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?
Areas where we can move forward:
1. What does it mean when an effect refers to dealing damage?
2. What does it mean when an effect refers to something taking damage?
3. What are differences between 1 and 2?
4. Why is healing nonlethal not considered healing hit point damage?
5. When the term "hit point damage" is used, is there an assumption on the subtype of "hit point damage"?
6. When the term "hit point damage" is used, and there is no assumption, how does one determine which subtypes is being used? Does it mean both?
Please choose one/all of the provided topics. I can also provide examples if you feel my questions are not clear enough.
Do you have explicit text that says it isn't?
If not, then you have to accept that it is.
Which brings us back to examining how the two interpretations interact with various rules. Seriously, are we going to rehash the whole thread every 6-7 days?
Still going?
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?
Areas where we can move forward:
1. What does it mean when an effect refers to dealing damage?
2. What does it mean when an effect refers to something taking damage?
3. What are differences between 1 and 2?
4. Why is healing nonlethal not considered healing hit point damage?
5. When the term "hit point damage" is used, is there an assumption on the subtype of "hit point damage"?
6. When the term "hit point damage" is used, and there is no assumption, how does one determine which subtypes is being used? Does it mean both?
Please choose one/all of the provided topics. I can also provide examples if you feel my questions are not clear enough.
We can move forward on any area you have a rule you want to talk about. Cite the rule you want to discuss, and we'll talk about it.
We can move forward on any area you have a rule you want to talk about. Cite the rule you want to discuss, and we'll talk about it.
I have provided some examples that discuss the concepts of my original questions.
1.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage, and the target somehow reduces the damage to zero, do I still make an intimidate check?
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage and the target's already has nonlethal damage equal to their hit points, do I still make an intimidate check?
If I make a lethal damage attack, but the target has an effect that causes it to take nonlethal damage instead, do I still make an intimidate check?
EDIT:
Even when you’re swarmed, your foes are not safe from danger. Whenever you could make a full attack, you may instead make a single attack at your highest attack bonus and apply the results to all opponents within your reach. Roll damage once and apply it to all opponents hit by the attack. This attack can’t deal precision damage. If the attack roll is a critical threat, choose one target you hit and attempt to confirm the critical against that target.
If I make an attack roll and hit 2 targets. I roll damage and my damage roll is 10. One target has DR5/-.
How much damage does my attack deal?
2.
With a burst of telekinetic force, you deal 1d6 points of force damage per caster level (maximum 15d6 points of damage) to all other creatures in the affected area. A successful Fortitude save reduces the damage taken by half. A creature that fails its Fortitude save must also succeed at a Reflex save or be knocked prone.
The Fortitude save reduces the damage taken by half. Does damage taken only refer to each individual creature? If 2 creatures are in the AoE for this spell, and they both make it, does it half the damage twice? or does damage taken only refer to how much each individual takes?
3.
While using Wolf Style, when you deal at least 10 points of damage to a prone opponent with a natural weapon or an unarmed strike, as a swift action you can savage that creature. When you do, your opponent must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + half your character level + your Wisdom modifier). If the target fails the saving throw, it takes either 1d4 Charisma damage or 1d4 Constitution damage, or it becomes fatigued (your choice). Ability score damage dealt with this ability cannot equal or exceed the victim’s actual ability score total.
If I hit my target and my damage roll is 10, do I get to savage my opponent?
If I hit my target and my damage roll is 10, but my opponent has DR5/-. Do I get to savage my opponent?
If I hit my opponent for my damage roll is 5 bludgeoning and 5 fire damage, but my target has immunity to fire. Do I get to savage my opponent?
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.
If I cast Fractions of Heal and Harm and then cast fireball and fireball deals 40 damage, how much do I heal?
What if the fireball hits two targets?
What if the fireball hits two targets, but one is immune to fire damage?
What if the fireball hits two targets, but one makes a reflex save for half?
What if my fireball is cast into a dark cave and I don't know what I hit?
What if my fireball is cast into an extradimensional space void of any matter and hits no targets?
