Can we use Power Attack feat with a Meiciful weapon?


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 380 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Mallecks wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

Additional things to consider:

Carpenden Lobber wrote:
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.

I can read Carpenden Lobber both ways but if nonlethal damage is not normal hit point damage it seems logical that effects that are intended to work with hit point damage might not work with nonlethal damage.

As for hibernate, it goes to use of the term. If nonlethal damage was hit point damage why would they write it that way? Hit point damage as a term makes more sense in more cases when taken to be synonymous with lethal damage. There are a few questionable cases like Rod of Withering as you found, but there aren't huge clashes as with the interpretation that it means lethal and nonlethal.


Quote:


Blood Leaf Residue:
Where did you get the ruling of "the default damage type is lethal damage, and non-lethal damage must be specified"?

This comes from a list of poisons that normally do ability damage. So, this was likely noted to prevent confusion in the context of the list.

If you don't take the stance that the "default" mode of damage is HP damage and the "default" HP damage is lethal, I feel like this would cause major problems, but I'll have to dig around later for examples. I could be wrong.

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.

honestly, I believe that non-lethal damage should be tracked the same was as lethal damage, but it could confusing for new players to answer questions like "how much HP do I have left" if they have "two HP pools".

Anyway, let's see....

All weapons due lethal or Non-lethal damage. Seems right.

The damage is subtracted from the current hit points. Well, in either interpretation, there is an exception defined for how non-lethal is applied.


Gallant Armor wrote:


I can read Carpenden Lobber both ways but if nonlethal damage is not normal hit point damage it seems logical that effects that are intended to work with hit point damage might not work with nonlethal damage.

As for hibernate, it goes to use of the term. If nonlethal damage was hit point damage why would they write it that way? Hit point damage as a term makes more sense in more cases when taken to be synonymous with lethal damage. There are a few questionable cases like Rod of...

Nah, logically it doesn't make sense. "Not normal hp damage" would necessarily include "abnormal HP damage". I would expect any HP damage do work with an ability or effect, whether it is "normal or abnormal."

While grammatically, Hibernate is a little wonky, mechanically it works fine. When I have more time later, I'll look into terms that have type assumptions.


Mallecks wrote:
Quote:


Blood Leaf Residue:
Where did you get the ruling of "the default damage type is lethal damage, and non-lethal damage must be specified"?

This comes from a list of poisons that normally do ability damage. So, this was likely noted to prevent confusion in the context of the list.

If you don't take the stance that the "default" mode of damage is HP damage and the "default" HP damage is lethal, I feel like this would cause major problems, but I'll have to dig around later for examples. I could be wrong.

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.

honestly, I believe that non-lethal damage should be tracked the same was as lethal damage, but it could confusing for new players to answer questions like "how much HP do I have left" if they have "two HP pools".

Anyway, let's see....

All weapons due lethal or Non-lethal damage. Seems right.

The damage is subtracted from the current hit points. Well, in either interpretation, there is an exception defined for how non-lethal is applied.

The problem is that there is no text to indicate nonlethal damage is hit point damage and several instances of text indicating that hit point damage is exclusively lethal damage. For specific overrides general to work there needs to be something to show that relationship exists. If there was text that said 'Nonlethal attacks deal nonlethal hit point damage', I could see the argument that nonlethal hit point damage is folded into hit point damage and applies with separate rules from lethal hit point damage. Without that specific text and several instances where it would be illogical to assume it meant nonlethal damage, I don't see how players are supposed to know how to define the term in the way you describe.

This whole thread reminds me of the bows overcoming DR argument, just because the culture assumes something works a certain way doesn't make it so.


You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".


Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.


Gallant Armor wrote:


The problem is that there is no text to indicate nonlethal damage is hit point damage and several instances of text indicating that hit point damage is exclusively lethal damage. For specific overrides general to work there needs to be something to show that relationship exists. If there was text that said 'Nonlethal attacks deal nonlethal hit point damage', I could see the argument that nonlethal hit point damage is folded into hit point damage and applies with separate rules from lethal hit point damage. Without that specific text and several instances where it would be illogical to assume it meant nonlethal damage, I don't see how players are supposed to know how to define the term in the way you describe.

This whole thread reminds me of the bows overcoming DR argument, just because the culture assumes something works a certain...

Ok, let's see what happens if we look at things without making "default assumptions" about some terminology...

Cure Light Wounds:
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.

