Nonlethal damage is contained within the hit point damage rules. Therefore, nonlethal damage is a subset of hit point damage.
Where are you seeing that? The PRD has them as separate subheadings under "Injury and Death".
Outside of Nonlethal (since we're arguing over that), which section of "Injury and Death" doesn't deal with hit points?
Both temporary hit points and nonlethal damage have effects relating to hit points but with separate rules as to how they work. I have never argued the point that nonlethal damage is measured in hit points, but it is clear that it doesn't interact with hit points in the same way as lethal damage. Since the term "hit point damage" is used interchangeably with lethal damage, it shouldn't be applied to nonlethal damage without text explicitly saying to do so.
What part of the "Injury and Death" section doesn't deal with hit points? A simple, direct answer would be the most helpful for us to have this conversation. A simple and direct answer lets me know that you understand the point being made. Answering a different question means I don't know if you are understanding the thing I'm saying.
So, it's in the section on hit points. It is damage. It's effect is measured in hit points.
If you were to describe it in just a couple words (so you can't use the word nonlethal, cause you can't use a word to describe itself)... how would you describe it? What kind of damage is it?
A not very effective 1st level fighter combatant who has power attack and a Str of 13 happens to be wielding a shortsword and is swinging it at a foe with ablative barrier on. So, he does 1d6+3 damage. I think we can all agree that if the die roll is a 3 or more, the subject takes 5 nonlethal damage and at least 1 point of lethal damage, and the ablative barrier spell loses 5 hp worth of effectiveness.
What happens on a roll of 1 on the damage die? How many point of damage does ablative barrier convert? How many hp of effectiveness does ablative barrier lose?
It's an interesting corner case. Based on the text of the spell and nonlethal damage, the target should take 2 points of nonlethal damage as the +2 from power attack would be negated due to ablative barrier converting the damage to nonlethal. Ablative barrier should lose 2 points of effectiveness as that is the amount of damage that was converted.
So, it's in the section on hit points. It is damage. It's effect is measured in hit points.
If you were to describe it in just a couple words (so you can't use the word nonlethal, cause you can't use a word to describe itself)... how would you describe it? What kind of damage is it?
There is already a 2 word description of nonlethal damage: nonlethal damage.
If you meant a short description: Harm to a character that is not life-threatening.
Using game terms: Damage that doesn't reduce hit points and is tracked separately.
A not very effective 1st level fighter combatant who has power attack and a Str of 13 happens to be wielding a shortsword and is swinging it at a foe with ablative barrier on. So, he does 1d6+3 damage. I think we can all agree that if the die roll is a 3 or more, the subject takes 5 nonlethal damage and at least 1 point of lethal damage, and the ablative barrier spell loses 5 hp worth of effectiveness.
What happens on a roll of 1 on the damage die? How many point of damage does ablative barrier convert? How many hp of effectiveness does ablative barrier lose?
What if they have 1 hp and 5 THP? Does 4 of the nonlethal become lethal? What if the fighter was using a sap? Does ablative armor give Dr because the attack deals nonlethal, damage reduction because it will be converted to lethal, or both?
A not very effective 1st level fighter combatant who has power attack and a Str of 13 happens to be wielding a shortsword and is swinging it at a foe with ablative barrier on. So, he does 1d6+3 damage. I think we can all agree that if the die roll is a 3 or more, the subject takes 5 nonlethal damage and at least 1 point of lethal damage, and the ablative barrier spell loses 5 hp worth of effectiveness.
What happens on a roll of 1 on the damage die? How many point of damage does ablative barrier convert? How many hp of effectiveness does ablative barrier lose?
What if they have 1 hp and 5 THP? Does 4 of the nonlethal become lethal? What if the fighter was using a sap? Does ablative armor give Dr because the attack deals nonlethal, damage reduction because it will be converted to lethal, or both?
It would depend on the max hit points of the target. Given the wording of the spell:
1. Determine how much lethal and nonlethal damage is being done (without power attack bonus damage and not taking ablative barrier into account).