If the fractions of harm and heal allow a character to heal based off the damage to each target, and a shipment of parchment is caught inside my AoE, do I trigger the healing off of each piece of parchment? and piece of wood in the wagon? And all the insects, bacteria, blades of grass, etc. in the aoe?
Those first three questions obviously all deal with the "damage dealt vs damage taken" discussion we've been having. Hopefully after your answers, we can move forward on that front.
4.
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.
If nonlethal damage is hit point damage, then why doesn't the second part of this rule modify a spell that only heals nonlethal damage?
Is there another rule I am unaware of that explains that the spells/abilities that heal a specific subtype of hit point damage is not modified by this rule?
5. Here, there seems to be a rule that I can't find. Maybe you can provide it. People keep saying that lethal damage is the default assumption for the specific term "hit point damage."
6. This is some confusion because I can't find anything about Q5, so you may clear this up with your answer for that.
Initial Effect 2d12 hit point damage; Secondary Effect 1 Con damage; Cure 1 save
Blood Leaf Residue's effect is "2d12 hit point damage." Do you deal all(both) of the subtypes of hit point damage? Do you only do one? Which one? How do you know?
5. Here, there seems to be a rule that I can't find. Maybe you can provide it. People keep saying that lethal damage is the default assumption for the specific term "hit point damage."
I actually laughed out loud when I read this.
You are spending so much time looking for obscure references to things that don't matter (and imagining that they do things they don't do) that you haven't bothered to read the basic rules. You don't even know what you're arguing for or against, not really. You got pulled in by some fancy misdirection from GA, and are now fighting to defend something you don't even understand fully.
You haven't even bothered to read the core information that your argument is based on.
5. Here, there seems to be a rule that I can't find. Maybe you can provide it. People keep saying that lethal damage is the default assumption for the specific term "hit point damage."I actually laughed out loud when I read this.
You are spending so much time looking for obscure references to things that don't matter (and imagining that they do things they don't do) that you haven't bothered to read the basic rules. You don't even know what you're arguing for or against, not really. You got pulled in by some fancy misdirection from GA, and are now fighting to defend something you don't even understand fully.
You haven't even bothered to read the core information that your argument is based on.
Great! It should be easy for you to provide the rule citation that explains the default assumption of the specific term of "hit point damage" is assuming it is referring to lethal damage. And for it to mean or include nonlethal damage, it must be specifically included.
I am also looking forward to your answers to my other questions, as well.
No thanks. We still don't agree on Power Attack, so I'd like to clear that up first.
Any rules you want to cite on Power Attack?
You keep trying to make things more complex and confusing. This is really isn't that hard. Please provide a rules citation that says you don't include Power Attack damage on lethal damage.
I'm not doing examples, I'm not answering a laundry list of questions about other things. If you want to quote a rule and make a point, go ahead. Make your point. If you ask me to make your point for you, I'm not going to answer you.
If you have a question about something I have said, that's fine. But I'm not answering questions on things you introduce.
Seriously, your b&$$*@#$ is getting old.
|
You are asking questions with a flawed premise. The phrase that seems to confuse you is the fact that Non Lethal isn't "Real" HP, and you take it as saying "Non-Lethal damage is nothing."
Why would the rules for Non Lethal damage be used at all if it does not effect HP or interact with how HP is used?
The main question you should be asking is how to use Non Lethal in relation to HP instead of if it is or is not HP itself. It heals when the spells normally heals Lethal. When an ability/feat mentions HP, it typically means the damage of Lethal HP, and the interaction between it and Non Lethal is the same on different tallies that have been mentioned upthread.
your asking for citations on interactions that is already set in the rules for Non Lethal damage. When you deal Non Lethal damage, you are still dealing damage, and it effects HP and how long the target can stay in the fight. Power Attack works for Non Lethal, even when the attacker is taking an additional -4 for "using the flat of the blade" for a lethal weapon. The only reason GA thought it wouldn't is the fact that Non Lethal damage tracks up as Lethal damage tracks down. So a separate pool of Non Lethal hp is tracked to compared to the damage to HP that Lethal damage has done.