Cure's 1d8 points of damage. What kind? Is it Hit Point damage? Lethal damage? Non-lethal damage? Energy damage? Precision damage? Ability damage? Bleed damage?

We have no way to know because it isn't specified anywhere.

Rules for designing spells -- Hierarchy of Spell Attack Effects: Damage:
A damage spell reduces the target's depletable statistics, bringing the target closer to the point where that damage incapacitates it. Damage spells are reliable spells because all creatures have depletable statistics of some sort and because most nonmagical attacks affect depletable statistics (which means that the caster's fighter and rogue allies are helping overcome the opponent). Damage spells are better than penalize spells because damage always stacks (penalties do not) and if the caster and his allies deal enough damage, they'll eventually disable an opponent, whereas it's possible to add penalties almost indefinitely and still have a somewhat viable opponent. Examples of damage spells are cone of cold, fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, poison, and sound burst.[/spoilers]

Damage spells reduces the target's deplatable statistics. This, of course, would mean that non-lethal damage spells are not damage spells, because they don't deplete statistics.

[spoiler="Poison Oak(Severe Exposure)"]Type poison, contact or inhaled; Save Fortitude DC 16

Onset 1 hour; Frequency 1/hour

Initial Effect 2d4 Dex damage and 1d4 Con damage, creature sickened until damage is healed; Secondary Effect 1 Con damage; Cure 1 save

The sickened condition is removed when any damage is healed? or The sickened condition is healed when the damage done by the poison oak is healed? We can't be sure because it says "damage" and doesn't specifically reference the ability damage listed previously? This is the kind of instance where we need to look at the situation and see that, yes, of course, they mean the ability damage done by this effect and not healing any type of damage.

Merciful Spell Metamagic:
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.

Spells that inflict damage? Well, we can't assume that means "hit point damage" or "lethal damage." So, sounds like we can do non-lethal ability damage?

Or maybe "damage" USUALLY means "hit point damage" and "hit point damage" USUALLY means lethal damage. Though, it is not always true.


Mallecks wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:


The problem is that there is no text to indicate nonlethal damage is hit point damage and several instances of text indicating that hit point damage is exclusively lethal damage. For specific overrides general to work there needs to be something to show that relationship exists. If there was text that said 'Nonlethal attacks deal nonlethal hit point damage', I could see the argument that nonlethal hit point damage is folded into hit point damage and applies with separate rules from lethal hit point damage. Without that specific text and several instances where it would be illogical to assume it meant nonlethal damage, I don't see how players are supposed to know how to define the term in the way you describe.

This whole thread reminds me of the bows overcoming DR argument, just because the culture assumes something works a certain...

Ok, let's see what happens if we look at things without making "default assumptions" about some terminology...

** spoiler omitted **

Cure's 1d8 points of damage. What kind? Is it Hit Point damage? Lethal damage? Non-lethal damage? Energy damage? Precision damage? Ability damage? Bleed damage?

We have no way to know because it isn't specified anywhere.

** spoiler omitted **...

For 1 and 4:

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.

By default "damage" is lethal damage, any other damage type needs to be specified.

For 2:

Nonlethal Damage wrote:

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.

Nonlethal damage is defined as damage (and has damage in the name) so specific would trump general.

For 3:
"2d4 Dex damage and 1d4 Con damage, creature sickened until damage is healed" is a single statement with 2 clauses outlining an effect. "Damage" in the second clause is referring to the ability damage from the first clause.

The difference between your examples and the issue at hand is that hit point damage is only ever referred to as lethal damage and no other term is referred to as hit point damage. There is no reason to assume nonlethal damage is hit point damage.


Gallant Armor wrote:


For 1 and 4:
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.

By default "damage" is lethal damage, any other damage type needs to be specified.

For 2:

Nonlethal Damage wrote:

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

...

1/4:The rule you quote here is for how weapons deal with damage. I specifically cited text that was not from weapons. Cure Light Wounds heals "damage" and no context is provided to make a determination of what kind of damage this should be. Spells are not weapons and there is no rule (that I could find) that says that spells normally deal "hit point damage" or "lethal damage." Even in that specific text, non-lethal damage is referred to as damage. The Non-Lethal damage rule gets applied when you go to track the damage.

2: Whether or not nonlethal damage is damage or not, according to the designing spells RAW, a spell that deals nonlethal damage is NOT a damage spell. It does not reduce any depletable statistics.

3: According to your point 1/4..