2. Resolve that damage against ablative barrier as described in the spell.
3. If the attack did at least some lethal damage then power attack damage would be added as lethal damage.
Or just add in lower attack damage. Resolving an attack, let alone if a feat should apply or not after the whole thing, should not be a 3 step process.
You are over complicating this and it's a simple core feat.
Or just add in lower attack damage. Resolving an attack, let alone if a feat should apply or not after the whole thing, should not be a 3 step process.
You are over complicating this and it's a simple core feat.
Most of that would have to happen with either reading. The combination of an attack that deals nonlethal and lethal damage and a spell that reacts differently to lethal and non lethal damage is a complex issue separate from the hit point damage debate.
For now, though, it is as it is, and Power Attack works with both types of damage, or not at all. Which would you prefer?
How is a plain reading of the text a false interpretation? How is someone supposed to know that the term "hit point damage" applies to nonlethal damage if the term exclusively is used to refer to lethal damage?
What do you mean by "Power Attack works with both types of damage, or not at all"? It very clearly works with lethal damage, there is no question of that.
Clearly, you are seeing something that simply is either not there or has some meaning that the writer never intended.
I mean, if you maintain that Non Lethal damage will not work with Power Attack, then there is really no reason it would work with Lethal damage either. Both are tallies that work against the characters Max HP, not Hp themselves. It is one or the other, and I am guessing the feat was included to be used instead of being a hypothetical.
I have a character in PFS that uses an Earthbreaker with the Bludgeoner feat. He uses Power Attack with Non Lethal Damage almost every single time he uses the weapon. Your reading is not going to change that.
The combination of an attack that deals nonlethal and lethal damage and a spell that reacts differently to lethal and non lethal damage is a complex issue separate from the hit point damage debate.
Not really. If either sides interpretation is as clear and obvious as they claim, this should not be a problem. If it (either interpretation) creats a paradox, RAW can no longer be adhered to and you will need a GM ruling. And from there, might as well go with what everyone agrees the RAI is.
I have a character in PFS that uses an Earthbreaker with the Bludgeoner feat. He uses Power Attack with Non Lethal Damage almost every single time he uses the weapon. Your reading is not going to change that.
You know, my first reaction on seeing this thread title was "of course it does, what a silly question". Then it had 40+ replies, so I read it. And it is nothing but person after person giving obviously flawed arguments for why it works, and name calling. Seriously, wtf?
You have a character and run the rules a certain way. You doing A does not make A right. And nothing said here is likely to affect the way you play regardless, and noone is trying to do so.
I can't remember if this has been said before or not. Scenario, you have 15 HP, you take 15 points of 'lethal' damage, what happens? You are staggered. Same scenario, you take 15 points of non-lethal damage, what happens? You again are staggered. Now, lets say you take 7 points of 'lethal' damage, and then 10 points of non-lethal. You're knocked unconscious. Now had that 10 points been 'lethal', you'd be unconscious and dying.
Non-lethal is still hit-point damage, it is tracked with 'lethal' damage but separate from. Core Rulebook, page 189, Injury and Death, both 'lethal' and non-lethal damage are discussed, both are tracked against hit-points. Look at the Character Sheets, under Hit Points are boxes for tracking both 'lethal' (or wounds) and non-lethal damage. It's even clearer in the Player Character Folio, all tracked in a nicely joined box.
For now, though, it is as it is, and Power Attack works with both types of damage, or not at all. Which would you prefer?
How is a plain reading of the text a false interpretation? How is someone supposed to know that the term "hit point damage" applies to nonlethal damage if the term exclusively is used to refer to lethal damage?
What do you mean by "Power Attack works with both types of damage, or not at all"? It very clearly works with lethal damage, there is no question of that.
Clearly, you are seeing something that simply is either not there or has some meaning that the writer never intended.
