for 24 hours, then awakens as a “living mummy.” The alchemist's type does not change, but he becomes immune to cold, nonlethal damage, paralysis, and sleep. An alchemist must be at least 10th level and must have the preserve organs discovery before selecting this discovery.)

Person D (continued): Since he is immune to nonlethal, I would assume that isn't a form of DR and he would be immune to merciful spells.

So, in conclusion if spells ignore DR, so merciful spells do full affect against someone with Ablative Barrier, then why would regular spells have a lesser affect?

[Umbranus]

necronus wrote:

So, in conclusion if spells ignore DR, so merciful spells do full affect against someone with Ablative Barrier, then why would regular spells have a lesser affect?

Spells don't ignore DR if they deal the kind of damage the DR protects from.

So if a spell explicitly deals bludgeoning damage DR 5/slashing or DR 5/piercing would help.
And even if that was not the case the ablative barrier doesn't give DR vs lethal damage but it converts lethal damage into nonlethal. Thus it doesn't matter how DR works. This is not DR. If you want to play it as DR you can do that but that is a houserule.

necronus wrote:

What do you mean by RAW version?

I mean the version as it is in the written rules( RAW=rules as written). The version that is not DR vs. lethal damage.

[necronus]

Umbranus wrote:

Spells don't ignore DR if they deal the kind of damage the DR protects from.

So if a spell explicitly deals bludgeoning damage DR 5/slashing or DR 5/piercing would help.
And even if that was not the case the ablative barrier doesn't give DR vs lethal damage but it converts lethal damage into nonlethal. Thus it doesn't matter how DR works. This is not DR. If you want to play it as DR you can do that but that is a houserule.

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction. According to RAW all spells bypass all DR.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html

necronus wrote:

What do you mean by RAW version?

I mean the version as it is in the written rules( RAW=rules as written). The version that is not DR vs. lethal damage.

I understand what RAW means, I don't understand what about RAW you were reffering.

Lastly, according to RAW as I have read, weapons deal Lethal & non-Lethal. Spells do elemental, Fire, Electricity, Cold, Acid, Sonic, Force, Positive, Negative, ext. Nowhere does it say that spells do lethal, except in reference to merciful spell.

Definitions of lethal is explicitly to melee and ranged attacks both from natural and manufactured weapons.

P.S. Thank you for the open dialogue.

[necronus]

Also another thought:

Ablative Barrier is a weaker version of Damage Reduction. DR is "Some
magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage
from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were
invulnerable."

So ablative barrier doesn't instantly heal, it converts to nonlethal
which heals quicker. This is backed up by the second half that gives
DR to nonlethal.

This is the best description of the spell. If you have stoneskin and
this spell up, only stoneskin applies to non-adamantine damage, if
they have an adamantine weapon then ablative barrier applies.

[Zaister]

necronus wrote:

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction. According to RAW all spells bypass all DR.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html

Actully this rule just got clarified/corrcted in the newest FAQ update:

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

Damage Reduction: How does DR interact with magical effects that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage?

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.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/06/13

[LazarX]

Ablative armor only affects damage which targets your AC. Spells requiring reflex saves don't.

[Sleet Storm]

Zaister wrote:

By the way, "nonlethal" is a damage qualifier that can be added onto any other damage type. For example, the frostbite spell specifically deals nonlethal cold damage, and an attack with, say, a sap deals nonlethal bludgeoning damage.

Acknowledged. Seems I was wrong and there is "multiple damage type" damage.I think thats problematic in all kinds of ways.DR/nonlethal does apply to spells as seen in the FAQ but Energy Damage is still not susceptible to DR but instead to Energy Resistance .Thats very ambigous.

Area of Effect spells like Fireball are still not attacks though.Invisibilty specifically states that "for the purpose of this spell" they are counted as attacks and that specification includes "any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible".That means pretty much anything targeting a "foe" would break invisibility but I think we can all agree that not any spell is an attack.

In general anything requiring an attack roll is an attack, anything that does not is not.

[thrikreed]

Reading through this thread I see a few different arguements, a few of which I've had previously.

Argument 1: Spells aren't attacks... Woah, what?

