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.
They've been cited many, many times. Nonlethal rules apply to nonlethal. If I have to explain this concept, I'm not sure we can have a useful discussion.
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.
But if CLW heals hit point damage, and that hit point damage happens to be nonlethal, why isn't an equal amount of nonlethal removed?
"When a spell or a magical power cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage."The specific rules for healing nonlethal say that when hit point damage is healed (note that it doesn't specify that the hit point damage has to be lethal damage) you remove an equal amount of nonlethal.
But if CLW heals hit point damage, and that hit point damage happens to be nonlethal, why isn't an equal amount of nonlethal removed?
"When a spell or a magical power cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage."
The specific rules for healing nonlethal say that when hit point damage is healed (note that it doesn't specify that the hit point damage has to be lethal damage) you remove an equal amount of nonlethal.
Quoting the cure line of spells here I think will be enlightning.
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).
CLW cures damage. It does not says cures/heals hit points. Just damage. What kind of damage? Well given it wasn't specified, then we take the default of lethal damage, thus CLW cures lethal damage, and based on the nonlethal healing rules also affects an equal number of nonlethal damage.
As to calming touch, it could be read as a double dipping on healing nonlethal damage if we insist on reading it in the most pedantic way, but like many things in the game, double dipping isn't really the intent behind the ability. Double dipping has been clarified on several other issues to not be allowed (I'm recalling no double dipping of stat bonuses to AC and/or saving throws off the top of my head). Asking the writers to add additional text to the ability of "This does not trigger the usual nonlethal healing rules where healing HP damage removes and equal amount of nonlethal damage." is being excessively pedantic. The rules simply aren't a legal document that requires such specificity to understand the intent.
Quoting the cure line of spells here I think will be enlightning.
CLW cures damage. It does not says cures/heals hit points. Just damage. What kind of damage? Well given it wasn't specified, then we take the default of lethal damage, thus CLW cures lethal damage, and based on the nonlethal healing rules also affects an equal number of nonlethal 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).
I like that argument; I fully agree with that. CLW healing lethal damage would therefore make it so that the nonlethal is removed as per the healing nonlethal rules.
A couple of posts ago I said pretty much the same thing but Irontruth disagreed and said it heals hit point damage. That's where the problem comes in as healing hit point damage also removes an equal amount of nonlethal.
(And if you assume that the phrase "hit point damage" only applies to lethal damage then the whole issue with Power Attack comes up again.)
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.
But if CLW heals hit point damage, and that hit point damage happens to be nonlethal, why isn't an equal amount of nonlethal removed?
"When a spell or a magical power cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage."
The specific rules for healing nonlethal say that when hit point damage is healed (note that it doesn't specify that the hit point damage has to be lethal damage) you remove an equal amount of nonlethal.
I'm going to ask a question to see if this illuminates anything:
When I cure hit points, an equal amount of nonlethal damage is also healed. What if I'm at 0 nonlethal damage? Do I gain that as additional healing for my current hit points?Look through the language of healing nonlethal, and the nonlethal overflow rule and see if you can tell me what the difference is.
Quoting the cure line of spells here I think will be enlightning.
CLW cures damage. It does not says cures/heals hit points. Just damage. What kind of damage? Well given it wasn't specified, then we take the default of lethal damage, thus CLW cures lethal damage, and based on the nonlethal healing rules also affects an equal number of nonlethal 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).
I like that argument; I fully agree with that. CLW healing lethal damage would therefore make it so that the nonlethal is removed as per the healing nonlethal rules.
A couple of posts ago I said pretty much the same thing but Irontruth disagreed and said it heals hit point damage. That's where the problem comes in as healing hit point damage also removes an equal amount of nonlethal.
(And if you assume that the phrase "hit point damage" only applies to lethal damage then the whole issue with Power Attack comes up again.)
Again, you have to actually do what the rules are telling you to do and recognize when a rule is referring to a specific category of things.
The healing effects happen concurrently, not consecutively. You don't heal HP, and then do the process again AFTER to nonlethal. You heal both at the same time, and neither spills over into the other.