I mean, if you maintain that Non Lethal damage will not work with Power Attack, then there is really no reason it would work with Lethal damage either. Both are tallies that work against the characters Max HP, not Hp themselves. It is one or the other, and I am guessing the feat was included to be used instead of being a hypothetical.
I have a character in PFS that uses an Earthbreaker with the Bludgeoner feat. He uses Power Attack with Non Lethal Damage almost every single time he uses the weapon. Your reading is not going to change that.
Lethal damage reduces hit points as does hit point damage, thus they work with PA. Nonlethal does not reduce hit points and thus wouldn't work with PA. I don't understand your reasoning that my interpretation leads to PA not working with lethal damage as that the only thing it works with in my interpretation.
Show your GM the relevant text and ask for a ruling.
The combination of an attack that deals nonlethal and lethal damage and a spell that reacts differently to lethal and non lethal damage is a complex issue separate from the hit point damage debate.
Not really. If either sides interpretation is as clear and obvious as they claim, this should not be a problem. If it (either interpretation) creats a paradox, RAW can no longer be adhered to and you will need a GM ruling. And from there, might as well go with what everyone agrees the RAI is.
You don't understand what I am saying here. The example given has complexities completely separate from the issue at hand. The rules are still clear, there is no paradox and no GM ruling is needed.
So, it's in the section on hit points. It is damage. It's effect is measured in hit points.
If you were to describe it in just a couple words (so you can't use the word nonlethal, cause you can't use a word to describe itself)... how would you describe it? What kind of damage is it?
There is already a 2 word description of nonlethal damage: nonlethal damage.
If you meant a short description: Harm to a character that is not life-threatening.
Using game terms: Damage that doesn't reduce hit points and is tracked separately.
Well, the first doesn't work. If you ask me, "what is nonlethal damage?" and I reply "It is nonlethal damage." Would you find that an illuminating answer?
I'll give an example: What is a saving throw? A check to avoid harmful effects.
The second definition is obviously not accurate, as it can kill a character.
The third definition is also untrue, since nonlethal can cause you to lose hit points.
If A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Nonlethal damage past your limit causes lethal damage, lethal damage causes death. Therfore, nonlethal damage CAN cause death/loss of hit points. If you argue this, you should just quit now.
I can't remember if this has been said before or not. Scenario, you have 15 HP, you take 15 points of 'lethal' damage, what happens? You are staggered. Same scenario, you take 15 points of non-lethal damage, what happens? You again are staggered. Now, lets say you take 7 points of 'lethal' damage, and then 10 points of non-lethal. You're knocked unconscious. Now had that 10 points been 'lethal', you'd be unconscious and dying.
Non-lethal is still hit-point damage, it is tracked with 'lethal' damage but separate from. Core Rulebook, page 189, Injury and Death, both 'lethal' and non-lethal damage are discussed, both are tracked against hit-points. Look at the Character Sheets, under Hit Points are boxes for tracking both 'lethal' (or wounds) and non-lethal damage. It's even clearer in the Player Character Folio, all tracked in a nicely joined box.
So your point is that since lethal and nonlethal are different with some similarities that are actually exactly the same?
Read any instance of the term "hit point damage" in the rules and replace it with "lethal damage" and it makes perfect sense, replace it with "nonlethal damage" and it makes no sense at all.
If hit point damage was intended to mean any damage measured in hit points then it wouldn't be used exclusively to mean damage that reduces current hit points.
1. Determine how much lethal and nonlethal damage is being done (without power attack bonus damage and not taking ablative barrier into account).
Why? Got a quote telling you the order for when to determine if the nonlethal will become lethal prior to applying dr/damage conversion from spells or the effects of feats?
Quote:
3. If the attack did at least some lethal damage then power attack damage would be added as lethal damage.
So if you power attack for 5 damage (not including the pa damage) against something with dr 5, you deal no damage because your attack failed to deal damage? This would seem to conflict with the FAQ for sneakattack that tells you to add the damage before comparing to dr.
So, it's in the section on hit points. It is damage. It's effect is measured in hit points.
