Power attack isn't even mentioning "normal hit point damage". That's adding words in to the feat in order to create a narrative.
My point on power attack was to be preventive so that when some one said "Well if 'hit point damage' without any riders defaults to normal then Power attack doesn't work for non-lethal." I foresaw someone making that argument and when ahead and added a proviso that when power attack says attacks that don't deal hit point damage any form of hit point damage not just normal would apply.
|
I would like to be clearer on the whole "how can yo add force to a nonlethal strike" counter to the fact that nonlethal is hit point damage: Sneak attack applies to nonlethal damage from saps, whips, etc... how is hitting someone harder / in a more vital spot for rogues any different than for fighters? Answer: It's not. Just stop. You know that nonlethal is hit point damage (page 140, all weapons deal hit point damage; page 191, just handled like it says here).
There aren't well laid-out rules answers to a lot of the questions you have, Mallecks, so instead I'm going to give my answers and justifications:
Non-lethal double dips all healing: Sure, why not? That's what the rules seem to state. You've taken 3 lethal, 17 nonlethal, and you get a cure spell that heals 5. You heal 3 lethal, 2 nonlethal and then remove another 5 nonlethal because you remove as much nonlethal damage as hit point damage is cured.
Calming Touch curing twice as much nonlethal damage as what your result is? Sure! Why not? It cures hit point damage and removes the same amount of nonlethal damage. Nonlethal curing spells aren't twice as powerful, they're less powerful than a regular curing spell as a regular one can do lethal as well.
Curing nonlethal stopping bleed damage: I agree, it shouldn't, but who cares? It's almost never going to come up so specifying something like that seems fairly pointless. If a GM doesn't like it they can make a house-rule.
No precedent that "hit point damage" defaults to lethal damage: "The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points." (from the combat section) implies that lethal is the default. Also the fact that nonlethal is in a subsection of damage implies that it's an exception. Also, "all weapons deal ht point damage" and weapons that deal nonlethal are specifically called out but it's not stated that the rest do lethal.
There's enough to imply that lethal damage is the default.
Which also makes me think that lethal damage is healed before nonlethal when targeted with a spell (unless the spell says something different like Calming Touch does).
Merciful Power: Fair enough. I'd take the wording on that to mean that they didn't want to try to say "lethal damage" because some people could take that as "damage that is going to kill you if you take it".
Ring of Resumption: I would say that it heals 5 and 5. I think it's worded the way it is is so that people are reminded that they remove an equal amount of nonlethal when they heal hit point damage.
Bleeding from nonlethal: I'd rule no, you don't activate things that require blood because nonlethal is not "real" damage. Real damage seems like it should be something that actually causes you to bleed. (That being said, a punch to the face from a regular person can cause a nose to bleed so hey, maybe nonlethal could activate things like that.)
That all being said (along with everything else in this thread) nonlethal doesn't seem to come up very often so having specific rules/house rules for it doesn't seem like something that should take up as much thought as this thread seems to have done.
|
|
Nonlethal doesn't double dip anything. Nonlethal HIT POINTS are tracked in a SEPARATE HIT POINT POOL (which is additive, not subtraction, page 191). Nonlethal hit points are subtracted from their pool when you are healed just like they are added to the *real* hit point pool when you get them back. You don't heal 10 hit point damage. You heal 5 *real* hit point damage and 5 not "real" hit point damage. Even though it doesn't explicitly state "hit point damage" on page 191, it is pretty clear from page 140 that nonlethal weapons do nonlethal hit point damage, as all weapons do hit point damage. This is just a semantic argument where people refuse the truth because it doesn't have the words they wanted in the section they wanted and so they refuse to look elsewhere or understand context clues (like that nonlethal is still tracked against hit points). Basically they are beating a dead horse because the horse had the wrong saddle. It still had a saddle, and they could have ridden it into battle, but they chose to shoot it and try to bury it in a pile of horse poo instead. Then claimed "it had the wrong saddle so I couldn't mount it."
I see this text:
When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.It says "equal amount".
Are you claiming that 5=10? That 5 hp is equal to 10 hp?
Or is there text that talks about "healing overflow" somewhere? Because there is specific language about overflow damage, but I currently don't see any text about healing overflow (other than you can't go above your hit point maximum).
A character has 10 nonlethal damage.
She receives a spell that heals 5 nonlethal damage, and is now at 5hp.
Did a spell or ability cure hit point damage?
I assume yes, because you believe nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
Therefore, she removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage, which is another 5hp.
I don't claim that is how it works at all. The rules text is clear, it says equal amount.