Non Lethal is considered HP damage as far as the target being hurt and unable to continue if enough is taken. The extreme you are taking it to is trying to consider Non Lethal "real" HP or not at all. Why have a separate track at all if the assumption is as you are suggesting, that Non Lethal be either treated the same as Lethal, or not used at all.
Let's look at your lastest post.
1- a. you make the Intimidate check against the staggered opponent.
b. Since the target is unconcious, making the check is unnecessary, but you can still make the check.
c. No, because the attacker did lethal damage and is not using the ability. What the target does with that damage does not matter.
Edit addition (question unumbered) You attack did 10 damage to each target. One of those targets reduced that damage to 5, the attack against that target was not as effective as the attacker thought it would be.
2. (Not sure why this is relevent to Non Lethal damage) The damage is X, each effected target in the area effect takes X or half of X with a successful Fortitude save. There is abilities/feats out there that can the target avoid it with a success, just as Evasion does with Reflex saves. I am not sure if they are third party abilities or in a Paizo product. To clarify, it is reference to how much damage each individual creature that takes the damage, so going the other way, the damage would not double because there are two creatures in the area of Effect. It works much the same way as Fireball, with Fort saves.
3. (Not sure what this has to do with Non Lethal Damage)
a. Yes
b. No, because you need to damage the target the total amount and the DR prevented that.
c. No, because you need to damage the target the total amount and the immunity prevented that.
Addemdom. There is also some discussion, usually envolving poisons, that say that 1hp of damage is needed to get through to effect the outlier, and this may be the case here. B. and C. would be yes if you would to use this interpretation.
Additional questions on different ability (not numbered)
a. 25 percent, which is 10 HP, as the example in the spell.
b. the number of targets is not being tracked here. You deal 40 HP of damage to all targets, and the other spell turns it into 30 damage and heals you 10.
c. The target making it's reflex and taking half, or avoiding the damage, does not change the damage the spell is doing to the area. See b.
d. The number of targets is not in question here, even if it is 0 or all avoid the damage. See b.
e. The caster heals the 25 percent of the amount. (10 HP for the example in the spell and used on a.)
f. It is not based on each target. It is the damage of the Area of Effect that is used for the previous spell to tally against. If you use Scorching Ray, then each ray would have the split heal the caster as it damages the target, and each of those rays (if cast as a high enough level to get more than one) can effect different targets as the spell. Area of Effect has one Damage output that each target deals with, including what would effect the caster from the previous spell. See b.
5. This is the focused reading that GA has where "Real" hp somehow equals no HP at all. You can't find it because the tracking is different and GA assumes that Non Lethal does not effect HP at all. I am not sure what your track is, but your defending his assursion. Non Lethal begins with Lethal damage being the assumed normal, and is tracked separated, not on the "real" hp tally. This simple distinction is lost on GA, and you seem to be ignoring it.
6. Unless specified, poison damage is Lethal damage. A lot of poisons specify different damages, including stat damage and Non Lethal damage. This particular one is Lethal Damage. It would not deal Non Lethal as well, as it does not specify that it does.
There are other poisons that do not deal damage at all, but caused status effects, such as gaining the staggered condition, being diseased, or becoming unconscious as the sleep poison my character can use as an alternative to the poison normally in his blood.
Does that answer your questions?
We can move forward on any area you have a rule you want to talk about. Cite the rule you want to discuss, and we'll talk about it.
No thanks. We still don't agree on Power Attack, so I'd like to clear that up first.
Any rules you want to cite on Power Attack?
You keep trying to make things more complex and confusing. This is really isn't that hard. Please provide a rules citation that says you don't include Power Attack damage on lethal damage.
I'm not doing examples, I'm not answering a laundry list of questions about other things. If you want to quote a rule and make a point, go ahead. Make your point. If you ask me to make your point for you, I'm not going to answer you.