If you were to describe it in just a couple words (so you can't use the word nonlethal, cause you can't use a word to describe itself)... how would you describe it? What kind of damage is it?
There is already a 2 word description of nonlethal damage: nonlethal damage.
If you meant a short description: Harm to a character that is not life-threatening.
Using game terms: Damage that doesn't reduce hit points and is tracked separately.
Well, the first doesn't work. If you ask me, "what is nonlethal damage?" and I reply "It is nonlethal damage." Would you find that an illuminating answer?
I'll give an example: What is a saving throw? A check to avoid harmful effects.
The second definition is obviously not accurate, as it can kill a character.
The third definition is also untrue, since nonlethal can cause you to lose hit points.
If A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Nonlethal damage past your limit causes lethal damage, lethal damage causes death. Therfore, nonlethal damage CAN cause death/loss of hit points. If you argue this, you should just quit now.
Nonlethal damage can't kill a character, only lethal damage can. The second definition was taken directly from the writeup for nonlethal damage FYI.
Similarly, nonlethal damage can't reduce hit points, only lethal damage can. This is the key difference between lethal and nonlethal damage.
If you attempt to do nonlethal damage and actually inflict lethal damage, it is lethal damage that kills the character or reduces hit points.
Take ablative sphere for example, if you attempt to do lethal damage and end up doing nonlethal damage then the damage you inflict is nonlethal and would no longer be considered lethal.
If A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Nonlethal damage past your limit causes lethal damage, lethal damage causes death. Therfore, nonlethal damage CAN cause death/loss of hit points. If you argue this, you should just quit now.
Putting water in your mouth causes drowning. Drowning causes hitpoint loss and death. Putting water in your mouth causes death.
So your point is that since lethal and nonlethal are different with some similarities that are actually exactly the same?
Read any instance of the term "hit point damage" in the rules and replace it with "lethal damage" and it makes perfect sense, replace it with "nonlethal damage" and it makes no sense at all.
If hit point damage was intended to mean any damage measured in hit points then it wouldn't be used exclusively to mean damage that reduces current hit points.
From Core Rulebook Page 189
Injury and Death wrote:
Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0
hit points, you’re disabled. If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
What happens if you take non-lethal damage equal to your hit points? Your staggered. If you go below your current hit points? Your unconscious. This is for any damage that affects your hit points, hence why in the first sentence it starts with 'damage'. The reason they are tracked separately is that if you have 15 Hit Points, and you are dealt 10 non-lethal, and then someone attacks you lethally, they still need to do >15 to have you dying, not >10.
Injury and Death wrote:
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....
And of course, as has been pointed out before.
Injury and Death, Core Rulebook, p.192 wrote:
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
You heal non-lethal at the rate of 1 HIT POINT per hour per character level...if you're healing at a rate of 1 HP, you are damaged in......Hit Points.
1. Determine how much lethal and nonlethal damage is being done (without power attack bonus damage and not taking ablative barrier into account).
Why? Got a quote telling you the order for when to determine if the nonlethal will become lethal prior to applying dr/damage conversion from spells or the effects of feats?
"the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage". This text directs you to calculate the normal breakdown of lethal and nonlethal damage before continuing. If you didn't know what the damage was you would not be able to correctly parse how to allocate the damage.
Quote:
3. If the attack did at least some lethal damage then power attack damage would be added as lethal damage.
So if you power attack for 5 damage (not including the pa damage) against something with dr 5, you deal no damage because your attack failed to deal damage? This would seem to conflict with the FAQ for sneakattack that tells you to add the damage before comparing to dr.
That isn't relevant in relation to ablative sphere as the DR can only apply to nonlethal damage. In general though DR should be calculated after PA is added.
If A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Nonlethal damage past your limit causes lethal damage, lethal damage causes death. Therfore, nonlethal damage CAN cause death/loss of hit points. If you argue this, you should just quit now.
Putting water in your mouth causes drowning. Drowning causes hitpoint loss and death. Putting water in your mouth causes death.