Ignore me. I don't exist right now. Where in the RULES TEXT does it say to double it?
Warped Savant, I don't particularly find any of this to be troubling from a logical perspective. It is all internally consistent. However, there appears to be disagreement among the "nonlethal is hit point damage" camp.
The only actual problem I currently see is the issue of the "hit point damage assumption."
Option 1:
1. Assume the term "hit point damage" refers to "lethal damage" by default.
2. This prevents nonlethal healing spells from double dipping, but now means that the text of Power Attack et al is problematic. As the assumption is that "hit point damage" is lethal damage and for it to apply to nonlethal it would need to be specified somehow.
Option 2:
1. Hit point damage has no default assumption
2. Nonlethal healing spells double dip via the nonlethal healing rule.
2. Problems arise when a single damage type (lethal vs nonlethal) is required.
I don't really see any obvious solution here. Are we going to assume that "hit point damage" is lethal damage (Nonlethal damage doesn't work with power attack) or are we going to agree that "hit point damage" has no default assumption (Nonlethal healing spells double dip)?
No, double dipping isn't an issue. You simply follow the rules that are laid out.
Equal amount means equal amount. "Equal" doesn't mean "double".
If you think that any amount is healed other than the original number, you are doing it wrong. The rules text is clear.
It is an issue.
If a spell heals 5 nonlethal damage, does it heal any hit point damage?
It is an issue.
If a spell heals 5 nonlethal damage, does it heal any hit point damage?
You seem to be mixing up the terms. I'm thinking you might be confused about what is going on.
Ignore me. I don't exist right now. Where in the RULES TEXT does it say to double it?If doubling is the word you're getting caught up on, then we don't need to call it doubling.
When you heal hit point damage, you also remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
A character is healed for 5 nonlethal damage.
Nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
The character also removes an equal amount of hit point damage (also 5).This is much more explicit than the rules for Power Attack, I'm not sure why you're arguing this.
It appears that you're suggesting that the line may be an explanation for how to heal nonlethal damage, rather than plainly stating that any hit points healed also heal nonlethal damage. I may have been willing to agree that this is at least a possible interpretation if it didn't say "also".
Yeah, you seem to not understand what "equal amount" means. I can't help you with that.
The fact that both of you are reading "equal amount" as "double" tells me a lot about why you're misreading other parts of the rules.
Don't forget about Warped Savant..
He thinks "equals" means "double" as well.
Irontruth -- I think people might be arguing for the same thing in this case (but maybe I'm wrong.)
In your opinion, what happens in this situation:
You've taken 15 nonlethal damage. Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds and gets a total of 5. How many nonlethal points of damage do you have left?
Yeah, you seem to not understand what "equal amount" means. I can't help you with that.
The fact that both of you are reading "equal amount" as "double" tells me a lot about why you're misreading other parts of the rules.
I think it's more likely they're being willfully obtuse in this thread to try to point out some kind of problem with considering non-lethal damage as hit point damage by making an absurd argument that they claim follows from considering non-lethal damage hit point damage.
But, ultimately, it's pointless because if an attack normally does hit point damage and is capable of doing non-lethal damage (either by taking a -4 to hit or some other means as with unarmed attack) then it should be obvious on its face that the non-lethal attack also does hit point damage. The whole qualifier for power attack should be taken to mean that it can't apply to other forms of damage that aren't applied or compared to hit points like ability damage, not to imply that there's some inherent reason you can't power attack with a punch simply because you're striking to KO rather than murder.
Don't forget about Warped Savant..
He thinks "equals" means "double" as well.
Just to be clear, I'm confused what the argument is currently about...
If you're cured of hit point damage you remove the same amount of nonlethal damage. That has nothing to do with doubling.Nonlethal is hit point damage, lethal damage is the 'default' (but not only) hit point damage.
Yeah, you seem to not understand what "equal amount" means. I can't help you with that.
The fact that both of you are reading "equal amount" as "double" tells me a lot about why you're misreading other parts of the rules.
I think it's more likely they're being willfully obtuse in this thread to try to point out some kind of problem with considering non-lethal damage as hit point damage by making an absurd argument that they claim follows from considering non-lethal damage hit point damage.
But, ultimately, it's pointless because if an attack normally does hit point damage and is capable of doing non-lethal damage (either by taking a -4 to hit or some other means as with unarmed attack) then it should be obvious on its face that the non-lethal attack also does hit point damage. The whole qualifier for power attack should be taken to mean that it can't apply to other forms of damage that aren't applied or compared to hit points like ability damage, not to imply that there's some inherent reason you can't power attack with a punch simply because you're striking to KO rather than murder.