Gallant Armor wrote:
By default "damage" is lethal damage, any other damage type needs to be specified.

The damage type is NOT defined in the Extreme Exposure to poison oak. So, RAW, healing any damage at all will remove the sickened condition.

The reason to consider non-lethal damage as "hit point damage" is because it is "damage" that is measured in "hit points." My argument is that anything that deals damage HP statistic is necessarily HP damage because it should be treated as a category of damage, just like the other categories that exist and overlap.


Mallecks wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:


For 1 and 4:
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.

By default "damage" is lethal damage, any other damage type needs to be specified.

For 2:

Nonlethal Damage wrote:

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

...

1/4:The rule you quote here is for how weapons deal with damage. I specifically cited text that was not from weapons. Cure Light Wounds heals "damage" and no context is provided to make a determination of what kind of damage this should be. Spells are not weapons and there is no rule (that I could find) that says that spells normally deal "hit point damage" or "lethal damage." Even in that specific text, non-lethal damage is referred to as damage. The Non-Lethal damage rule gets applied when you go to track the damage.

2: Whether or not nonlethal damage is damage or not, according to the designing spells RAW, a spell that deals nonlethal damage is NOT a damage spell. It does not reduce any depletable statistics.

3: According to your point 1/4..

Gallant Armor wrote:
By default "damage" is lethal damage, any other damage type needs to be specified.

The damage type is NOT defined in the Extreme Exposure to poison oak. So, RAW, healing any damage at all will remove the sickened condition.

The reason to consider non-lethal damage as "hit point damage" is because it is "damage" that is measured in "hit points." My argument is that anything that deals damage HP statistic is necessarily HP damage because it should be treated...

1/4:
Damage wrote:
Damage is determined by rolling the dice listed with the weapon. Melee weapons deal their listed damage + Strength modifier. Ranged weapons usually do only their listed damage. Some weapons gain additional bonuses from magic or other effects. Spells do their listed damage.

That is how damage as a concept is defined in the rules. The default definition of damage is lethal damage done with a weapon or spell.

2: Reading that section the types of spells are Control, Kill, Incapacitate, Damage and Penalize. These are not meant to be used as game terms for types of spells, they are just common language descriptors of possible effects. A spell not fitting one of these categories is not meaningful. Given the nature of nonlethal damage, "damage" would still be the best fit for nonlethal damage spells as they would be "bringing the target closer to the point where that damage incapacitates it".

3: The damage is listed as "2d4 Dex damage and 1d4 Con damage". It is clearly specifying ability score damage. "creature sickened until damage is healed" is the second clause of the statement of effect, the damage referred to would be the aforementioned ability score damage.

As to your assertion that nonlethal damage should be considered hit point damage because it is damage measured in hit points; a ray is a weapon and scorching ray can cause damage, is the damage from scorching ray weapon damage? Weapon damage increases with size categories, should a large creature do more damage than a medium creature when casting scorching ray?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A ray is considered a weapon type when using the weapon focus feat, right?

Typically, Rays do elemental damage, which still effects HP and is usually lethal (Merciful Spell feat aside).

I am not sure why, GA, you want to break Pathfinder.


thaX wrote:

A ray is considered a weapon type when using the weapon focus feat, right?

Typically, Rays do elemental damage, which still effects HP and is usually lethal (Merciful Spell feat aside).

I am not sure why, GA, you want to break Pathfinder.

That was an example of why you have to use in game definitions, not assumptions when determining how things work. Obviously scorching ray damage does not work like that as energy damage has different rules as to how it works and there is nothing in the rules to suggest that elemental damage from a ray should be treated as weapon damage.

The exact same thing is true for nonlethal damage and hit point damage.


Gallant Armor wrote:

1/4:

Damage wrote:
Damage is determined by rolling the dice listed with the weapon. Melee weapons deal their listed damage + Strength modifier. Ranged weapons usually do only their listed damage. Some weapons gain additional bonuses from magic or other effects. Spells do their listed damage.
That is how damage as a concept is defined in the rules. The default definition of damage is lethal damage done with a weapon or spell.

2: Reading that section the types of spells are Control, Kill, Incapacitate, Damage and Penalize. These are not meant to be used as game terms for types of spells, they are just common language descriptors of possible effects. A spell not fitting one of these categories is not meaningful. Given the nature of nonlethal damage, "damage" would still be the best fit for nonlethal damage spells as they would be "bringing the target closer to the point where that damage incapacitates it".