Therefore, if you are already healing nonlethal, there is no reason to check to see how much nonlethal you heal. You already did it.
Now, as humans we can't do two things like this simultaneously, we do the math for HP, then we do the math for nonlethal, but as far as the game is concerned, they happen simultaneously and independently of each other.
I'm going to ask a question to see if this illuminates anything:
When I cure hit points, an equal amount of nonlethal damage is also healed. What if I'm at 0 nonlethal damage? Do I gain that as additional healing for my current hit points?Look through the language of healing nonlethal, and the nonlethal overflow rule and see if you can tell me what the difference is.
Anytime a spell or ability heals hit point damage, it removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage. If you have 0 nonlethal damage, then nothing happens in most cases. The spell or effect STILL removes nonlethal damage, but there isn't any to remove. (There may be some edge cases where this is relevant, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.)
I'm less interested in the right answer, but rather how do you arrive at that answer. What specifically in the rules indicates this to you? I agree with your conclusion, but I'm asking you to back it up with textual differences from the two passages.
1) Is there a text passage that tells us nonlethal overflow happens?
2) Is there a text passage that tells us HP healing overflow happens?
Does the existence of one, and lack of existence of the other, indicate something to you?
I'm going to ask a question to see if this illuminates anything:
When I cure hit points, an equal amount of nonlethal damage is also healed. What if I'm at 0 nonlethal damage? Do I gain that as additional healing for my current hit points?Look through the language of healing nonlethal, and the nonlethal overflow rule and see if you can tell me what the difference is.
No one has said that you gain something extra if you're healed and have no nonlethal damage. I don't know why you seem to be thinking that anyone is saying that.
Again, you have to actually do what the rules are telling you to do and recognize when a rule is referring to a specific category of things.
The healing effects happen concurrently, not consecutively. You don't heal HP, and then do the process again AFTER to nonlethal. You heal both at the same time, and neither spills over into the other.
Therefore, if you are already healing nonlethal, there is no reason to check to see how much nonlethal you heal. You already did it.
Now, as humans we can't do two things like this simultaneously, we do the math for HP, then we do the math for nonlethal, but as far as the game is concerned, they happen simultaneously and independently of each other.
Yep, the healing happens at the same time. You heal hit point damage and remove nonlethal damage.
I heal 5 hit point damage and remove 5 nonlethal.What in the rules says that those 5 points of hit point damage can't be nonlethal? Since nonlethal is hit point damage and CLW heals hit point damage instead of lethal damage...
I'm glad that I believe CLW heals lethal hit point damage.... it makes it so that a CLW of 5 would heal 5 lethal and 5 nonlethal.
I'm going to ask a question to see if this illuminates anything:
When I cure hit points, an equal amount of nonlethal damage is also healed. What if I'm at 0 nonlethal damage? Do I gain that as additional healing for my current hit points?Look through the language of healing nonlethal, and the nonlethal overflow rule and see if you can tell me what the difference is.
No one has said that you gain something extra if you're healed and have no nonlethal damage. I don't know why you seem to be thinking that anyone is saying that.
I'm not saying you did. My point is "how do you know this is true?" is an important clue as to why CLW heals lethal damage differently than it does nonlethal.
Bbangeter's point about double dipping being generally prohibited is also a good point. You can't benefit from the same value/effect twice.
It really isn't that CLW heals lethal. It's that nonlethal has specific rules for how it gets interacted with. It isn't a characteristic of the spell CLW that determines this, but rather a characteristic of nonlethal that adjudicates what happens.
You don't get to choose "CLW heals lethal or nonlethal"... it just does what it does "curing hit points". When "curing hit points" happens, nonlethal has a rule about what happens. Do what the rule says, not something else. You can't "target" the nonlethal damage specifically. It's not how the relationship works. You just cast it, and the numbers get checked and verified. Anything that can happen, does happen. You don't choose which effects happen after you cast CLW, everything that is eligible to happen, happens.
Ah, so it's because you can't "cure" nonlethal hit points with CLW? (Because they're removed, according to the healing nonlethal section).