??? What is absurd? I think it is pretty clear. It honestly even that big of a deal, I was just checking that other people agreed with it because it was discussed briefly earlier.
P1. Nonlethal damage is hit point damage
P2. When a spell or ability heals hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
C: Spell heals for X nonlethal, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Where's the issue? I'm not presenting this as proof that nonlethal damage can't be hit point damage or that nonlethal damage can't be used with Power Attack, I'm just saying that this is what happens when you heal nonlethal damage.
Edit: Warped Savant, you agree with the logic that nonlethal damage healing also removes an equal amount of nonlethal healing, so I lumped you in as well.
I think he is might just be saying that my position is something than it actually is, and then just arguing against that. Which is weird, because the currently we're discussing that nonlethal is hit point damage, so I'm not sure what he's trying to prove.
Irontruth -- I think people might be arguing for the same thing in this case (but maybe I'm wrong.)
In your opinion, what happens in this situation:
You've taken 15 nonlethal damage. Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds and gets a total of 5. How many nonlethal points of damage do you have left?
10. There are no actual hit points to heal but since an equal amount of non-lethal hit points can be healed by the same spell, 5 of them are healed.
You don't heal non-lethal hit points because you happened to heal lethal hit points - you heal them because the curative spell or other special ability affects both lethal and non-lethal hit points of damage at the same time. So if you have 5 hp of damage and 8 hp of non-lethal hit points and a cleric hits you up for 6 hps of healing, you shouldn't heal 5 points of hp and 5 of non-lethal, you should heal 5 hp and 6 non-lethal. The spell was rolled capable of healing 6 points of each - it should be interpreted as coming as close to doing so as possible.
Irontruth -- I think people might be arguing for the same thing in this case (but maybe I'm wrong.)
In your opinion, what happens in this situation:
You've taken 15 nonlethal damage. Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds and gets a total of 5. How many nonlethal points of damage do you have left?
10 nonlethal remaining.
The spell heals for 5 hit points. It also heals for an equal amount of nonlethal.
EQUAL AMOUNT
5 = 5
Any number other than 5 is not equal to 5. It is a different number.
If you arrive at a number other than 5, you have some other formula you are using, and you are not using "equal amount".
There is no "healing overflow" rule. If there were an additional line: "If the recipient of healing is currently at maximum hit points, then apply that healing to their nonlethal total as well as the normal amount." Or something similar, I would buy the argument. But it doesn't say that. It says "equal amount".
Yeah, you seem to not understand what "equal amount" means. I can't help you with that.
The fact that both of you are reading "equal amount" as "double" tells me a lot about why you're misreading other parts of the rules.
I think it's more likely they're being willfully obtuse in this thread to try to point out some kind of problem with considering non-lethal damage as hit point damage by making an absurd argument that they claim follows from considering non-lethal damage hit point damage.
But, ultimately, it's pointless because if an attack normally does hit point damage and is capable of doing non-lethal damage (either by taking a -4 to hit or some other means as with unarmed attack) then it should be obvious on its face that the non-lethal attack also does hit point damage. The whole qualifier for power attack should be taken to mean that it can't apply to other forms of damage that aren't applied or compared to hit points like ability damage, not to imply that there's some inherent reason you can't power attack with a punch simply because you're striking to KO rather than murder.
??? What is absurd? I think it is pretty clear. It honestly even that big of a deal, I was just checking that other people agreed with it because it was discussed briefly earlier.
P1. Nonlethal damage is hit point damage
P2. When a spell or ability heals hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.C: Spell heals for X nonlethal, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Where's the issue? I'm not presenting this as proof that nonlethal damage can't be hit point damage or that nonlethal damage can't be used with Power Attack, I'm just saying that this is what happens when you heal nonlethal damage.
Edit: Warped Savant, you agree with the logic that nonlethal damage healing also removes an equal amount of nonlethal healing, so I lumped you in as well.
I think he is might just be saying that my...
Repeat it as much as you want. All it does is tell me you have no clue what you're talking about.
10. There are no actual hit points to heal but since an equal amount of non-lethal hit points can be healed by the same spell, 5 of them are healed.
You don't heal non-lethal hit points because you happened to heal lethal hit points - you heal them because the curative spell or other special ability affects both lethal and non-lethal hit points of damage at the same time. So if you have 5 hp of damage and 8 hp of non-lethal hit points and a cleric hits you up for 6 hps of healing, you shouldn't heal 5 points of hp and 5 of non-lethal, you should heal 5 hp and 6 non-lethal. The spell was rolled capable of healing 6 points of each - it should be interpreted as coming as close to doing so as possible.