So your point is that since lethal and nonlethal are different with some similarities that are actually exactly the same?
Read any instance of the term "hit point damage" in the rules and replace it with "lethal damage" and it makes perfect sense, replace it with "nonlethal damage" and it makes no sense at all.
If hit point damage was intended to mean any damage measured in hit points then it wouldn't be used exclusively to mean damage that reduces current hit points.
From Core Rulebook Page 189
Injury and Death wrote:
Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0
hit points, you’re disabled. If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
What happens if you take non-lethal damage equal to your hit points? Your staggered. If you go below your current hit points? Your unconscious. This is for any damage that affects your hit points, hence why in the first sentence it starts with 'damage'. The reason they are tracked separately is that if you have 15 Hit Points, and you are dealt 10 non-lethal, and then someone attacks you lethally, they still need to do >15 to have you dying, not >10.
Injury and Death wrote:
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....
And of course, as has been pointed out before.
Injury and Death, Core Rulebook, p.192 wrote:
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Nonlethal damage being measured in hit points does not make it hit point damage as hit point damage has a specific definition that is in direct contrast to now nonlethal damage works.
Temporary hit points are not the same as hit points and nonlethal damage is not the same as hit point damage. They are similar to the things they relate to but have different rules on how they work.
Also, read the second sentence of the last quote and tell me it makes sense if nonlethal damage is hit point damage as you suggest.
Nonlethal damage being measured in hit points does not make it hit point damage as hit point damage has a specific definition that is in direct contrast to now nonlethal damage works.
Temporary hit points are not the same as hit points and nonlethal damage is not the same as hit point damage. They are similar to the things they relate to but have different rules on how they work.
Also, read the second sentence of the last quote and tell me it makes sense if nonlethal damage is hit point damage as you suggest.
Yes, it makes sense. Because they are tracked separately. I can see that nothing barring an official declaration will convince you otherwise.
Nonlethal damage being measured in hit points does not make it hit point damage as hit point damage has a specific definition that is in direct contrast to now nonlethal damage works.
Temporary hit points are not the same as hit points and nonlethal damage is not the same as hit point damage. They are similar to the things they relate to but have different rules on how they work.
Also, read the second sentence of the last quote and tell me it makes sense if nonlethal damage is hit point damage as you suggest.
Yes, it makes sense. Because they are tracked separately. I can see that nothing barring an official declaration will convince you otherwise.
Let's look at how the text looks if nonlethal damage is hit point damage:
Effects of Nonlethal Damage
'Damage doesn’t slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you’re disabled.
If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.
When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you’re dead.'
Healing Nonlethal Damage
'You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures nonlethal damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.'
Weapon Rules
'All weapons deal nonlethal damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points.'
By this logic nonlethal damage reduces hit points and is healed 2 points for every point of healing. Do these passages make sense when we use that interpretation, or does it make more sense for hit point damage to refer to lethal damage and not nonlethal damage?
If A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Nonlethal damage past your limit causes lethal damage, lethal damage causes death. Therfore, nonlethal damage CAN cause death/loss of hit points. If you argue this, you should just quit now.
Putting water in your mouth causes drowning. Drowning causes hitpoint loss and death. Putting water in your mouth causes death.
Water in your mouth doesn't cause drowning.
Water in your lungs causes drowning.
Water in your mouth causes water in your lungs. Water existing causes water in your mouth. The existence of water causes death.
Thus water is hitpoint damage.
Edit: Breathing causes the oxygen in your environment to decrease. Decreased oxygen in your environment causes suffocation. Breathing causes suffocation. Suffocation causes death. Death causes not breathing. Breathing causes not breathing.
"the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage". This text directs you to calculate the normal breakdown of lethal and nonlethal damage before continuing. If you didn't know what the damage was you would not be able to correctly parse how to allocate the damage.
And? You added rules that are not actually there to make it work the way you think it should.