You cure the lethal damage and therefore the nonlethal is removed?
Yup. Just follow the rules for each type of damage track and you arrive at the correct implementation of the rules. You only move back and forth between the pools when the rules specifically tell you (like nonlethal overflow). Otherwise treat the minimum's and maximums as your... well... minimums and maximums.
All "hit points" (healing and damage) will normally interact with the standard hit point pool. It only goes into the nonlethal pool if something specifically tells you to do that.
Yup. Just follow the rules for each type of damage track and you arrive at the correct implementation of the rules. You only move back and forth between the pools when the rules specifically tell you (like nonlethal overflow). Otherwise treat the minimum's and maximums as your... well... minimums and maximums.
All "hit points" (healing and damage) will normally interact with the standard hit point pool. It only goes into the nonlethal pool if something specifically tells you to do that.
That is a mighty fine way to describe it!
So, with something like Calming Touch from the Community cleric Domain, you would only heal what it says (D6 + 1 point per level of nonlethal) because it is specifically talking about nonlethal damage instead of the more general term of "hit point damage."
Exactly. And we're following every piece of text.
Ok great.
The nonlethal healing rule doesn't apply to spells that heal nonlethal, because it uses the term "hit point damage" and not nonlethal?
Am I understanding correctly?
Nope. You're going at it backwards.
The spell doesn't use the nonlethal healing rule because the spell has it's own specific way of determining what is healed, it specifically references the type that is healed.
Also, as a clue, using the rule would cause you to double dip on a specific effect, which you aren't allowed to do in Pathfinder.
1. No "double dipping" precedent
Actually, the only precedent that I am aware of in this regard is that characters can not get the same bonus to a statistic twice. For example, if two abilities both granted +WIS to AC, they wouldn't stack. This isn't a bonus, this is just a rule.
2. The rule says "When a spell or ability heals hit point damage." Why isn't this rule applied to every single spell and ability that heals hit point damage? If nonlethal damage is a type of hit point damage, then any spell that heals nonlethal is healing hit point damage.
3. Logic is not consistent
When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
When you cast a spell or ability that cures [category of damage], it also removes an equal amount of [subtype of damage].
In response to a spell healing "nonlethal" instead of the "hit point damage."
The spell doesn't use the nonlethal healing rule because the spell has it's own specific way of determining what is healed, it specifically references the type that is healed.
Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell’s type to match the type of your bloodline.
This ability is similar to nonlethal healing. When a spell deals [category of damage], you get an effect based on the [subtype of damage.]
Suggested response to a spell that designates an specific energy type (ex: Fireball says it does fire damage, not energy damage)
The spell doesn't use the Elemental Bloodline Bloodline Arcana because the spell has its own specific way of determining what is dealt. It specifically references what type of damage is dealt.
4. Default assumption vs General use
If there is no default assumption, then there are problems when dealing with affects that use the category of "hit point damage."
If there is a default assumption, then abilities only interact with the default unless specifically called out. (Such as the difference between hit point damage and ability damage. Damage assumes HP damage, ability damage needs to be specifically pointed out.)
|
WOW. The thread exploded.
CLW is a 1 on 1 between Lethal and Non Lethal. The target heals X amount of both types of Damage, and it does not matter if the target already is at Max HP, his Non Lethal damage will still be effected.
The question a couple of pages ago was "Well, if there is no Lethal damage, but a lot of Non Lethal damage, does that mean I heal Non Lethal twice?" The answer is no.
1. No "double dipping" precedent
Actually, the only precedent that I am aware of in this regard is that characters can not get the same bonus to a statistic twice. For example, if two abilities both granted +WIS to AC, they wouldn't stack. This isn't a bonus, this is just a rule.
2. The rule says "When a spell or ability heals hit point damage." Why isn't this rule applied to every single spell and ability that heals hit point damage? If nonlethal damage is a type of hit point damage, then any spell that heals nonlethal is healing hit point damage.
Lol, are your hands tired from grasping at straws?