3: The damage is listed as "2d4 Dex damage and 1d4 Con damage". It is clearly specifying ability score damage. "creature sickened until damage is healed" is the second clause of the statement of effect, the damage referred to would be the aforementioned ability score damage.

As to your assertion that nonlethal damage should be considered hit point damage because it is damage measured in hit points; a ray is a weapon and scorching ray can cause damage, is the damage from scorching ray weapon damage? Weapon damage increases with size categories, should a large creature do more damage than a medium creature when casting scorching ray?

1/4: First of all, nothing in here says anything about lethal damage or whether it should be considered a default option. Spells do their listed damage. Cure light Wounds doesn't do any damage, so I'm not sure why this particular rule matters. Inflict light Wounds does damage, but we're not sure what type, because it isn't listed. It just does "damage."

2: Yeah, this example is probably meaningless. They specifically say that "depletable statistics" is not an official game term.

3: The is no indication that the "damage" term in the second clause of the poison oak effect is referring back to ability damage in the first clause.

Take [ability damage], sickened until damage is healed. If you are healed for 1 HP, was "damage healed?" If the effect should have been restricted to the preceding ability damage, it should something like...

Take [ability damage], sickened until that damage is healed.
Take [ability damage], sickened until it is healed.
etc.

Gallant Armor wrote:
As to your assertion that nonlethal damage should be considered hit point damage because it is damage measured in hit points; a ray is a weapon and scorching ray can cause damage, is the damage from scorching ray weapon damage? Weapon damage increases with size categories, should a large creature do more damage than a medium creature when casting scorching ray?

5. Rays are not weapons, they are specifically included in some "weapon" feats. Scorching Ray is not "weapon damage" it is "spell damage." It might be possible for an effect to be both weapon and spell damage, but nothing currently comes to mind. You either do damage with a spell or you conjure a weapon with a spell, then deal damage with that. And, of course, it isn't a weapon, so it doesn't benefit from size increases. It looks like some spells do conjure weapons that are different sizes, so yeah...

A "Force Sword" conjured by a medium mage will do less damage than a "Force Sword" conjured by a large mage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am amazed that "HP Damage" seems to be such a difficult concept. Damage is damage, Non Lethal is damage, though tracked separately because of how it effects the character, and other damage that effect something other than HP is pointed out by the various effects that do it.

How this therum of damage economics makes it so that Power Attack only works if directly doing a certain type of damage and not if it is doing other types of damage is getting well beyond the scope of the paragraph in the book, and into self analyzing your own take on the RAW argument, throwing out any RAI to interpret the use of damage and how it is done.

Power Attack works with Non Lethal damage. This should never have been a question.

You are still doing Non Lethal Damage when going beyond the target's max HP, it is only converted to lethal (beginning it's own track or adding to the lethal damage already taken) after that point. Creatures with Regeneration still take Non Lethal damage anyways.


Mallecks wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

1/4:

Damage wrote:
Damage is determined by rolling the dice listed with the weapon. Melee weapons deal their listed damage + Strength modifier. Ranged weapons usually do only their listed damage. Some weapons gain additional bonuses from magic or other effects. Spells do their listed damage.
That is how damage as a concept is defined in the rules. The default definition of damage is lethal damage done with a weapon or spell.

2: Reading that section the types of spells are Control, Kill, Incapacitate, Damage and Penalize. These are not meant to be used as game terms for types of spells, they are just common language descriptors of possible effects. A spell not fitting one of these categories is not meaningful. Given the nature of nonlethal damage, "damage" would still be the best fit for nonlethal damage spells as they would be "bringing the target closer to the point where that damage incapacitates it".

3: The damage is listed as "2d4 Dex damage and 1d4 Con damage". It is clearly specifying ability score damage. "creature sickened until damage is healed" is the second clause of the statement of effect, the damage referred to would be the aforementioned ability score damage.

As to your assertion that nonlethal damage should be considered hit point damage because it is damage measured in hit points; a ray is a weapon and scorching ray can cause damage, is the damage from scorching ray weapon damage? Weapon damage increases with size categories, should a large creature do more damage than a medium creature when casting scorching ray?

1/4: First of all, nothing in here says anything about lethal damage or whether it should be considered a default option. Spells do their listed damage. Cure light Wounds doesn't do any damage, so I'm not sure why this particular rule matters. Inflict light Wounds does damage, but we're not sure what type, because it isn't listed. It just does "damage."