1. Why would healing "damage" exclude nonlethal damage? I tried to argue earlier that it is impossible to "heal" nonlethal damage, but there are too many references to it.
2. What if you heal "hit point damage" instead?3. What happens if a spell or ability specifically heals nonlethal damage?
Example:
1. Calming Touch heals 1d8 + 1/lvl nonlethal damage. Character rolls 1, so Calming Touch heals for 2 nonlethal damage.
2. Calming Touch is an ability that heals 2 hit point damage. Therefore, it also removes an equal amount of 2 nonlethal damage.
3. Target heals 2 nonlethal damage and removes 2 nonlethal damage.
Where exactly is the issue?
Evidently the issue is that you are bad at reading rules.
I'd explain it, but you haven't seemed to have understood any of my explanations either.
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)....
It doesn't say "hit point damage," it doesn't say "lethal damage." So Cure Light Wounds can heal lethal or nonlethal, right?
...When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
So if nonlethal hit point damage is cured why wouldn't an equal amount of nonlethal be removed?
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)....It doesn't say "hit point damage," it doesn't say "lethal damage." So Cure Light Wounds can heal lethal or nonlethal, right?
...When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.So if nonlethal hit point damage is cured why wouldn't an equal amount of nonlethal be removed?
There is a default assumption that damage reduces hit points and healing heals hit points. I am OK with this interpretation if that is the position people want to take.
So, spells that heal lethal damage would heal 1:1 no matter what.
I have been referencing spells/abilities that heal nonlethal specifically, so that particular sticking point isn't really an issue.
1. Why would healing "damage" exclude nonlethal damage? I tried to argue earlier that it is impossible to "heal" nonlethal damage, but there are too many references to it.
2. What if you heal "hit point damage" instead?
3. What happens if a spell or ability specifically heals nonlethal damage?
1. Who's saying anything about excluding non-lethal damage? Nobody that I've seen.
2. If you heal "hit point damage" it heals both - as the rules for healing non-lethal damage clearly point out.
3. If something specifically heals non-lethal damage, it just heals non-lethal damage. There's no rule stating that anything that heals non-lethal damage also heals lethal damage. If that was true, everyone would be regaining hit points hourly instead of daily based on the natural healing rate of non-lethal damage.
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)....It doesn't say "hit point damage," it doesn't say "lethal damage." So Cure Light Wounds can heal lethal or nonlethal, right?
Per the rules on healing non-lethal damage, it does both. If the spell can cure hit point damage, it cures non-lethal damage too.
...When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.So if nonlethal hit point damage is cured why wouldn't an equal amount of nonlethal be removed?
Because it has already done its curing of non-lethal hit points. It doesn't heal non-lethal hit points and then come around again to double the healing to non-lethal hit points. It heals non-lethal hit points because it cures both hit points and non-lethal hit points to the exact same degree.
1. Who's saying anything about excluding non-lethal damage? Nobody that I've seen.
2. If you heal "hit point damage" it heals both - as the rules for healing non-lethal damage clearly point out.
3. If something specifically heals non-lethal damage, it just heals non-lethal damage. There's no rule stating that anything that heals non-lethal damage also heals lethal damage. If that was true, everyone would be regaining hit points hourly instead of daily based on the natural healing rate of non-lethal damage.
1. I thought you were suggesting that if someone "heals X damage" that it doesn't apply to nonlethal damage. I find this position acceptable based on healing rules.
2. Agreed.
3. No one is claiming that you when you heal nonlethal you also heal lethal. Also, I'm not certain that natural healing counts as an effect, either.
The claim follows:
1. Nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
2. When a spell or ability heals hit point damage, it removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
3. If an ability heals 5 nonlethal damage, it will remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
There is no lethal healing in the process. The ability heals for 5 nonlethal and, as per the healing nonlethal rule, also removes 5 nonlethal.
Has this cleared up the confusion?
So if you've taken 7 lethal and 7 nonlethal, CLW heals 5 lethal and removes 5 nonlethal, for a total of 10 points. (That is very well stated in the rules for healing nonlethal.)
It's healed/removed a total of 10 damage to hit points.
But if the person hasn't taken any lethal it only heals 5 hit points (which, in this case, is nonlethal)?