Lol, are your hands tired from grasping at straws?
Sticking with the ad hominem? I assumed you were going to back to the strawmans on that last one.
I'll stick to debate rules when you stick to the text of the rules.
You're arguing that you can benefit from the same source twice. It's a complete invention. You know it. You're only arguing it because you think it proves your point. Except it doesn't prove your point, because that's not how the rules work.
You're literally making up b#!%+!*$ as a debate tactic.
Yeah, you can go stick your appeals to decorum where the sun don't shine.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not "stack")—only the greater bonus granted applies.
This is the only rule I am aware of that you could be referring to.
This applies to bonuses. The nonlethal healing rule is not a bonus. Is there another rule or something that would fit the context appropriately?
So, you're saying that because that ONLY refers to bonuses, that you think it's fine to double dip else where.
Cool.
So, you're saying that because that ONLY refers to bonuses, that you think it's fine to double dip else where.
Cool.
Yep, because I follow the rules.
Also, I don't really consider it benefiting from the same effect twice. You are benefiting from the effect once, which was modified by a rule that applies to it.
Edit:
I'll stick to debate rules when you stick to the text of the rules.
Does this not apply to you as well?
I'm working off all the rules. I've explained it once. I'm not doing it again just because you didn't like it the first time.
Except the nonlethal healing rule, which you don't apply to certain spells and effects that heal hit point damage...
Feel free to reread my previous explanation about that.
It's not like if I explain it a second time you're going to change your mind anyways.
Thax,
First off, I want to say that my original position does not invalidate any rules and is 100% consistent.
Secondly, I am currently discussing the implications of nonlethal damage being hit point damage. If you believe that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, then spells/abilities that heal nonlethal damage will be modified by the nonlethal healing rule.
How is following the rules abandoning then?
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: Spells and abilities that heal nonlethal damage also remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
This is pretty explicit. Everyone agrees with premise two, as it is the text of a rule. If you agree with the first premise, then my conclusion is true.
Unless you can provide another rule or something that negates the nonlethal healing rule from applying to certain spells that heal hit point damage.
And the crazy thing was...
I assumed everyone would agree with this, because it is so explicit. You guys want nonlethal damage to be considered hit point damage sometimes (Power Attack) and not others (Nonlethal Healing rule).
At least I treat it the same way every time.
It's been explained. You are just ignoring it.
You want credit for ignoring explanations? Sorry, not how this works.
|
|
The problem your having, Mallecks, is that it is damage that is being dealt, which typically goes to HP, but is not specified but in a few places, the Weapon Chart being one of them. You are confusing "HP Damage" to "Damage" when they are one and the same. When the damage is something other than HP, it is specified, such as a Shadows touch attack that does STR damage.
Con Damage does effect HP, but only as far as how much the character has as his Max Value. THe damage to HP he had taken, or how much Non Lethal he has taken, does not change with Con Damage.
This, in various ways, has been explained to you, GA and others. I am not sure what else to say but to point out that your interpretation is flat out wrong.
It's not even that ThaX.
The nonlethal healing rules is a simple "When X happens, also do Y". Calming Touch just skips X, and goes straight to Y.
To be fair, you two are saying that cure spells heals hit point damage. If nonlethal is hit point damage then that would mean that, by default, cure spells would heal either lethal or nonlethal and then remove the same amount of nonlethal.
Is there anywhere that specifies what type of "damage" cure spells heal? (It looks like it could be argued that CLW et al. heals stat damage even though that's obviously not what they're intended to do.)
Cure spells healing specifically lethal damage would fix this current debate. (Except Calming Touch would still be problematic.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OH! Damage, as defined in the combat section: "Damage reduces a target’s current hit points."
Nonlethal is hit point damage because reasons previously discussed in this thread.
CLW heals damage that has reduced your current hit points therefore it heals lethal damage, not the broader statement of hit point damage.
Is that a fair statement?
The problem your having, Mallecks, is that it is damage that is being dealt, which typically goes to HP, but is not specified but in a few places, the Weapon Chart being one of them. You are confusing "HP Damage" to "Damage" when they are one and the same. When the damage is something other than HP, it is specified, such as a Shadows touch attack that does STR damage.