2: Yeah, this example is probably meaningless. They specifically say that...

1/4: The two sections I quoted set the default definition for damage as lethal done by a weapon and show that spells follow the same rules as weapons by doing their listed damage. Damage is by default lethal damage.

3. They have limited space when printing and use brevity for many listings. Given that it is the second clause of the same effect, damage would be referring to the ability damage from the first clause.

5.

Ray wrote:

Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.

If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.

If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

So a ray has some of the properties of a weapon but is not a weapon because it is not defined as such so it shouldn't be treated as a weapon.

But by your interpretation nonlethal damage should be treated as hit point damage despite having none of the listed properties of hit point damage and never being defined as hit point damage.

Loss of Hit Points wrote:

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

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

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

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

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

Hit point damage exists under the heading "Loss of Hit Points" on the PRD and the definition clearly is referring to lethal damage.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.

I find your argument flawed and incorrect. I've stated so many, many times. Repeating it does not change my opinion.


Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.

I find your argument flawed and incorrect. I've stated so many, many times. Repeating it does not change my opinion.

Ok, let's try another way:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems we've hit the "no more novel arguments" point of the thread life cycle after which it's really unlikely anybody is going to change anybody else's mind. FAQ and move on?


Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.

I find your argument flawed and incorrect. I've stated so many, many times. Repeating it does not change my opinion.

Ok, let's try another way:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?

How do we know how much damage the nonlethal damage is dealing?


Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.

I find your argument flawed and incorrect. I've stated so many, many times. Repeating it does not change my opinion.

Ok, let's try another way:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?
How do we know how much damage the nonlethal damage is dealing?

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. Asking a different question means I don't know if you are understanding the thing I'm saying.


blahpers wrote:
It seems we've hit the "no more novel arguments" point of the thread life cycle after which it's really unlikely anybody is going to change anybody else's mind. FAQ and move on?

I would be in favor of that in theory, but I doubt this will get an FAQ.


Why wouldn't it? It's a core feat from the core book with an obvious answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here ya go. Click away, friend.


Cavall wrote:
Here ya go. Click away, friend.

That's not the question that needs to be answered. "Is nonlethal damage hit point damage?" is the question at hand. It has much broader implications.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. The initial response was "can you do this" and you saying no. Because your ENTIRE argument is that it can't be due to power attacks wording.

Therefore once it is answered the rest is self evident.

I simply want an answer for the question can you use power attack and Non lethal.

You gave reasons WHY you felt no, but frankly if the answer is yes, you were wrong about it all anyways.

So a simple yes no to a simple question is all I require. Frankly of you think broader implications are the issue than a simple answer to a simpler question will be easy to resolve, wouldn't it.


The problem with your question is that it doesn't give the proper context as to how the issue came about. Questioning the definition of hit point damage was central to the original question.


Link to question on the topic at hand in case anyone wants to FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Really, this does not need a faq, just some common sense and understanding of the rules.


I agree, as the rules clearly say it doesn't work.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.

I find your argument flawed and incorrect. I've stated so many, many times. Repeating it does not change my opinion.

Ok, let's try another way:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?
How do we know how much damage the nonlethal damage is dealing?

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. Asking a different question means

I don't know if you are understanding the thing I'm saying.

Incorrect. You can reduce hit points when only dealing nonlethal damage. When an attack deals nonlethal damage, all of the damage from the attack is nonlethal.


Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You've claimed that lethal damage is exclusively named as hit point damage, but the passage you claim says that, doesn't actually say that.

Just like nonlethal damage isn't "real" hit point damage, I think your argument is "well constructed".

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

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.

Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points (lethal damage). Even if you claim that nonlethal damage can under certain circumstances cause lethal damage, that is due to it taking on the properties of lethal damage. Nonlethal damage itself doesn't cause lethal damage and thus isn't be hit point damage.

The rules say what you can do not what you can't do. If a term is defined in a certain way that is how it should be interpreted. There is no text that indicates that nonlethal damage should be considered lethal or hit point damage.

I find your argument flawed and incorrect. I've stated so many, many times. Repeating it does not change my opinion.

Ok, let's try another way:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?
How do we know how much damage the nonlethal damage is dealing?

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. Asking a different question means

I don't know if you are understanding the thing I'm saying.
Incorrect. You can reduce hit points when only dealing nonlethal damage. When an attack deals nonlethal damage, all of the damage from the attack is nonlethal.
Quote:

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.