Quote:
That isn't relevant in relation to ablative sphere as the DR can only apply to nonlethal damage. In general though DR should be calculated after PA is added.
1. Not true, it says you gain dr 5/ - against attacks that deal nonlethal, it does not say the dr applys only to the nonlethal portion.
2. Nothing in the RAW states you should apply this DR in a diffrent order than the general case.
You are spinning rules from aether, as the RAW is insufficient.
it makes sense if hit point damage is a category, to which lethal and Non-lethal belong.
Each instance of hit point damage in the rules is worded in a way that can't be applied to nonlethal damage. Why would they use a term that applies to nonlethal damage only in ways that can't be applied to nonlethal damage?
"the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage". This text directs you to calculate the normal breakdown of lethal and nonlethal damage before continuing. If you didn't know what the damage was you would not be able to correctly parse how to allocate the damage.
And? You added rules that are not actually there to make it work the way you think it should.
Quote:
That isn't relevant in relation to ablative sphere as the DR can only apply to nonlethal damage. In general though DR should be calculated after PA is added.
1. Not true, it says you gain dr 5/ - against attacks that deal nonlethal, it does not say the dr applys only to the nonlethal portion.
2. Nothing in the RAW states you should apply this DR in a diffrent order than the general case.
You are spinning rules from aether, as the RAW is insufficient.
Ok, I agree that the rules are unclear on how to deal with an attack that does both lethal and nonlethal damage with Ablative Barrier, but that has nothing to do with this discussion as these issues would exist with either reading.
For the hit point damage/PA issue, however you rule the rest of the interactions to work if the attack does lethal damage then PA bonus damage applies, if it doesn't PA bonus damage doesn't apply.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack with a falchion or a kukri in order to deal bleed damage to the target. When you make this attack, you do not apply your ability modifier (normally Strength, but potentially other modifiers) to the hit point damage dealt by your attack—instead, add an amount of bleed damage equal to this modifier.
If nonlethal damage is hp damage, this works fine. If it is not, you can use a merciful kukri to deal full damage while still getting the bleed.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack with a falchion or a kukri in order to deal bleed damage to the target. When you make this attack, you do not apply your ability modifier (normally Strength, but potentially other modifiers) to the hit point damage dealt by your attack—instead, add an amount of bleed damage equal to this modifier.
If nonlethal damage is hp damage, this works fine. If it is not, you can use a merciful kukri to deal full damage while still getting the bleed.
Each instance where it is defined in the rules or given context as to it's meaning. There are several feats where the term is used where the meaning is ambiguous that I included in one of my first posts: Casting Conduit, Deadly Aim, Furious Spell, Piranha Strike, Power Attack, Take the Hit, and Divine Fighting Technique (Lamashtu's Carving).
Non Lethal Damage gives the target less HP to work with before becoming unconscious. Now, how is that unrelated to HP?
I'm sorry my 3 lines of text was too long winded of a response. Hit point damage that reduces your hit point total is not the same thing damage that accumulates as nonlethal damage does.
By your logic fire damage is weapon damage as both reduce HP.
Toasty, because the Max HP go down, not because there is less of a range of HP like Non Lethal Damage.
This is supposed to mean what, exactly? You clearly moved the goal post here, I'm just not sure where you are trying to put it. HP decrease clearly narrows the range.
No, GA, it is specifically said to be Fire Damage. It is lethal no matter how the weapon is used, lethal or non lethal. (Unless it is a Merciful weapon)
Really, your reading more into it than it needs.
RAI does and should have a part of RAW and how to interpret it's meaning. You know what is intended, you said so yourself, yet this thread has gone well past it's due date. The OP has his answer, one can Power Attack with Non Lethal Damage.
Con damage and negative levels takes down HP without messing with the tally. If a character with 10 hp, having been damaged with 9 Non Lethal, takes 1 negative level or two con damage, he will pass out because of the previous tallies as his Max HP is dropped. He didn't lose HP because of damage, he just has less HP in total than before.
The big one is Con Drain, as that won't come back without spell assistance.