Con Damage does effect HP, but only as far as how much the character has as his Max Value. THe damage to HP he had taken, or how much Non Lethal he has taken, does not change with Con Damage.
This, in various ways, has been explained to you, GA and others. I am not sure what else to say but to point out that your interpretation is flat out wrong.
thaX, this does not address what I was talking about and very broadly describe the topic as a whole. If you have a specific issue with the position that "nonlethal is not hit points," please present the specific issue and I can attempt to clear up any confusion.
Alternatively, I will ask that you describe why spells/abilities that only heal nonlethal damage should not be affected by the nonlethal healing rule.
OH! Damage, as defined in the combat section: "Damage reduces a target’s current hit points."
Nonlethal is hit point damage because reasons previously discussed in this thread.CLW heals damage that has reduced your current hit points therefore it heals lethal damage, not the broader statement of hit point damage.
Is that a fair statement?
This is an accurate view of the healing rules. Generally, healing recovers hit points. This does not interact with nonlethal at all and why the nonlethal healing rule exists.
It's not even that ThaX.
The nonlethal healing rules is a simple "When X happens, also do Y". Calming Touch just skips X, and goes straight to Y.
This is just plainly untrue.
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Calming Touch (Sp): You can touch a creature as a standard action to heal it of 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point per cleric level. This touch also removes the fatigued, shaken, and sickened conditions (but has no effect on more severe conditions). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
The subject’s severed body members (fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, tails, or even heads of multi-headed creatures), broken bones, and ruined organs grow back. After the spell is cast, the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise.
Regenerate also cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +35), rids the subject of exhaustion and fatigue, and eliminates all nonlethal damage the subject has taken. It has no effect on nonliving creatures (including undead).
Compare the effects of the Calming Touch ability and Regenerate.
1. Calming Touch specifically states that it heals nonlethal damage, thus qualifying it for modification via the nonlethal healing rule.
2. Regenerate's emphasized text could bypass the nonlethal, because it isn't healing the nonlethal damage, just removing it. (However, regenerate also has a healing component and thus is subject to the nonlethal healing rule.)
It's been explained. You are just ignoring it.
You want credit for ignoring explanations? Sorry, not how this works.
The main concept I remember discussing involving my positions were:
Recalculation of damage based on Power Attack's eligibility after the effect occurred
1. my response is that Power Attack modifies the damage roll, and the damage roll must be complete before the target can take the damage that then becomes eligible.
2. Your responses didn't really show I was breaking any rules. You just kept saying I had to recalculate the damage over and over again and moving goalposts to questions like "What rule do you have to show that a damage roll ends?"
3. You are claiming that I am breaking the rules. Please provide the rule that is being broken.
If there were other areas that were discussed that I have missed or forgotten, please provide them and I will gladly try to clear up any confusion.
2. Your responses didn't really show I was breaking any rules.
You're breaking the rule of not applying Power Attack to lethal damage.
This has been explained to you MANY times.
2. Your responses didn't really show I was breaking any rules.You're breaking the rule of not applying Power Attack to lethal damage.
This has been explained to you MANY times.
You are confusing damage dealt and damage taken.
Power Attack provides a bonus on the damage roll and the conditions are checked against the type of action that caused the effect and the type of damage it deals.
I have already provided evidence that what the effect does (information about the effect itself) is separate from what happens to the target (information about how that effect affects the target.) This has been generally boiled down to "Damage dealt vs damage taken."
A mage casts a fireball and rolls 20 damage. Does the Fireball still deal damage? Is it still fire damage? If the mage had an ability that modified spells that did fire damage, would fireball still qualify for that ability?
A mage casts a fireball and rolls 20 damage. The only creature in the area of effect is a creature that is immune to fire damage. Same questions. Does the fireball still deal damage? Is it still fire damage? If the mage had an ability that modified spells that did fire damage, would fireball still qualify for that ability?