I think we have come to the crux of the issue, you don't seem to understand how nonlethal damage works. To cater to your definition i will rephrase:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage without having the target accumulate more nonlethal damage then their max hit points, then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?


And nobody has brought up the fluffy bunny that attacks for 1d3-4 points of damage. Since this will always be less than 1 the damage inflicted is 1 non-lethal damage.
Between this and the fact that enough non-lethal damage can roll over into lethal damage and the fact that non-lethal damage is tracked by hit points the only way to come to the conclusion that non-lethal damage is not a subset of hit point damage is willful ignorance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:

I think we have come to the crux of the issue, you don't seem to understand how nonlethal damage works. To cater to your definition i will rephrase:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage without having the target accumulate more nonlethal damage then their max hit points, then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?

Correct.

There was no "crux of the issue". You asked the question in a certain way, and I answered in the correct way according to the rules.

The "crux of the issue" is that you refuse to acknowledge all the ways that nonlethal damage operates as hit point damage. In every way, shape and form, it is literally damage that is measured as hit points. You can't deny it, and so you try to force weird readings of the text to support your argument, but nothing you say changes anything about how nonlethal damage operates.

If you can show me that nonlethal damage is related to something other than hit points, I will buy your argument. For instance, if it were to reduce a characters Stamina Pool, I would agree that it isn't hit point damage. But that isn't how the rules are structured. The rules are structured for nonlethal damage to interact with hit points.

The rules don't say you can't take actions while dead, but we all know that that would be silly. You are being just as silly as claiming that you can still take actions while dead.


Gallant Armor wrote:
If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage without having the target accumulate more nonlethal damage then their max hit points, then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?

If I have 10 hit points, and you do 6 non-lethal damage to me, I'm alive and moving about normally. Now Irontruth comes along and hits me for 5 lethal damage. I'm now unconscious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bhampton wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage without having the target accumulate more nonlethal damage then their max hit points, then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?
If I have 10 hit points, and you do 6 non-lethal damage to me, I'm alive and moving about normally. Now Irontruth comes along and hits me for 5 lethal damage. I'm now unconscious.

That's according to the non-lethal damage rules.

RAW, non-lethal damage does not reduce your hit points. Lethal damage counts against hit points by reducing it. Non-lethal is tracked as a completely separate number, and when non-lethal damage is greater than your current HP, you fall unconscious. Nothing about that situation has anything to do with non-lethal damage being considered hit point damage or not.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For the use of Power Attack, Non Lethal is only a different way to effect a target that does the same basic thing, that is to deal damage to a target. One should be able to Power Attack with a weapon, no matter if they are dealing lethal or non-lethal damage.

The whole issue is something that is read with a very focused view of the rules without taking anything else into account but one small passage from a particular part of the whole.

If one would nit pick on this, I believe that the game is just not for you.


thaX wrote:

For the use of Power Attack, Non Lethal is only a different way to effect a target that does the same basic thing, that is to deal damage to a target. One should be able to Power Attack with a weapon, no matter if they are dealing lethal or non-lethal damage.

The whole issue is something that is read with a very focused view of the rules without taking anything else into account but one small passage from a particular part of the whole.

If one would nit pick on this, I believe that the game is just not for you.

The problem is that the "one small passage" is the entire definition of hit point damage. If you want to ignore how terms are defined I suppose you can justify anything.


Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

I think we have come to the crux of the issue, you don't seem to understand how nonlethal damage works. To cater to your definition i will rephrase:

If I attack attempting to deal nonlethal damage and inflict only nonlethal damage without having the target accumulate more nonlethal damage then their max hit points, then I am not reducing the current hit points of the target, correct?

Correct.

There was no "crux of the issue". You asked the question in a certain way, and I answered in the correct way according to the rules.

The "crux of the issue" is that you refuse to acknowledge all the ways that nonlethal damage operates as hit point damage. In every way, shape and form, it is literally damage that is measured as hit points. You can't deny it, and so you try to force weird readings of the text to support your argument, but nothing you say changes anything about how nonlethal damage operates.

If you can show me that nonlethal damage is related to something other than hit points, I will buy your argument. For instance, if it were to reduce a characters Stamina Pool, I would agree that it isn't hit point damage. But that isn't how the rules are structured. The rules are structured for nonlethal damage to interact with hit points.

The rules don't say you can't take actions while dead, but we all know that that would be silly. You are being just as silly as claiming that you can still take actions while dead.