If you have a question about something I have said, that's fine. But I'm not answering questions on things you introduce.
Seriously, your b#~*+$@* is getting old.
I cited rules to discuss as per your recommendation. But it seems that you are unable to answer the questions I have asked. All of the questions I asked are relevant to the discussion of Power attack and where it has lead ("damage dealt vs damage taken") and the logical inconsistencies of the position that "Nonlethal damage is hit point damage" has to resolve.
You claim that my position breaks a rule, but are unable to prove that the rule even applies to the situation. You are unable to provide any other evidence that my position actually breaks any rules, and have yet to resolve the inconsistencies in your position. Once you resolve them, I can try to find an edge case where it is logically inconsistent. however, I'm certain that in the end it will also be 100% logically consistent like mine.
|
|
Areas where we can move forward:
1. What does it mean when an effect refers to dealing damage?
2. What does it mean when an effect refers to something taking damage?
3. What are differences between 1 and 2?
4. Why is healing nonlethal not considered healing hit point damage?
5. When the term "hit point damage" is used, is there an assumption on the subtype of "hit point damage"?
6. When the term "hit point damage" is used, and there is no assumption, how does one determine which subtypes is being used? Does it mean both?
Please choose one/all of the provided topics. I can also provide examples if you feel my questions are not clear enough.
Here, let me help you here.
1- That damage is being dealt.
2- That the target is taking damage.
3- Attacker vs. Target.
4- You are already effecting HP when you heal Non Lethal specifically. (having more available when Non Lethal damage is reduced through healing) *I assume you are referencing the spell that specifically heals Non Lethal damage
5- The normal assumption is Lethal damage, unless otherwise specified.
6- See 5. It does not mean both, unless specified.
Are you still confused?
We can move forward on any area you have a rule you want to talk about. Cite the rule you want to discuss, and we'll talk about it.No thanks. We still don't agree on Power Attack, so I'd like to clear that up first.
Any rules you want to cite on Power Attack?
You keep trying to make things more complex and confusing. This is really isn't that hard. Please provide a rules citation that says you don't include Power Attack damage on lethal damage.
I'm not doing examples, I'm not answering a laundry list of questions about other things. If you want to quote a rule and make a point, go ahead. Make your point. If you ask me to make your point for you, I'm not going to answer you.
If you have a question about something I have said, that's fine. But I'm not answering questions on things you introduce.
Seriously, your b#~*+$@* is getting old.
I cited rules to discuss as per your recommendation. But it seems that you are unable to answer the questions I have asked. All of the questions I asked are relevant to the discussion of Power attack and where it has lead ("damage dealt vs damage taken") and the logical inconsistencies of the position that "Nonlethal damage is hit point damage" has to resolve.
You claim that my position breaks a rule, but are unable to prove that the rule even applies to the situation. You are unable to provide any other evidence that my position actually breaks any rules, and have yet to resolve the inconsistencies in your position. Once you resolve them, I can try to find an edge case where it is logically inconsistent. however, I'm certain that in the end it will also be 100% logically consistent like mine.
Here's three rules.
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 damage.
Power Attack applies to hit point damage.
The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.
Lethal damage counts as hit point damage.
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
When nonlethal damage exceeds max hit points, all further nonlethal (nonlethal overflow) is counted as lethal damage.
Since nonlethal overflow is treated as lethal, and lethal damage is hit point damage, nonlethal overflow qualifies for Power Attack.
Feel free to quote a rule that says otherwise.
You are asking questions with a flawed premise. The phrase that seems to confuse you is the fact that Non Lethal isn't "Real" HP, and you take it as saying "Non-Lethal damage is nothing."
1, I am not saying nonlethal damage is nothing. I am saying that nonlethal damage is a type of damage that is not hit point damage. Because it does not damage hit points.
Why would the rules for Non Lethal damage be used at all if it does not effect HP or interact with how HP is used?