My problem with that is the wording of healing nonlethal. You cure hit point damage with a spell, you remove the same amount of nonlethal. There's nothing in there saying that the nonlethal is only removed if the hit point damage that was healed was lethal.
OH! Unless you're saying that "hit point damage" in this case means lethal hit point damage in the same way that the default hit point damage is lethal.... In which case, that makes sense.
So if you've taken 7 lethal and 7 nonlethal, CLW heals 5 lethal and removes 5 nonlethal, for a total of 10 points. (That is very well stated in the rules for healing nonlethal.)
It's healed/removed a total of 10 damage to hit points.
But if the person hasn't taken any lethal it only heals 5 hit points (which, in this case, is nonlethal)?My problem with that is the wording of healing nonlethal. You cure hit point damage with a spell, you remove the same amount of nonlethal. There's nothing in there saying that the nonlethal is only removed if the hit point damage that was healed was lethal.
OH! Unless you're saying that "hit point damage" in this case means lethal hit point damage in the same way that the default hit point damage is lethal.... In which case, that makes sense.
Right. Just like Power Attack only works with lethal hit point damage, because the default hit point damage is lethal.
Has this cleared up the confusion?
No one is confused. We understand what you are saying.
Right. Just like Power Attack only works with lethal hit point damage, because the default hit point damage is lethal.So if you've taken 7 lethal and 7 nonlethal, CLW heals 5 lethal and removes 5 nonlethal, for a total of 10 points. (That is very well stated in the rules for healing nonlethal.)
It's healed/removed a total of 10 damage to hit points.
But if the person hasn't taken any lethal it only heals 5 hit points (which, in this case, is nonlethal)?My problem with that is the wording of healing nonlethal. You cure hit point damage with a spell, you remove the same amount of nonlethal. There's nothing in there saying that the nonlethal is only removed if the hit point damage that was healed was lethal.
OH! Unless you're saying that "hit point damage" in this case means lethal hit point damage in the same way that the default hit point damage is lethal.... In which case, that makes sense.
I'm glad you finally agree that Power Attack works with nonlethal overflow.
No one is confused.
*puts up his hand*
Umm.... I'm confused.
We all agree nonlethal counts as hit point damage, right? (Isn't that what people were saying earlier?) So why would nonlethal not count as hit point damage when it comes to healing? (Curing 5 nonlethal would also remove an additional 5 nonlethal damage as per the healing nonlethal rules?)
Mallecks, you still think Power Attack doesn't work with nonlethal?
Crap.... I thought we had finally all gotten somewhere managed to get everyone to agree that nonlethal was hit point damage.
Right. Just like Power Attack only works with lethal hit point damage, because the default hit point damage is lethal.So if you've taken 7 lethal and 7 nonlethal, CLW heals 5 lethal and removes 5 nonlethal, for a total of 10 points. (That is very well stated in the rules for healing nonlethal.)
It's healed/removed a total of 10 damage to hit points.
But if the person hasn't taken any lethal it only heals 5 hit points (which, in this case, is nonlethal)?My problem with that is the wording of healing nonlethal. You cure hit point damage with a spell, you remove the same amount of nonlethal. There's nothing in there saying that the nonlethal is only removed if the hit point damage that was healed was lethal.
OH! Unless you're saying that "hit point damage" in this case means lethal hit point damage in the same way that the default hit point damage is lethal.... In which case, that makes sense.
I'm glad you finally agree that Power Attack works with nonlethal overflow.
Actually, it's funny you bring that up. Because it wouldn't work with nonlethal, because it isn't the default hit point damage, but it would work with nonlethal overflow.
According to your argument against my position (which you claim is the rules, not your opinion), this would mean you would need to go back and recalculate damage, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is confused.*puts up his hand*
Umm.... I'm confused.
We all agree nonlethal counts as hit point damage, right? (Isn't that what people were saying earlier?) So why would nonlethal not count as hit point damage when it comes to healing? (Curing 5 nonlethal would also remove an additional 5 nonlethal damage as per the healing nonlethal rules?)
Wrong way to think of it. It doesn't "count as hit point damage," it is a form of hit point damage. That means that effects that add to hit point damage (like power attack, the magic bonus of weapons, weapon specialization, strength bonuses, etc) apply to non-lethal damage. What it doesn't mean is that having some points of non-lethal damage is equivalent to having some hit point damage from lethal sources. If my PC has 10 points of non-lethal damage, I don't get to claim they're hit points for the purposes of getting 5 hit points and then 5 more points of non-lethal damage cured when the cleric rolls 5 on his cure wounds spell.