A spell with text that supports this concept is Fractions of Harm and Heal.
This spell channels a portion of the next spell you cast into magic that heals you. The next instantaneous area damage spell of 3rd level or lower that you cast deals only 75% of its damage, but heals you of a number of hit points equal to the remaining 25% of the spell’s damage. For example, if you cast this spell and followed it with a fireball that would normally deal 40 hit points of damage, the fireball instead deals 30 hit points of damage and heals you of 10 hit points of damage. The spell affected by this spell must be cast before the end of your next turn. This spell has no effect on spells that do not deal damage or spells higher than 3rd level. This healing is treated as if you had been affected by a cure or inflict spell (whichever would heal you), and is treated as the same spell level as the area-affecting spell for the purpose of effects that relate to the spell level of cure or inflict spells.
And here is an associated thread discussing the exact concept
Now, back to Power attack.
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Just like the above examples, Power Attack modifies an effect and its conditions apply to information about the effect. ZERO information about the target is required when using a power attack.
I agree that the excess nonlethal damage would be a problem if conditions are checked based on damage taken instead of damage dealt. Can you provide evidence that conditions should be checked based on information about the target? Such as another ability or spell that uses language similar to power attack, but must use "damage taken" information.
Edit:
Here is an example of an ability that uses information based on what happens to the target...
The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
Hopefully this example will help clear up any confusion between the two concepts.
None of that says that you can exclude lethal damage from Power Attack.
OK, so, again...
You say I am ignoring a rule. I respond by explaining my position and you just ignore it and repeat that I am breaking the rule.
I agree with you and nothing about the assumption "Nonlethal Damage is not Hit point damage" changes whether or not lethal damage is granted the bonus from power attack.
My response is that the conditions are checked on the damage roll, using information about the effect. This means that Power Attack doesn't interact with excess nonlethal damage.
You are arguing that an effect using "deals" language is based off what happens to the target and not the effect itself. Can you provide any example where similar language is requires information about the target?
Edit: Your argument that Power Attack uses damage taken instead of damage dealt creates issues and is logically unconsistent.
The spell defending bone grants Damage Reduction until it blocks a certain amount of damage.
If I cast Defending Bone and it blocks 30 damage....
I power attack the target. I roll a 3 and get +2 Damage, the result of my damage roll is 5. I hit defending bone for 0 damage because it wasn't bludgeoning. We check power attack and see that the target took no hit point damage. Now we have to retroactively remove the +2 Power Attack bonus. The damage result changes back to a 3 and Damage Bone gets 2 damage back on how much it can block.
So, I'm not sure what you actually believe, but the way you are using Power Attack to argue against my position is equally a problem for both positions because that is not how Power Attack works.
OK, so, again...
You say I am ignoring a rule. I respond by explaining my position and you just ignore it and repeat that I am breaking the rule.
I agree with you and nothing about the assumption "Nonlethal Damage is not Hit point damage" changes whether or not lethal damage is granted the bonus from power attack.
My response is that the conditions are checked on the damage roll, using information about the effect. This means that Power Attack doesn't interact with excess nonlethal damage.
You are arguing that an effect using "deals" language is based off what happens to the target and not the effect itself. Can you provide any example where similar language is requires information about the target?
Edit: Your argument that Power Attack uses damage taken instead of damage dealt creates issues and is logically unconsistent.
The spell defending bone grants Damage Reduction until it blocks a certain amount of damage.
If I cast Defending Bone and it blocks 30 damage....
I power attack the target. I roll a 3 and get +2 Damage, the result of my damage roll is 5. I hit defending bone for 0 damage because it wasn't bludgeoning. We check power attack and see that the target took no hit point damage. Now we have to retroactively remove the +2 Power Attack bonus. The damage result changes back to a 3 and Damage Bone gets 2 damage back on how much it can block.
So, I'm not sure what you actually believe, but the way you are using Power Attack to argue against my position is equally a problem for both positions because that is not how Power Attack works.
I swear to god. Its like trying to argue with a gold fish.
Why is nonlethal not hit point damage?