2. The nonlethal damage rules specifically state that nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points. In what way does nonlethal damage interact with the "hit point" statistic? In other posts, you have stated that it "lowers how much HP you have to work with" before falling conscious. I agree that nonlethal damage can change the condition of a character (such as falling unconscious or gaining the staggered conditions), however, these changes in condition happen independently of the HP statistic. The HP statistic is unchanged.
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points.
3. If a creature was at 4 HP and "fighting off death" and then took 1 nonlethal damage. Would they count as fragile?
The main question you should be asking is how to use Non Lethal in relation to HP instead of if it is or is not HP itself. It heals when the spells normally heals Lethal. When an ability/feat mentions HP, it typically means the damage of Lethal HP, and the interaction between it and Non Lethal is the same on different tallies that have been mentioned upthread.
4. I take this to mean that when an ability or feat refers to "hit point damage" it means lethal damage unless it is specifically included. Am I understanding correctly?
your asking for citations on interactions that is already set in the rules for Non Lethal damage. When you deal Non Lethal damage, you are still dealing damage, and it effects HP and how long the target can stay in the fight. Power Attack works for Non Lethal, even when the attacker is taking an additional -4 for "using the flat of the blade" for a lethal weapon. The only reason GA thought it wouldn't is the fact that Non Lethal damage tracks up as Lethal damage tracks down. So a separate pool of Non Lethal hp is tracked to compared to the damage to HP that Lethal damage has done.
5. You said above that when HP damage is used, it typically refers to lethal hp damage. Here, you say nonlethal damage works with Power Attack, but Power Attack doesn't specifically refer to nonlethal damage as included. If the term "hit point damage" is used in the text, is it referring to both? To one of them? Which one? How do you know?
Non Lethal is considered HP damage as far as the target being hurt and unable to continue if enough is taken. The extreme you are taking it to is trying to consider Non Lethal "real" HP or not at all. Why have a separate track at all if the assumption is as you are suggesting, that Non Lethal be either treated the same as Lethal, or not used at all.
6. No, I am saying that nonlethal damage is a type of damage that is not hit point damage.
Let's look at your lastest post.
1- a. you make the Intimidate check against the staggered opponent.
b. Since the target is unconcious, making the check is unnecessary, but you can still make the check.
c. No, because the attacker did lethal damage and is not using the ability. What the target does with that damage does not matter.
Edit addition (question unumbered) You attack did 10 damage to each target. One of those targets reduced that damage to 5, the attack against that target was not as effective as the attacker thought it would be.
7. Ok, you seem to agree with my interpretation of what it means to "deal damage." When something refers to dealing damage, it uses information about the attack to determine the effect. The "attack deals 10 damage" even though the targets took different amounts. Or, it doesn't matter what type of damage the target takes, my attack "deals nonlethal damage" and is therefore eligible for the enforcer feat's effect.
2. (Not sure why this is relevent to Non Lethal damage) The damage is X, each effected target in the area effect takes X or half of X with a successful Fortitude save. There is abilities/feats out there that can the target avoid it with a success, just as Evasion does with Reflex saves. I am not sure if they are third party abilities or in a Paizo product. To clarify, it is reference to how much damage each individual creature that takes the damage, so going the other way, the damage would not double because there are two creatures in the area of Effect. It works much the same way as Fireball, with Fort saves.
8. And it seems you agree with my interpretation of what it means to refer to "damage taken." The amount each target of an effect takes is independent of each other and doesn't modify the effect in anyway.
3. (Not sure what this has to do with Non Lethal Damage)
a. Yesb. No, because you need to damage the target the total amount and the DR prevented that.
c. No, because you need to damage the target the total amount and the immunity prevented that.
Addemdom. There is also some discussion, usually envolving poisons, that say that 1hp of damage is needed to get through to effect the outlier, and this may be the case here. B. and C. would be yes if you would to use this interpretation.