I once had a gm email me something like "casting a fireball is just not an attack, except in consideration for breaking Invisibility; otherwise it is only a hostile action."

My old Core Rule Book pg 208 say "Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone." This can also be found at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Special-Spell-Effects.

Seems pretty straight forward when considered for breaking spells like invisibility or sanctuary, so why is not straight forward for ablative barrier?

Argument 2: If spells don't deal lethal damage, how did I just die to that fireball?

The same gm emailed me something like "Weapons (nonmagical sources that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) only deal lethal damage. Spells only do elemental damage. Besides that one line of description in the Advanced Players Guide pg 155 'Merciful Spell - Spell Inflicts nonlethal damage instead of lethal.' (Which isn't a rule or an explanation!), it never states spells do lethal damage. Just elemental."

Descriptors like acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water; they all fall under Descriptors per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Descriptor- which can be found on page 212 of my Pathfinder Core Rule book and expanded upon in other books. I would like to point out that these descriptors do not list lethal or even non-lethal among their ranks.

Yet examples of non-lethal elemental damage are found in Merciful Spell's "Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type."; and by spells like admonishing ray, frostbite, and frostbite sling which do NLD in addition to an elemental damage.

So if it's not a descriptor like cold or fire, what is non-lethal damage?

It's just one of two ways to track damage on a character sheet. This is proven by "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."

In other words; if it's not being tracked like non-lethal damage, then it is lethal damage and should be tracked as such.

Argument 3: Ablative Barrier is just DR.

There are four sentences to the spell description.

1.) Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target,
granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC.

- No DR here, grants an armor bonus to AC.

2.) Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes
from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage.

- No DR here, changes how some damage is tracked. The sentence is quite clear about there being no reduction in the damage. The damage is still being dealt.

3.) Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/—.

- YUP DR. 5/- vs NLD, if it's NLD before the other sentences have been applied.

4.) Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal
damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.

- No DR here either, just information about tracking the damage and when that tracked damage gets a certain number the spell expires.

Looking to other sentences for clarity is good thing. Commingling the sentences to confusion is an entirely different thing, and a bad one at that.

Argument 4:

LazarX wrote:

Ablative armor only affects damage which targets your AC. Spells requiring reflex saves don't.

I think a see the intent here, but if we apply the same logic rule to another spell that grant a bonus to AC and has a secondary effect does it make sense there? Let's give it a try. 'Shield only negates magic missiles attacks which target your AC.'. Since magic missile does not target AC, I do not think this logic rule works well; but a bit more testing may be necessary to be sure.

---

Wrap up: Does this reasonably and logically answer all the questions presented here? Does that cover everything to everyone's satisfaction?

[Umbranus]

thrikreed wrote:

Does that cover everything to everyone's satisfaction?

I have an additional question: How would you handle attacks that deal part lethal and part nonlethal damage?

Would both aspects of ablative barrier trigger? The transformation of 5 points of lethal to nonlethal and the DR 5/- vs nonlethal for the original nonlethal part?

Let's say an orc ranger with the orc weapon expertise option that adds 1 point of nonlethal to his normal attacks strikes someone with ablative barrier. He swings his double axe and deals 1d8+7 lethal and 1 point of nonlethal.
Would 5 points of lethal damage be transformed AND the 1 point of nonlethal prevented by the DR? Or do you have to choose one?

I guess those who want to nerf ablative armor from the beginning will insist that only one applies.

[necronus]

In regards to "Argument 2":

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.

Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest.

(Note here it says unlike normal damage, not unlike lethal damage)

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

(Here it says weapons do lethal damage or nonlethal)

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

(Here it talks about doing lethal damage with a weapon that does non lethal)

Under grappling: Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

(Dealing Lethal with unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and light or one-handed weapons)

There are a list of rules showing that weapons deal lethal or nonlethal.

Pathfinder uses lethal to describe melee and ranged attacks involving weapons, both natural and manufactured. They do not use the term to describe spell damage.

Fire is the descriptor because you are taking Fire Damage, you resist fire damage with Resistance. It can not be resisted with Damage Reduction which resists attacks that do lethal damage.

Fire damage is damage, it is not nonlethal damage unless you cast it using merciful.

You list no rules to confirm that spells are classified as lethal damage. I just listed numerous ones showing that weapons deal lethal damage. RULES that demonstrate.