Ok, to end your argument that hit point damage should be defined as damage measured in hit points consider the following:

*Since hit points can be lost, all hit points are temporary
*Hit points are hit points
*Thus, all hit points are temporary hit points and can't be healed

See how illogical that sounds? Hit point damage is clearly defined as damage that reduces hit points, the fact that is measured by hit points is meaningless. If you choose to ignore the definition of terms then anything is justifiable.

Additionally, the actual damage inflicted when nonlethal damage goes over max hit points is lethal damage. This is proven by the write-up for nonlethal damage and the fact that it is tracked and healed the same as lethal damage. That is why I phrased my original question the way I did.

Loss of Hit Points wrote:

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

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

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

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

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

The section defining the effects of hit point damage is the only place where the term "hit point damage" is defined in the rules. This falls under the heading "Loss of Hit Points" and every line of the description refers to what happens when current hit points/hit point total is reduced.

Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that if an attack deals nonlethal damage and doesn't result in a loss of hit points to the target that it's not hit point damage?


.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It effects HP, if you take enough Non Lethal, you pass out. Is that not Physical enough for you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:
Stuff

On my phone, don't want to type a lot. It seems like you don't understand why we think nonlethal is hit point damage. Either you don't want to, or just refuse. At this point though, your comments sound like hot air, because you are obviously add nonsensical aspects to my position in order to argue against it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gallant Armor wrote:

*Since hit points can be lost, all hit points are temporary

*Hit points are hit points
*Thus, all hit points are temporary hit points and can't be healed

This right here is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as a “strawman”, which is to set up an easily defeatable not-real version of the oppositions argument and argue against that, rather than the real argument being presented.

This is nothing like the argument being presented. It is a non-sequitur. We aren’t talking about temporary hit points. Besides, the only way to actually lose hit points is Con drain or permanent negative levels, which is way outside the scope of damage to hit points, so your first point is moot.

But by far the greatest argument in favour of the generally accepted interpretation of the rule is the reasonableness test: would a casual gamer who is not reading the rules as a technical manual believe that power attack (a feat which increases damage done to hit points) works on a non-lethal attack (since non-lethal damage is measured in hit points)?

Because the rules are not a technical manual, they are written in casual English and are designed to be interpreted by an adjudicator (the GM) in a way that makes sense and is easy to remember.


Chemlak wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

*Since hit points can be lost, all hit points are temporary

*Hit points are hit points
*Thus, all hit points are temporary hit points and can't be healed

This right here is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as a “strawman”, which is to set up an easily defeatable not-real version of the oppositions argument and argue against that, rather than the real argument being presented.

This is nothing like the argument being presented. It is a non-sequitur. We aren’t talking about temporary hit points. Besides, the only way to actually lose hit points is Con drain or permanent negative levels, which is way outside the scope of damage to hit points, so your first point is moot.

But by far the greatest argument in favour of the generally accepted interpretation of the rule is the reasonableness test: would a casual gamer who is not reading the rules as a technical manual believe that power attack (a feat which increases damage done to hit points) works on a non-lethal attack (since non-lethal damage is measured in hit points)?

Because the rules are not a technical manual, they are written in casual English and are designed to be interpreted by an adjudicator (the GM) in a way that makes sense and is easy to remember.

It is not a strawman at all, it is an apt analogy. If you ignore the text regarding a term and make up your own definition you can defend any stance no matter how ludicrous.

As for the reasonableness test: power attack requires hit point damage and hit point damage is defined as damage that reduces hit points. Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce hit points so it shouldn't qualify. How is that not a reasonable reading?

Hit point damage being defined as damage measured in hit points however has no such justification in the rules. A common misinterpretation doesn't mean that the rules as written are wrong. The bows not overcoming DR thread is proof of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your definition of hit point damage, the notion of it as a separate concept rulewise, and its application to power attack. All completely unreasonable. Only reasonable if you accept your baseline assumptions that are incorrect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah mate that was straight textbook strawman.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your definition of hit point damage, the notion of it as a separate concept rulewise, and its application to power attack. All completely unreasonable. Only reasonable if you accept your baseline assumptions that are incorrect.

It's not an assumption and it's not my definition; it's clearly denoted in the text.

It is an assumption to dismiss the text because you are sure that what was intended differs from what was written.


Cavall wrote:
Nah mate that was straight textbook strawman.