Additional questions on different ability (not numbered)
a. 25 percent, which is 10 HP, as the example in the spell.b. the number of targets is not being tracked here. You deal 40 HP of damage to all targets, and the other spell turns it into 30 damage and heals you 10.
c. The target making it's reflex and taking half, or avoiding the damage, does not change the damage the spell is doing to the area. See b.
d. The number of targets is not in question here, even if it is 0 or all avoid the damage. See b.
e. The caster heals the 25 percent of the amount. (10 HP for the example in the spell and used on a.)
f. It is not based on each target. It is the damage of the Area of Effect that is used for the previous spell to tally against. If you use Scorching Ray, then each ray would have the split heal the caster as it damages the target, and each of those rays (if cast as a high enough level to get more than one) can effect different targets as the spell. Area of Effect has one Damage output that each target deals with, including what would effect the caster from the previous spell. See b.
9. thaX, your position on Wolf Savage disagrees with your answers to enforcer.
When you deal nonlethal damage -> intimidate check. You said it doesn't matter what happens to the target.
When you deal 10 or more damage-> savage the target. You are now saying it does matter what happens to the target.
How are you deciding which times it matters what happens to the target and which times it doesn't?
5. This is the focused reading that GA has where "Real" hp somehow equals no HP at all. You can't find it because the tracking is different and GA assumes that Non Lethal does not effect HP at all. I am not sure what your track is, but your defending his assursion. Non Lethal begins with Lethal damage being the assumed normal, and is tracked separated, not on the "real" hp tally. This simple distinction is lost on GA, and you seem to be ignoring it.
10. If we assume that lethal is the default assertion, then nonlethal has to be specifically included to be eligible for abilities. Otherwise, how do you know when you have to assume it applies to lethal only (nonlethal healing rule) or both (Power Attack)?
6. Unless specified, poison damage is Lethal damage. A lot of poisons specify different damages, including stat damage and Non Lethal damage. This particular one is Lethal Damage. It would not deal Non Lethal as well, as it does not specify that it does.
There are other poisons that do not deal damage at all, but caused status effects, such as gaining the staggered condition, being diseased, or becoming unconscious as the sleep poison my character can use as an alternative to the poison normally in his blood.
11. This was just an example of an effect that "deals hit point damage." If you want to say that there is a default assumption for "hit point damage" to deal lethal damage. That's fine with me. However, it seems that you want to sometimes treat the term "hit point damage" as meaning "lethal damage only" (the Nonlethal healing rule) and "either lethal or nonlethal" (eligible for power attack.)
Since nonlethal overflow is treated as lethal, and lethal damage is hit point damage, nonlethal overflow qualifies for Power Attack.
The rules you have provided do not show that Power Attack interacts with excess nonlethal damage. Only that it would be eligible if it did. And I agree! If excess nonlethal damage were to interact with Power Attack, it would be eligible.
Unfortunately, it does not. Please provide a rule or example that demonstrates that it does.
Everything I quoted is clear and concise.
Feel free to quote a rule that says otherwise. Or quote a rule that supersedes or alters one of them.
If you don't understand how these rules interact with each other, please ask a specific question so I know where you are failing to grasp the text.
|
|
Non Lethal Damage is still damage. It effects HP. You can use Power Attack with it.
1- So which is it, Non-Lethal effects HP, or is nothing? You can't have it both ways.
2- It does not happen independently from HP damage, it is linked with it. This is the point you seem to not understand.
3- Non Lethal would have the target have only 3 hp from unconsciousness, but would not put that target closer to death, which is what Deathwatch is looking for. One that is knocked out with Non Lethal could be healthly as a horse, or at death's door.
4- It means damage. Whether or not it is exclusive to Lethal damage is a matter of context. Power Attack is referring to Damage and can mean either one, as both attacks are doing damage. Refer to the Weapon's page for further details, as Muase had explained upthread.
5- When the character damages the target and it effects HP. Power Attack also is not usable with Touch Attacks, and the main reason is that it works with the Str damage the character does with the weapon. Touch Attacks do not use Stat Damage as an additional outlier, and usually are energy attacks such as Fire and Cold. I know this because it is how the two types of HP damage works and how they interact with each other.