Support your claim with a rule. Descriptions of feats are not rules, they are descriptions.

Party Three: Sentences strung together are called a paragraph. Each sentence builds on the other sentences. This isn't MTG.

The spell gives armor, it converts lethal damage from an attack into nonlethal. This means if I pick you up and toss you into lava, you take full damage from the lava, because the lava isn't attacking you. If you fall off a cliff you take full damage because the ground isn't attacking you. If I cast create pit, you get a save because I attacked you, but you take full damage from the fall because the ground in the pit isn't attacking you; you got a save to avoid falling in.

The spell acts as a weaker version of DR.

DR heals the damage instantly.

This spell converts lethal damage into nonlethal, which you heal 2 for 1 with healing spells, or at a rate of your Character level per hour.

One heals instantly, the other takes a couple of hours, not weeks.

Lastly it provides you DR.

[Umbranus]

necronus wrote:

Lastly it provides you DR.

That conclusion is wrong. It might seem similar but it isn't DR.

[LazarX]

thrikreed wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Ablative armor only affects damage which targets your AC. Spells requiring reflex saves don't.

I think a see the intent here, but if we apply the same logic rule to another spell that grant a bonus to AC and has a secondary effect does it make sense there? Let's give it a try. 'Shield only negates magic missiles attacks which target your AC.'. Since magic missile does not target AC, I do not think this logic rule works well; but a bit more testing may be necessary to be sure..

That's not an applicable argument because the Shield spell is a SPECIFIC exception written into it's spell description so you CAN'T apply the same logic. Remember Pathfinder is two parts, rules and exceptions. Spells do not have any effects other than what's stated. The Ablative Armor spell is built to provide an armor effect only, so it provides no protection vs. spells. Fireball doesn't care whether you're wearing plate armor or are in the buff.

[thrikreed]

Umbranus wrote:

I have an additional question: How would you handle attacks that deal part lethal and part nonlethal damage?
Would both aspects of ablative barrier trigger? The transformation of 5 points of lethal to nonlethal and the DR 5/- vs nonlethal for the original nonlethal part?

Let's say an orc ranger with the orc weapon expertise option that adds 1 point of nonlethal to his normal attacks strikes someone with ablative barrier. He swings his double axe and deals 1d8+7 lethal and 1 point of nonlethal.
Would 5 points of lethal damage be transformed AND the 1 point of nonlethal prevented by the DR? Or do you have to choose one?

I guess those who want to nerf ablative armor from the beginning will insist that only one applies.

I think there is a little more room for rules interpretation here, but I would apply the DR 5/- vs NLD first because of the phrase 'Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage'; and then change the remaining damage to 1d8+2 lethal +5 non lethal per the second sentence. So final answer, the orc deals 1d8+2 lethal +5 non lethal damage.

[thrikreed]

LazarX wrote:

thrikreed wrote:

I think a see the intent here, but if we apply the same logic rule to another spell that grant a bonus to AC and has a secondary effect does it make sense there? Let's give it a try. 'Shield only negates magic missiles attacks which target your AC.'. Since magic missile does not target AC, I do not think this logic rule works well; but a bit more testing may be necessary to be sure..

That's not an applicable argument because the Shield spell is a SPECIFIC exception written into it's spell description so you CAN'T apply the same logic. Remember Pathfinder is two parts, rules and exceptions. Spells do not have any effects other than what's stated. The Ablative Armor spell is built to provide an armor effect only, so it provides no protection vs. spells. Fireball doesn't care whether you're wearing plate armor or are in the buff.

That's not an applicable argument because the Ablative Barrier spell is a SPECIFIC exception written into it's spell description so you CAN'T apply the same logic. Remember Pathfinder is two parts, rules and exceptions. Spells do not have any effects other than what's stated. The Shield spell is built to provide a shield effect only, so it provides no protection vs. spells. Magic Missile doesn't care whether you're wearing a shield or are in the buff.

Seems to me the logic can be applied to both of these eerily similar situations and there seems to be an inclination to apply it differently for one spell... Is this perhaps an example of a double standard?