Non-Lethal Damage is, by the very name, Damage, which is tracked by HP and if Lethal plus Non-Lethal is over the max HP, the character passes out. Monks do this all the time, as does my character in PFS.
We have been posting on this for 250 posts, and you want me to type all the words that have been said before to add a point?
Yes, we have been talking about how the HP are tracked. Stat damage effects different things separately, having less of that stat to prop the various abilities with. Dex lowers AC, Str takes down the Damage and to hit you can do, and Con lowers the HP by an amount based on level. It has nothing to do with tracking HP, and nothing the player/GM has written down to keep track of it changes, only the Max HP that the target has, and if that puts him below the Damage he has taken (Lethal or Non Lethal or both), then he goes down.
Have you played Pathfinder/Dungeons and Dragons before?
Your regular participation in the moonmelon festival has made you wickedly effective at hurling harmless objects. You gain a +2 trait bonus on attack rolls when throwing items that do not deal normal hit point damage (such as weapons that deal nonlethal damage or items such as tanglefoot bags and thunderstones).
Given that tanglefoot bags and thunderstones don't do any damage at all I would say the wording here shows that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
However I am sure most/all will say "not normal hit point damage is still hit point damage"
Hibernate wrote:
You place a willing subject into a cataleptic state. It remains aware of its surroundings but is paralyzed, appearing dead unless observers make a DC 20 Heal check. Hibernate delays the effects of poison, disease, and bleed effects for the spell’s duration, and half of any hit point damage suffered by the subject is converted to nonlethal damage.
it makes sense if hit point damage is a category, to which lethal and Non-lethal belong.
Each instance of hit point damage in the rules is worded in a way that can't be applied to nonlethal damage. Why would they use a term that applies to nonlethal damage only in ways that can't be applied to nonlethal damage?
Healing Non-lethal Damage:
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Someone has a bunch of non-lethal damage, but no lethal damage, and they get hit with a cure spell, what happens?
If non-lethal damage is not hit point damage....
The spell is wasted, because no "hit point" damage was cured, they are at full health.
If non-lethal damage is hit point damage....
The cure spell would remove twice the amount of non-lethal damage. This seems appropriate. If the character had lethal and non-lethal damage, the spell would heal twice as much.
Bleed Condition:
Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.
If an ability heals lethal or nonlethal damage, it stops the bleed. Seems fine.
Surprise Spells:
Surprise Spells: At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.
If the spell does lethal or non-lethal damage, you can use surprise spells. Seems fine.
Called Shots Rules: Damage reduction:
If damage reduction completely negates the damage from a called shot, the called shot has no effect. If hit point damage does get through, the called shot has normal effects. Damage reduction does not reduce any ability damage, ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage caused by the called shot.
If lethal damage or non-lethal damage breaks the DR, the called shot works as normal.
Swashbuckler Cheat Death:
At 19th level, while the swashbuckler has at least 1 panache point, when she is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, she can spend all of her remaining panache points to instead be reduced to 1 hit point. Effects that kill the swashbuckler outright without dealing hit point damage are not affected by this ability.
If the effect kill the swashbuckler without doing lethal or non-lethal damage are not affected by the ability. Seems fine.
Rod of Withering:
A rod of withering acts as a +1 light mace that deals no hit point damage. Instead, the wielder deals 1d4 points of Strength damage and 1d4 points of Constitution damage to any creature she touches with the rod (by making a melee touch attack). If she scores a critical hit, the damage from that hit is permanent ability drain. In either case, the defender negates the effect with a DC 17 Fortitude save.
if non-lethal damage is not hit point damage...
I can use the Rod of Withering to deal non-lethal damage. Can I get it enchanted with Merciful to do +1d6 and make it do non-lethal? If not, I can take the Bludgeoner and do it that way. I'd lose the easy touch attack, but I'll probably knock them unconscious faster doing 1d4 CON damage + 1d6+1 non-lethal than I would with just 1d4 CON damage anyway, even if I miss a few times.