Wrong way to think of it. It doesn't "count as hit point damage," it is a form of hit point damage. That means that effects that add to hit point damage (like power attack, the magic bonus of weapons, weapon specialization, strength bonuses, etc) apply to non-lethal damage. What it doesn't mean is that having some points of non-lethal damage is equivalent to having some hit point damage from lethal sources. If my PC has 10 points of non-lethal damage, I don't get to claim they're hit points for the purposes of getting 5 hit points and then 5 more points of non-lethal damage cured when the cleric rolls 5 on his cure wounds spell.No one is confused.*puts up his hand*
Umm.... I'm confused.
We all agree nonlethal counts as hit point damage, right? (Isn't that what people were saying earlier?) So why would nonlethal not count as hit point damage when it comes to healing? (Curing 5 nonlethal would also remove an additional 5 nonlethal damage as per the healing nonlethal rules?)
It depends on how you interpret the healing rules. so let's let that rest for now.
1. You say that Nonlethal is a form of hit point damage.
2. When a spell or ability heals nonlethal damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal.
3. So, an ability that heals 2 nonlethal also removes 2 nonlethal?
Wrong way to think of it. It doesn't "count as hit point damage," it is a form of hit point damage. That means that effects that add to hit point damage (like power attack, the magic bonus of weapons, weapon specialization, strength bonuses, etc) apply to non-lethal damage. What it doesn't mean is that having some points of non-lethal damage is equivalent to having some hit point damage from lethal sources. If my PC has 10 points of non-lethal damage, I don't get to claim they're hit points for the purposes of getting 5 hit points and then 5 more points of non-lethal damage cured when the cleric rolls 5 on his cure wounds spell.
Okay, nonlethal is hit point damage. CLW heals hit point damage. When hit point damage is healed you also remove the same amount of nonlethal damage.
Does magical healing specify that the damage it heals is lethal hit point damage?
Let me see if I have this right: to you, CLW heals nonlethal only because the nonlethal is being removed based on the nonlethal healing rules. (READ: Someone has 10 nonlethal, CLW heals 5 lethal [even thought they haven't taken lethal damage] and also removes 5 of the nonlethal)
Right. Just like Power Attack only works with lethal hit point damage, because the default hit point damage is lethal.So if you've taken 7 lethal and 7 nonlethal, CLW heals 5 lethal and removes 5 nonlethal, for a total of 10 points. (That is very well stated in the rules for healing nonlethal.)
It's healed/removed a total of 10 damage to hit points.
But if the person hasn't taken any lethal it only heals 5 hit points (which, in this case, is nonlethal)?My problem with that is the wording of healing nonlethal. You cure hit point damage with a spell, you remove the same amount of nonlethal. There's nothing in there saying that the nonlethal is only removed if the hit point damage that was healed was lethal.
OH! Unless you're saying that "hit point damage" in this case means lethal hit point damage in the same way that the default hit point damage is lethal.... In which case, that makes sense.
I'm glad you finally agree that Power Attack works with nonlethal overflow.
Actually, it's funny you bring that up. Because it wouldn't work with nonlethal, because it isn't the default hit point damage, but it would work with nonlethal overflow.
According to your argument against my position (which you claim is the rules, not your opinion), this would mean you would need to go back and recalculate damage, right?
Not my position. My position is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
Your position was that nonlethal isn't hit point damage. The issue is then that you must then treat it as lethal damage during the overflow process. And since PA applies to lethal damage, it must then apply to overflow, causing the recalculation.
No one is confused.*puts up his hand*
Umm.... I'm confused.
We all agree nonlethal counts as hit point damage, right? (Isn't that what people were saying earlier?) So why would nonlethal not count as hit point damage when it comes to healing? (Curing 5 nonlethal would also remove an additional 5 nonlethal damage as per the healing nonlethal rules?)Mallecks, you still think Power Attack doesn't work with nonlethal?
Crap.... I thought we had finally all gotten somewhere managed to get everyone to agree that nonlethal was hit point damage.
First thing to realize...
Hit Point Damage is an umbrella category. Within it you have 2 categories: lethal and nonlethal.
Therefore, nonlethal damage is a TYPE of hit point damage. Lethal is the other.
Lethal damage is the "default" type. Whenever hit point damage is referred to generically, it can be assumed to follow the rules for lethal.
Nonlethal has special ADDITIONAL rules, some of them supersede the rules for lethal damage, but others take a back seat. When referring to a specific effect about nonlethal, refer to the nonlethal rules, and that tells you what is different. If it doesn't tell you to treat it different specifically, otherwise assume it has the properties of lethal damage.