*** edited the 'wearing plate armor' to 'wearing a shield'.

[thrikreed]

necronus wrote:

In regards to "Argument 2": Support your claim with a rule. Descriptions of feats are not rules, they are descriptions.:

I already have. If you are choosing to ignore and discount the rules I cite because they do not agree with your interpretations, I think it is pretty pointless to continue citing rules at you.

I do hope you find someone else who is able to help you.

P.S. I find it highly amusing that characters and monsters can't die to fireballs in your interpretation.

[necronus]

You haven't found any rule that states spells do lethal damage. Spells either do lethal damage, (bludgeoning, slashing or piercing) or they do elemental damage, (fire, cold, acid or etc.)

You found a description of a feat as your only footing. Where as I produced a long list of rules from the PHB, showing my that lethal damage is refereed to as B, S or P.

Produce a rule that supports your theory. Ignore the fact that ablative barrier doesn't protect you from environmental hazards as well.

Umbranus: when something smells like chicken, tastes like chicken it is safe to say it is either chicken or something similar.

This spell is poorly written, and based on the rules I have read and the conclusions I have heard, interpreting Ablative Barrier as a weaker version of DR is the most rules conscious, spirit of the game decision I have seen.

Lastly, Ablative barrier is alchemist 2, magus 2, summoner 2 & sorcerer/wizard 3.

Whereas Stoneskin is druid 5, sorcerer/wizard 4, Alchemist 4; the spell lasts less time and has an expensive component, and doesn't protect vs spells, no questions for debate.

Does it not look like ablative barrier was written to provide a weaker version of DR, at a lower level and no cost.

[thrikreed]

necronus wrote:

You haven't found any rule that states spells do lethal damage. Spells either do lethal damage, (bludgeoning, slashing or piercing) or they do elemental damage, (fire, cold, acid or etc.)

I am at a total loss as to how to explain this any better than I have... Anyone else?

I'd like a show of hands - Does anyone agree with Necronus on this? That you can't die from fireballs? If so, could you explain his reasoning a little bit better to me?

[Zaister]

All damage is lethal, unless specifially called out as non-lethal. Period.
"Lethal" is not a damage type. Arguing anything else is just sophistry.

Actually, "lethal" isn't even a defined gamwe term in this contect. There is "damage", and there is "non-lethal damage":

THE RULES wrote:

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.
Nonlethal Damage
Certain attacks 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.

[necronus]

Fireballs do fire damage. Not fire lethal damage.

You haven't proven anything. You found flavor text and quoted it as gospel. Flavor text has never been referred to as to what is allowed or not allowed, or used in rulings on how things work or should work. Flavor text is there to give flavor or pin ash. So sayeth the Sancho.

I have listed many rules showing what lethal damage is in used to describe weapons.

Spells do lethal damage, again (Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing)
Spells do elemental damage (Fire, Cold, Acid or ect.)
Spells do unnamed damage such as from Vampiric Touch

Damage kills you, weather it be weapon damage known as lethal, or spell damage known as elemental or unnamed.

You have not made a point, because you have not stated any rules.

[necronus]

Zaister wrote:

All damage is lethal, unless specifially called out as non-lethal. Period.

"Lethal" is not a damage type. Arguing anything else is just sophistry.

Point in a book, ruling or FAQ that states this please.

[Zaister]

Please state where the rules say that only blugeoning, piercing, or slashing damage is "lethal damage"

[necronus]

Under combat in the PHB, Weapons both natural and manufactured do lethal or nonlethal damage.

or you can read my previous posts.

[TheRedArmy]

I have to say, I don't have a clue where the exact rules are on this, but it seems to be a pretty simple ruling (to me). The text, as it's relevant:

Ablative Barrier wrote:

Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/—. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.

The +2 armor bonus is easy. No problems there.

The next part (the conversion of lethal damage) is really only a little tricky for me. Lethal damage is basically anything that's not non-lethal (in practical terms). So as long as it originated from an attack (and not a fall, say), it applies. I'd even let it apply to spells, mainly because spells only ignore DR (but this isn't DR). Considering the levels the spell is available at, and how it doesn't improve your ability to continue fighting (if you have 35 HP, 40 damage or 30 damage and 10 non-lethal is the same for your fighting capability - you're knocked out either way, it's just a matter of dying or not), I'm quite comfortable with this spell.