Textbook strawman requires a replacement of the original argument. I was attempting to show an equivalent example, it wasn't a replacement as I wasn't making the claim that the example was their argument, only that it had the same logical backing (or lack thereof). If you feel the example wasn't equivalent you could claim it was a false equivalency, but it doesn't qualify as a strawman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your definition of hit point damage, the notion of it as a separate concept rulewise, and its application to power attack. All completely unreasonable. Only reasonable if you accept your baseline assumptions that are incorrect.

It's not an assumption and it's not my definition; it's clearly denoted in the text.

It is an assumption to dismiss the text because you are sure that what was intended differs from what was written.

We aren't dismissing the text at all. We are reading it in a way that makes it consistent in every instance. Where as yours creates ad hoc variations in order to account for your interpretation.

For example, you still haven't answered my question from several pages ago. Prove to me that nonlethal damage should ever convert to lethal damage at a ratio other than 1:1.

Ie, if I convert 1 point of nonlethal damage to lethal damage, where in the rules does it say I do anything other than 1 point of lethal damage.

I ask this, because if your rules interpretation means I do 2, 3, or any number other than 1, and you can't back that up. That means you're wrong, because your interpretation is leading to things that are impossibilities in the rules. I don't want an inference, I want an explicit example where the rules say this to back you up, or a dev explanation. If you can't provide that, you should admit that this is something you can't explain.

And yes, it was a strawman. You literally replaced the argument about nonlethal, with a fictitious argument you invented about temporary hit points. Your example has none of the logical backing that our argument had. So, either you made the analogy in bad faith, or it was a strawman. I guess I can change my mind and give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a strawman, and you were just arguing in bad faith if you'd like.

Sczarni

Have we bludgeoned this to death yet? Hit point damage can come in two varieties: lethal and non-lethal.

When an ability says "you can choose to do non-lethal damage instead" it doesn't change to some magical "non-HP" based damage system. It is still HP damage. It is just a different type (non-lethal).

So yes, you can use Feats that deal HP damage on non-lethal attacks. (unless it specifically says otherwise). Remember the rule of generality we used to have? More general = accepted. Generally, lethal and non-lethal attacks both do HP damage, unless specified otherwise.


Irontruth wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Your definition of hit point damage, the notion of it as a separate concept rulewise, and its application to power attack. All completely unreasonable. Only reasonable if you accept your baseline assumptions that are incorrect.

It's not an assumption and it's not my definition; it's clearly denoted in the text.

It is an assumption to dismiss the text because you are sure that what was intended differs from what was written.

We aren't dismissing the text at all. We are reading it in a way that makes it consistent in every instance. Where as yours creates ad hoc variations in order to account for your interpretation.

The text clearly defines hit point damage as damage that reduces hit points, any other interpretation is an assumption not based on the rules.

Irontruth wrote:

For example, you still haven't answered my question from several pages ago. Prove to me that nonlethal damage should ever convert to lethal damage at a ratio other than 1:1.

Ie, if I convert 1 point of nonlethal damage to lethal damage, where in the rules does it say I do anything other than 1 point of lethal damage.

I ask this, because if your rules interpretation means I do 2, 3, or any number other than 1, and you can't back that up. That means you're wrong, because your interpretation is leading to things that are impossibilities in the rules. I don't want an inference, I want an explicit example where the rules say this to back you up, or a dev explanation. If you can't provide that, you should admit that this is something you can't explain.

If this is based on the power attack example; the extra damage would be conditional, if the attack met the conditions it would apply if not it wouldn't. The same for sneak attack, critical hit and other forms of bonus damage.

Irontruth wrote:
And yes, it was a strawman. You literally replaced the argument about nonlethal, with a fictitious argument you invented about temporary hit points. Your example has none of the logical backing that our argument had. So, either you made the analogy in bad faith, or it was a strawman. I guess I can change my mind and give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a strawman, and you were just arguing in bad faith if you'd like.

It wasn't a replacement argument because I wasn't saying my example was actually your argument, which is what is required for a strawman. I used an equivalent example to show why the logic that hit point damage should be defined as damage measured in hit points was faulty. I haven't seen anything factual or rule-based backing up the claim aside from the fact that the words "hit point" and "damage" make up the term, which could be used to justify the example I outlined. If I am wrong, please show factual or rule-based evidence showing the logic behind your point and you will have proven a false equivalency.

251 to 300 of 380 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Can we use Power Attack feat with a Meiciful weapon? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.