What Gallant Armor introduce (and Mallecks picked up) is trying to treat nonlethal as a completely separate and wholly distinct category of damage.
The inherent problem with that is that nonlethal doesn't tell you what nonlethal is on it's own, but rather juxtaposes it against what lethal is, which hints very strongly that the two are intertwined, and not separate. Nonlethal isn't defined in a vacuum, but rather within the context of lethal.
First thing to realize...
Hit Point Damage is an umbrella category. Within it you have 2 categories: lethal and nonlethal.
Therefore, nonlethal damage is a TYPE of hit point damage. Lethal is the other.
Lethal damage is the "default" type. Whenever hit point damage is referred to generically, it can be assumed to follow the rules for lethal.
Nonlethal has special ADDITIONAL rules, some of them supersede the rules for lethal damage, but others take a back seat. When referring to a specific effect about nonlethal, refer to the nonlethal rules, and that tells you what is different. If it doesn't tell you to treat it different specifically, otherwise assume it has the properties of lethal damage.
What Gallant Armor introduce (and Mallecks picked up) is trying to treat nonlethal as a completely separate and wholly distinct category of damage.
The inherent problem with that is that nonlethal doesn't tell you what nonlethal is on it's own, but rather juxtaposes it against what lethal is, which hints very strongly that the two are intertwined, and not separate. Nonlethal isn't defined in a vacuum, but rather within the context of lethal.
Okay, yes, all of that I understand... And I think Mallecks agrees with that now? (Maybe I'm wrong on that second part).
So, since nonlethal is hit point damage, if you've only taken nonlethal and someone casts CLW on you why don't you heal the (let's say) 5 nonlethal )because it's hit point damage) and remove 5 nonlethal as per the nonlethal healing rules?
It is very consistent to say non lethal damage is hit point damage and heals, just at different rates then lethal damage.
Absolutely.
In order for this to be 100% consistent, then nonlethal healing spells/abilitied heal X nonlethal and remove X nonlethal via the nonlethal healing rule.
First thing to realize...
Hit Point Damage is an umbrella category. Within it you have 2 categories: lethal and nonlethal.
Therefore, nonlethal damage is a TYPE of hit point damage. Lethal is the other.
Lethal damage is the "default" type. Whenever hit point damage is referred to generically, it can be assumed to follow the rules for lethal.
Nonlethal has special ADDITIONAL rules, some of them supersede the rules for lethal damage, but others take a back seat. When referring to a specific effect about nonlethal, refer to the nonlethal rules, and that tells you what is different. If it doesn't tell you to treat it different specifically, otherwise assume it has the properties of lethal damage.
What Gallant Armor introduce (and Mallecks picked up) is trying to treat nonlethal as a completely separate and wholly distinct category of damage.
The inherent problem with that is that nonlethal doesn't tell you what nonlethal is on it's own, but rather juxtaposes it against what lethal is, which hints very strongly that the two are intertwined, and not separate. Nonlethal isn't defined in a vacuum, but rather within the context of lethal.
Okay, yes, all of that I understand... And I think Mallecks agrees with that now? (Maybe I'm wrong on that second part).
So, since nonlethal is hit point damage, if you've only taken nonlethal and someone casts CLW on you why don't you heal the (let's say) 5 nonlethal )because it's hit point damage) and remove 5 nonlethal as per the nonlethal healing rules?
Because nonlethal has clear and explicit rules on how healing is applied. However much normal hit point damage would be healed, you heal that much nonlethal also.
It doesn't matter how many hit points are actually healed, 0, 5, 100. However many the effect heals, you get reduce nonlethal damage by the same amount.
If you reduce nonlethal twice, you have not healed it the same amount. You have healed it twice. Twice as much as not the same as "equal". There is no nonlethal overflow healing rule.
CLW heals 5 points of damage. Target has taken 0 damage. Maximum hit point limits on healing takes effect. The target has taken 8 points of nonlethal though. Nonlethal healing then tells us to remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage as was healed by the spell. The target was healed for 5 hp, but maximum hp capped it, but the target still removes an equal amount of nonlethal as the original effect, so he has 3 points of nonlethal left.
It doesn't matter what nonlethal is or isn't, because in this case the rules tell us how it works and spell out the procedure. The rules of nonlethal damage overflow are irrelevant, because they are for damage, and healing is given separate procedures.
Nonlethal doesn't double dip. It just receives an equal amount of healing from spells and effects without having to specifically target nonlethal damage.