The DR would not apply to spells because spells bypass DR.

I don't really see the issue here. It should be noted, most likely, the only reason the staff bothered to write in "lethal damage" was because it also referenced non-lethal damage in the same spell. If the word "lethal" was taken out, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. Take this slightly re-worded, but functionally same spell:

TRA's Ablative Barrier wrote:

Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. If that attack already deals nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/— instead. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.

Functionally the same (in my eyes, anyway), but clears up basically all confusion.

[necronus]

Spells are either resisted with Damage reduction or resistance.

Spells that do elemental damage are resisted with the same type of resistance. Fire spells are are resisted with Fire resistance.

Spells that do B, S or P damage are resisted with damage reduction. Stoneskin ignores the first 10 points of damage from the spells that deal these types of damage.

Spells that deal untyped damge, can note be resisted with anything. Such as vampiric touch.

What you are saying is that a 3rd level spell, which is only 2nd level to all non wizards that can cast it, should be the best of everything.

Lets have a spell that soaks all damage equally and converts it into nonlethal damage that is healed with ease.

Oh but it gets even better, because if you have resistance or DR, this spell stacks with it to help you soak even more damage.

That is what you think was intended with this spell. This 2nd level spell, that lasts for hours per level.

[TheRedArmy]

necronus wrote:

Spells that do elemental damage are resisted with the same type of resistance. Fire spells are are resisted with Fire resistance.

Right. And any weapon that also deals elemental damage (Flaming Sword, for instance).

necronus wrote:

Spells that do B, S or P damage are resisted with damage reduction. Stoneskin ignores the first 10 points of damage from the spells that deal these types of damage.

Right. Or any weapon that deals those types of damage, of course.

necronus wrote:

Spells that deal untyped damge, can note be resisted with anything. Such as vampiric touch.

As far as I know.

necronus wrote:

What you are saying is that a 3rd level spell, which is only 2nd level to all non wizards that can cast it, should be the best of everything.

Lets have a spell that soaks all damage equally and converts it into nonlethal damage that is healed with ease.

Oh but it gets even better, because if you have resistance or DR, this spell stacks with it to help you soak even more damage.

That is what you think was intended with this spell. This 2nd level spell, that lasts for hours per level.

I'd hardly call it the best of everything. It doesn't help you stay conscious in a fight (without healing, that is). It only soaks 5 per hit (first level characters can get past that easy). It's one level lower than Stoneskin, and weaker overall, in my eyes. The DR would only stack if you already had untyped DR. There's only a few sources of that. And let's not forget the DR only applies against non-lethal damage, something someone has to go out of their way to do (either be a Monk (and choose non-lethal), have a Merciful weapon, or use a sap). Finally, it does last for an hour per level or until discharged, which is likely if you're in the line of fire. Personally I would be more comfortable with something like 10 min/level. When compared to other 3rd-level spells, I don't see it being particularly strong.

Stoneskin is much better for several reasons - the amount it can absorb is doubled per hit, and the total amount it can absorb is tripled - it applies to all attacks that aren't adamantine (not exactly lying around everywhere, and monsters virtually never have it), and still lasts a long time. The expensive material component is a minus, but it's not horribly bad.

The part of the argument that holds the most water (in my eye) is that if you have healing nearby, it's great. But that's true for many spells, to that extent that they work best with complementary abilities. Frankly, if I'm of a mind to support my party with buffs of some kind, I'd rather use other spells above this one. Which is how I think it's fine for it's level. I think I would get much more mileage out of haste, slow, blink, or something along those lines.

It should be noted, whether I think it's balanced or not is irrelevant. The poster is asking how the spell works. Based on what I know and how the spell reads, this is how I think it works. I just happen to think it's not that powerful.

[Umbranus]

necronus wrote:

What you are saying is that a 3rd level spell, which is only 2nd level to all non wizards that can cast it, should be the best of everything.

Lets have a spell that soaks all damage equally and converts it into nonlethal damage that is healed with ease.

Oh but it gets even better, because if you have resistance or DR, this spell stacks with it to help you soak even more damage.

That is what you think was intended with this spell. This 2nd level spell, that lasts for hours per level.