I am happy to explain my position again. However, before doing so, I would like you to confirm that my description of damage dealt vs damage taken is accurate and how the game is traditionally played.
If you disagree with it, then please provide a detailed description of how you believe the issue is traditionally handled. We can't really move forward because you are claiming that Power Attack text is being broken, when it seems you are not actually applying Power Attack correctly to the situation.
When we both agree on how Power Attack works, we can then see what happens in the case of nonlethal damage.
Alternatively, I asked you to provide the rules I was breaking and you only gave power attack as an example. I am willing to drop the issue for now if you can provide another rule that is being broken by my position.
Or, we can go back to why your position seems to be to treat nonlethal damage as hit points sometimes(Power Attack) and not others (nonlethal healing rule.)
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damag
This is how Power Attack works. Do you have a rules citation you'd like to add to the debate?
Iirc, the only rule claimed to be broken thus far is the Power Attack (and similar ability) text. In order for this to be addressed, we both need to agree on the what "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are. This lies outside the RAW. I have provided evidence from RAW that I am correct, but it is not explicit.
If you cannot confirm that my interpretation is correct or provide your own interpretation for review, we cannot move forward in this conversation.
On the flip side...
Merely by reviewing the the "Nonlethal Damage is hit point damage" position, I have illustrated two inconsistencies.
1. Inconsistency in how nonlethal is treated.
The proponents of this position sometimes treat nonlethal damage as "hit point damage" and sometimes they don't.
A. Nonlethal Damage is treated as hit point damage in regards to Power Attack eligibility.
B. Nonlethal Damage is NOT treated as hit point damage in regards to triggering the nonlethal healing rule.
This one is pretty simple, you just need to admit that effects that heal nonlethal damage now both heal nonlethal damage and remove an equal amount. Alternatively, you could provide a rule, evidence, or example on why healing a specific subtype of "hit point damage" is not eligible for the nonlethal damage healing rule.
2. Inconsistency in default assumption
The proponents of this position sometimes treat "hit point damage" with a default assumption and sometimes they don't.
A. When referring to effects that "deal hit point damage," they want to say there is a default assumption that "hit point damage" refers to lethal damage.
B. When referring to eligibility of Power Attack, they want to say there is no default assumption that "hit point damage" refers to lethal damage.
This one seems harder to come up with a consistent logical solution. The apparent solution is that there is a default assumption, and that nonlethal does not qualify for Power Attack.
The only inconsistency in my position is Irontruth's claim that I am breaking Power Attack's text, which is only true if Power Attack is used in a way that is not consistent with how the game is played.
Therefore, my position is 100% logically consistent (unless Irontruth can provide his description of how damage dealt vs damage taken is handled. Irontruth, I know you want to stick explicitly with the RAW, but we are touching on things that are outside explicit RAW) and the other *could* be logically consistent, but the proponents of the other side have yet to accept the repercussions of their position.
I certainly did. One example being that Regeneration wouldn't heal nonlethal damage. I'm pointing out things you have to accept logically. Once you accept these two points, I can move on to building an edge case that proves it can't be logically consistent.
However, I'm confident that your position will be logically consistent in the end and that either view point would be "acceptable."
Iirc, the only rule claimed to be broken thus far is the Power Attack (and similar ability) text. In order for this to be addressed, we both need to agree on the what "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are. This lies outside the RAW. I have provided evidence from RAW that I am correct, but it is not explicit.
This is the rules forum.
If you want to invent your own rules, go to the homebrew forum.
What rules do you want to include in our discussion of Power Attack?
Irontruth, I can respect that and I understand your point. However, in order for the game to actually be played, there are some concepts that are not explicitly covered by the rules. I have already provided some implicit evidence from the RAW, but you seem to not accept it. Unfortunately, it seems that your inability to discuss these concepts means we cannot move forward in a meaningful way in this argument.
The good news is that we can move forward in a meaningful way on other points. There are two inconsistencies that have already been shown by your position already. Once they are resolved, I can do some research and see if I can build an edge case that makes your side logically inconsistent. However, in the end, I'm sure it will also be 100% logically consistent like my side.