If non-lethal damage IS hit point damage..
The attacks of a Rod of Withering cannot deal lethal damage or non-lethal damage.
Spellbane Shield:
This massive iron-covered +2 tower shield grants the wielder a +3 resistance bonus on saving throws against spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities, and reduces hit point damage taken from such sources by 10 points.
If the attack is a spell that does non-lethal damage, this shield still grants the +3 saving bonus to spells, but doesn't block any of the damage?
or...
The shield works normally if the spell does lethal or non-lethal damage.
The first few were just the first results I found when looking for "hit point damage." The last few were items I scanned through for examples so I could make sure I didn't cover something I already did.
The only time I saw something (and I could have missed stuff...) that was a problem, was when an effect was being assigned damage. And I think there was only one entry that I saw do it.
Blood Leaf Residue:
Type poison (contact); Save Fortitude DC 16
Onset 1 minute; Frequency 1/minute for 6 minutes
Initial Effect 2d12 hit point damage; Secondary Effect 1 Con damage; Cure 1 save
In the case of type assignment to an effect, the default damage type is lethal damage, and non-lethal damage must be specified. In any other case, I didn't see any issues arise from treating non-lethal damage as hit point damage.
Your regular participation in the moonmelon festival has made you wickedly effective at hurling harmless objects. You gain a +2 trait bonus on attack rolls when throwing items that do not deal normal hit point damage (such as weapons that deal nonlethal damage or items such as tanglefoot bags and thunderstones).
Given that tanglefoot bags and thunderstones don't do any damage at all I would say the wording here shows that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
However I am sure most/all will say "not normal hit point damage is still hit point damage"
Hibernate wrote:
You place a willing subject into a cataleptic state. It remains aware of its surroundings but is paralyzed, appearing dead unless observers make a DC 20 Heal check. Hibernate delays the effects of poison, disease, and bleed effects for the spell’s duration, and half of any hit point damage suffered by the subject is converted to nonlethal damage.
Carpenden Lobber: I think you can try to argue that "NOT normal hp damage" is "abnormal hp damage" which proves that non-lethal is "hp damage." However, if something is "NOT normal hp" damage, that doesn't necessarily mean logically that it is "abnormal hp damage."
Hibernate: As per my previous post that I might be double posting on....
if I deal lethal and/or non-lethal damage, half of it is converted to non-lethal damage. Doesn't seem to be a major issue.
it makes sense if hit point damage is a category, to which lethal and Non-lethal belong.
Each instance of hit point damage in the rules is worded in a way that can't be applied to nonlethal damage. Why would they use a term that applies to nonlethal damage only in ways that can't be applied to nonlethal damage?
** spoiler omitted **
Someone has a bunch of non-lethal damage, but no lethal damage, and they get hit with a cure spell, what happens?
If non-lethal damage is not hit point damage....
The spell is wasted, because no "hit point" damage was cured, they are at full health.
If non-lethal damage is hit point damage....
The cure spell would remove twice the amount of non-lethal damage. This seems appropriate. If the character had lethal and non-lethal damage, the spell would heal twice as much.
** spoiler omitted **
If an ability heals lethal or nonlethal damage, it stops the bleed. Seems fine.
** spoiler omitted **...
Very impressive list, I hadn't found any of those listings. Some of what you found would work with both interpretations, but several have implications that should be delved into:
Healing Non-lethal Damage:
I can read that two ways. The first is the way you describe, the second as any healing received is applied to both pools equally. It depends if you read it as describing the interaction on a target level or as an effect as a whole.
Swashbuckler Cheat Death:
Nonlethal damage cannot reduce hit points or kill, hence nonlethal.
Rod of Withering:
This is a good case against my interpretation as it likely wasn't intended to work with nonlethal damage.
Blood Leaf Residue:
Where did you get the ruling of "the default damage type is lethal damage, and non-lethal damage must be specified"?
Also, you forgot one:
weapon rules wrote:
All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon.