I think the spell was intended to convert every kind od nonlethal damage. But it does so only a very limited amount per turn and a limited number of times.

Comparing ablative barrier to stoneskin and saying the first is better is like comparing ablative barrier to mage armor and saying mage armor is better because it provides a higher armor bonus. And the trick is: Under some circumstances this is even true. Does that mean mage armor should be nerved? I don't think so.

[Narrater]

Ablative barrier is more useful for partial casters since it gives them a little more staying power with clerical support at lower levels. Since nonlethal damage is healed along with lethal damage it doubles the efficiency of every cure spell used on them.

Stoneskin certainly provides more overall protection then ablative barrier but it is at least 1 and in some lists 2 levels higher and it requires an expensive material component limiting its uses.

Ablative barrier provides less protection but it is untyped DR provides a +2 to AC lasts hours per level and doesn't require an expensive material component.

I would say that would make Ablative barrier a good buff to have on most of the time like Mage Armor. While Stoneskin is a spell you throw on during those ow crap moments.

Overall I would say that makes Ablative barrier a solid spell for its level. On a side note using the infernal healing spells or a ring of regeneration makes Ablative barrier even better.

[necronus]

I understand what you are saying.

But according to RAW: Lethal damage is only referred to as weapon damage.

Spells are never referred to as doing Lethal damage.

To say that they are, is to infer your own rules or force your own belief's into the system.

Point in the book, page number, paragraph that states spells do lethal damage and not just damage.

Point to a FAQ that spells do lethal damage.

I have already pointed at rules stating that weapons do lethal.

I have pointed at rules stating spells do damage, Fireball does Fire damage. Vampiric touch does untyped damage (which is can't be resisted).

Everyone wants to argue, nobody has quoted a rule, or FAQ supporting their claim.

[TheRedArmy]

So if someone hit me with a sword, and a cleric cast cure light wounds ob me, it wouldn't heal me?

cure light wounds wrote:

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

You see, it heals "damage", but not "lethal damage". So it does nothing by your logic.

Lethal damage and energy damage are not mutually exclusive. This is mostly to make a point. I can't quote a rule without the core book in front of me (which it isn't) .

[necronus]

All damage is damage.

Lethal damage is damage.

Fire damage is damage.

Curing damage is curing fire damage or lethal damage, and non-lethal damage.

Thank you for proving my point, CLW heals damage. Because all "types" of damage, can be healed.

Lethal is a type associated with weapons.

Fire damage is associated with Fire Descriptor spells and effects.

So thank you TheRedArmy.

You proved my point, even though you didn't mean to.

[TheRedArmy]

Hardly. I just misunderstood your point. I get it now. I was under the impression untyped damage was its own type, separate from the others. I understand your position better now.

It's hard to continue without a Rulebook in front of me, and I don't get online during the weekends, so I'll be back next week.

EDIT: Actually, I won't. You seem to have reached an answer to your question, so I see no reason to continue, as I doubt I can persuade you otherwise.

[Jason S]

All damage that isn't labeled non-lethal is assumed to be lethal and should be affected by the spell.

As proven above (merciful metamagic) damage can be both non-lethal and of any other type (energy or physical, etc).

If it only affected physical lethal damage, it would say so. Since it doesn't, it affects all lethal damage.

Brutal interpretations, I guess someone official should chime in sometime.

[hogarth]

Zaister wrote:

All damage is lethal, unless specifially called out as non-lethal. Period.

"Lethal" is not a damage type. Arguing anything else is just sophistry.

Actually, "lethal" isn't even a defined gamwe term in this contect. There is "damage", and there is "non-lethal damage":

Bingo. You beat me to it.

[necronus]

hogarth: Zaister wrote:
All damage is lethal, unless specifially called out as non-lethal. Period.

"Lethal" is not a damage type. Arguing anything else is just sophistry.
Actually, "lethal" isn't even a defined gamwe term in this contect. There is "damage", and there is "non-lethal damage":

Bingo. You beat me to it.

I'm glad you guys agree, now could you please show where in the rules your assertion comes from, I mean after all it looks like I'm the only person that can't find the information in any book or FAQ I have read.

I must be missing something.

Jason S: Merciful spell doesn't do anything with lethal damage, it makes typed damage into non-lethal damage of the same type.