If anyone else can confirm that my interpretation of damage dealt vs damage taken is accurate (and therefore Power Attack is not an issue) or provide their own interpretation for review, then we can move forward on the Power Attack discussion.
The whole issue is here:
P1. Assume Nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
P2. When a spell or ability heals hit point damage, remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.C: When a spell or ability heals nonlethal damage, remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Here is what I would argue:
P1 is an incorrect assumption. The better phrasing is "Hit point damage is assumed to be lethal, unless otherwise specified." The actual adjusted quote would be "[Lethal] Damage reduces a target’s current hit points." We know the [lethal] should be the default assumption, because non-lethal damage counts upwards, and not downwards from current HP.P2 is when looked at through the clarified P1 looks like this: "When a spell or ability cures [lethal] hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage." The [lethal] is implied due to P1.
C just plain does not exist. Anything that deals specifically with non-lethal healing only deals with non-lethal healing, and only once (not doubled).
When you look at an ability like the Domain special of Calming Touch, it is an example of a specific rule that interacts with non-lethal [and only non-lethal], and it only does what it says [not twice]:
"You can touch a creature as a standard action to heal it of 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point per cleric level."
Irontruth, I can respect that and I understand your point. However, in order for the game to actually be played, there are some concepts that are not explicitly covered by the rules. I have already provided some implicit evidence from the RAW, but you seem to not accept it. Unfortunately, it seems that your inability to discuss these concepts means we cannot move forward in a meaningful way in this argument.
The good news is that we can move forward in a meaningful way on other points. There are two inconsistencies that have already been shown by your position already. Once they are resolved, I can do some research and see if I can build an edge case that makes your side logically inconsistent. However, in the end, I'm sure it will also be 100% logically consistent like my side.
If anyone else can confirm that my interpretation of damage dealt vs damage taken is accurate (and therefore Power Attack is not an issue) or provide their own interpretation for review, then we can move forward on the Power Attack discussion.
This is a rules forum. We are here to discuss the rules.
I don't care about your pet theory. Do you have a rule you want to discuss?
If you just want to talk about your pet theory, there's a whole forum for general discussion and another for homebrew rules. Here, we talk about the rules.
Do you have a rule you want to discuss?
Edit: Adding quote since others posted in between
The whole issue is here:
P1. Assume Nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
P2. When a spell or ability heals hit point damage, remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.C: When a spell or ability heals nonlethal damage, remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Here is what I would argue:
P1 is an incorrect assumption. The better phrasing is "Hit point damage is assumed to be lethal, unless otherwise specified." The actual adjusted quote would be "[Lethal] Damage reduces a target’s current hit points." We know the [lethal] should be the default assumption, because non-lethal damage counts upwards, and not downwards from current HP.
P2 is when looked at through the clarified P1 looks like this: "When a spell or ability cures [lethal] hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage." The [lethal] is implied due to P1.
C just plain does not exist. Anything that deals specifically with non-lethal healing only deals with non-lethal healing, and only once (not doubled).When you look at an ability like the Domain special of Calming Touch, it is an example of a specific rule that interacts with non-lethal [and only non-lethal], and it only does what it says [not twice]:
"You can touch a creature as a standard action to heal it of 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point per cleric level."
If you are taking the position of a default assumption that Hit Point damage refers to lethal damage unless otherwise specified, then that resolves that particular issue.
However, Power Attack is original issue of this debate. People felt that nonlethal damage is hit point damage and is therefore eligible.
I know you don't speak for everyone, but are you yourself OK with Power Attack not working with nonlethal damage because it is not specified as qualifying due to the default assumption?
Sigh.
Whenever Lethal Damage would be healed, an equal amount of Non Lethal damage is healed. How is this confusing you?
thaX, that is not a rule that I am aware of. quoted below is the nonlethal healing rule:
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
As you can see, if we assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, then it would qualify as triggering the second part of this rule.
I have a post detailing the two major issues a few posts back where you can find more detailed information on the problems with this specific position.