Because nonlethal has clear and explicit rules on how healing is applied. However much normal hit point damage would be healed, you heal that much nonlethal also.
It doesn't matter how many hit points are actually healed, 0, 5, 100. However many the effect heals, you get reduce nonlethal damage by the same amount.
If you reduce nonlethal twice, you have not healed it the same amount. You have healed it twice. Twice as much as not the same as "equal". There is no nonlethal overflow healing rule.
So CLW doesn't heal hit point damage, regardless of the type? It only heals lethal damage?
Or are you saying that nonlethal isn't hit point damage when it comes to healing?
Wait, ignore that last post... I have a better way of asking that I think will clear things up as to where people stand on the issue...
Does CLW heal "any form of hit point damage" or does it heal "lethal hit point damage"?
(Because if it only heals lethal hit point damage then yes, it wouldn't double-dip if you only have nonlethal. But if it heals any form of hit point damage it would heal X amount of nonlethal and then remove X amount again.)
Because nonlethal has clear and explicit rules on how healing is applied. However much normal hit point damage would be healed, you heal that much nonlethal also.
It doesn't matter how many hit points are actually healed, 0, 5, 100. However many the effect heals, you get reduce nonlethal damage by the same amount.
If you reduce nonlethal twice, you have not healed it the same amount. You have healed it twice. Twice as much as not the same as "equal". There is no nonlethal overflow healing rule.
So CLW doesn't heal hit point damage, regardless of the type? It only heals lethal damage?
Or are you saying that nonlethal isn't hit point damage when it comes to healing?
You're asking the wrong question.
Ignore Cure Light Wounds.
Just look at nonlethal's rules for healing. When healing happens, and there is nonlethal damage... look at nonlethal's rules for what happens. Nonlethal has specific rules. Use those.
Cure Light Wounds does not have specific rules regarding lethal and nonlethal. I just affects "hit points".
So, we then look to see how those types of damages are impacted by healing.
Hit Points go up (up to max). Full stop.
Then, we look at nonlethal. However much is supposed to be healed by the effect ALSO removes the same amount of nonlethal.
Don't combine the two processes, because the rules tell us that they are separate. This doesn't mean nonlethal isn't hit point damage, it just means that it has specific rules for how it is handled.
Fair enough. Cure Light Would (et al.) heals lethal hit point damage.
Therefore it doesn't heal nonlethal, it simply removes it as per the nonlethal healing rules.
That makes sense to me.
You're asking the wrong question.
Ignore Cure Light Wounds.
Just look at nonlethal's rules for healing. When healing happens, and there is nonlethal damage... look at nonlethal's rules for what happens. Nonlethal has specific rules. Use those.
Cure Light Wounds does not have specific rules regarding lethal and nonlethal. I just affects "hit points".
So, we then look to see how those types of damages are impacted by healing.
Hit Points go up (up to max). Full stop.
Then, we look at nonlethal. However much is supposed to be healed by the effect ALSO removes the same amount of nonlethal.
Don't combine the two processes, because the rules tell us that they are separate. This doesn't mean nonlethal isn't hit point damage, it just means that it has specific rules for how it is handled.
1. Please provide citation that nonlethal healing rule only applies to when the target has nonlethal damage. It will do nothing (unless I unique edge case where it matters can be produced), but it happens on every spell/ability that heals hit point damage.
2. I am OK with the interpretation that spells that heal "damage" or restore "hit points" do not carry over into nonlethal. As healing rules say that you are restoring hit points.
3. I have been referring to spells/abilities that specifically heal nonlethal damage only to avoid the this specific issue.
So, let's walk through your process.
1. Cast CLW
2. Hits go up (to max)
3. (if there is nonlethal) However much is supposed to be healed by the effect ALSO removes the same amount of nonlethal.
all right, I use Calming Touch
1. Use Calming Touch
2. Hit Points are not adjusted, nonlethal damage does not damage hit points.
3. (if there is nonlethal) However much is supposed to be healed by the effect ALSO removes the same amount of nonlethal.
Seems like Calming Touch will heal X and remove X to me.
Fair enough. Cure Light Would (et al.) heals lethal hit point damage.
Therefore it doesn't heal nonlethal, it simply removes it as per the nonlethal healing rules.That makes sense to me.
Close, but still some particular semantics.
Cure Wounds heals hit point damage.
When that happens, nonlethal has specific rules for how it interacts with that healing. The healing impacts nonlethal, because it is healing hit point damage. Nonlethal has specific rules for how that interaction happens because nonlethal has a subset of rules that specifically apply.