The problem is I feel that everyone is asserting their own bias and not actually finding a rule to back up the stated view point, is all I'm asking for at this point.

I can get an opinion from anyone anywhere, I am looking for rules or FAQ that clear up an issue.

I'm pretty sure I have stated very clearly my position, and used rules and quotes from books.

[Forseti]

necronus wrote:

All damage is damage.

Lethal damage is damage.

Fire damage is damage.

Curing damage is curing fire damage or lethal damage, and non-lethal damage.

Thank you for proving my point, CLW heals damage. Because all "types" of damage, can be healed.

Lethal is a type associated with weapons.

Fire damage is associated with Fire Descriptor spells and effects.

So thank you TheRedArmy.

You proved my point, even though you didn't mean to.

There is no such thing as curing fire damage.

Damage is only typed at the moment you receive it, and the type decide how you deal with it. Once you've taken the damage and it's been deducted from your hit points, you're just missing hit points.

Unless it was nonlethal damage. Nonlethal damage is different in that it is not deducted from the hit point total, but it accumulates, and is compared to the hit point total.

Lethal damage is not a damage type. Weapons deal either bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage. Here's the entire rules passage that defines the damage type for weapons.

Spoiler:

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons. Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon. In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.

There's no mention at all of weapons doing lethal damage.

Every type of damage can come in the form of non-lethal damage. The word 'lethal' in the rules describing nonlethal damage are just a shorthand for non-nonlethal damage, otherwise known as just 'damage'.

[necronus]

Forseti I agree, there is only damage, however the rule book refers to weapons doing lethal damage in a number of places.

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest. <this even exemplifies what you and I are both saying that "Unlike normal damage" this is not referring to lethal damage, but just damage>

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Under grappling: Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

(Dealing Lethal with unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and light or one-handed weapons)

Pathfinder uses lethal to describe melee and ranged attacks involving weapons, both natural and manufactured. They do not use the term to describe spell damage.

I agree with you Weapons do B/P/S damage or any combination. Pathfinder also refers to these weapons as doing lethal damage. Which is why I believe Ablative barrier only works against this type of damage.

Spells are not referred to as doing Lethal damage.

All damage is damage, some comes from fire, some comes from slashing.

However, slashing is commonly referred to in the book as lethal.

Where fire, is never referred in this way.

[Forseti]

Lethal damage isn't defined anywhere.

The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with nonlethal damage. The term is only used in those contexts to signify that something that might cause nonlethal damage under some circumstances can cause regular damage under other circumstances. The word 'lethal' is only used to emphasize this contrast.

[thrikreed]

Forseti wrote:

Lethal damage isn't defined anywhere.

The term 'lethal damage' doesn't appear anywhere, except in instances within a context dealing with nonlethal damage. The term is only used in those contexts to signify that something that might cause nonlethal damage under some circumstances can cause regular damage under other circumstances. The word 'lethal' is only used to emphasize this contrast.

Well said. I am in total agreement here.

I want my fireballs to be lethal to the hoard of orcs. =)

[necronus]

He already stated that orcs die from fireballs, because they take fire damage.

So based on what he said, Ablative barrier doesn't work against anything except nonlethal. Per, RAW lethal damage is only referenced when dealing with weapons doing non-lethal showing that a non-lethal weapon can deal lethal damage and lethal weapon can deal non-lethal.

He also stated that it is an undefined term that only pertains as a reference to dealing with non-lethal damage.

[Zaister]

Obviously necronus has his mind set on his absurd interpretation of damage, and nothing we can say or do will change that. Probably not even a statement by Jason Bulmahn, because whatever he says, "it's not in the book!"

So I think there is nothing more to discuss here,

[necronus]

This isn't an interpretation. I read the rules, and I'm pointing out there is a huge oversight. The fact people are arguing with what I'm saying is proof they aren't reading the rules. Forseti was the first person to admit and point out the oversight.

Saying that I have an absurd interpretation of damage, is attacking the person which is a logical fallacy, nullifying anything said afterwards. It would be like saying, "you are ignorant if you believe in democracy".

Why is is so hard to admit that there is a problem.

[Zaister]

Well I guess you are alone with your absolute truth then.