6- So that would mean that they are not anything at all, real or otherwise. When you eliminate Non Lethal from HP, it doesn't do anything.
7- Again, it goes to context. See below.
8- Spell effects that specifically effect an Area (Area of Effect) have one roll for Damage and it is used for calculations on everything else. I am not sure this was ever in contention. Your trying to prove something by breaking another thing. Me agreeing that it isn't broke doesn't prove anything.
9- Enforcer is not dependent on a number of HP taken, Wolf Savage is. Please also look at the addendum, as it is relevant to your point. You are trying to force the rules to do something without context to support GA's flawed reading of the Non Lethal rules.
10- It is assumed to be the default, but Non Lethal is Damage and can be used to effect the target. Power Attack does not specifically exclude Non-Lethal damage. GA wants to exclude it because he considers Non Lethal Damage as something other than damage.
11- It is assumed damage being dealt is Lethal by the poison or attacker, unless otherwise specified.
Now, a part of your confusion is the difference between the attack and the target. It depends on what the attacker is doing as to what is effecting the target, but your questions supposes that it doesn't matter how the attacker (or other injuring process, such as poisons or spells) effects the target, only that the damage be quantified after it is done.
The type of damage done is already determined before the roll of the damage is done, whether it is lethal, non-lethal, energy damage, stat damage or something else. The attacker purposefully does Non Lethal damage to use with Power Attack, either taking the additional penalty or using a sap or feat where the penalty does not apply. Your position is that it can't be determined in this way because Non Lethal damage is nothing.
You are asking questions with a flawed premise. The phrase that seems to confuse you is the fact that Non Lethal isn't "Real" HP, and you take it as saying "Non-Lethal damage is nothing."1, I am not saying nonlethal damage is nothing. I am saying that nonlethal damage is a type of damage that is not hit point damage. Because it does not damage hit points.
Except it can damage hit points. It doesn't do it all the time, but under certain conditions it can.
The rules for nonlethal clearly state that it CAN damage hit points given the conditions are met.
It feels like sticking my hand in a hornets nest at this point, but some of the questions can actually be tackled, so here goes...
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage, and the target somehow reduces the damage to zero, do I still make an intimidate check?
RAW, no. Because the damage was reduced to 0, you did not actually "deal" nonlethal damage.
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage and the target's already has nonlethal damage equal to their hit points, do I still make an intimidate check?
RAW, no. When a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to their total hit points, all further nonlethal damage is "treated as lethal damage" -- unless the creature has regeneration, in which case it remains nonlethal damage.
If I make a lethal damage attack, but the target has an effect that causes it to take nonlethal damage instead, do I still make an intimidate check?
RAW, yes. Because you have dealt nonlethal damage. RAI may be based on the intention to deal nonlethal damage, but the rule itself is only concerned with what you actually deal, not why you dealt it.
It feels like sticking my hand in a hornets nest at this point, but some of the questions can actually be tackled, so here goes...
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage, and the target somehow reduces the damage to zero, do I still make an intimidate check?RAW, no. Because the damage was reduced to 0, you did not actually "deal" nonlethal damage.
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage and the target's already has nonlethal damage equal to their hit points, do I still make an intimidate check?RAW, no. When a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to their total hit points, all further nonlethal damage is "treated as lethal damage" -- unless the creature has regeneration, in which case it remains nonlethal damage.
If I make a lethal damage attack, but the target has an effect that causes it to take nonlethal damage instead, do I still make an intimidate check?RAW, yes. Because you have dealt nonlethal damage. RAI may be based on the intention to deal nonlethal damage, but the rule itself is only concerned with what you actually deal, not why you dealt it.
Thank you for showing the courage to post!
The specific questions you were answering was part of a much broader discussion of "damage dealt vs damage taken."
This has been a relevant point in the discussion because of the text of 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.
The major disagreement currently, is how Power Attack is actually used. Irontruth is trying to claim that Power Attack works off of the damage dealt to the target. My claim is that Power Attack works off of what the effect does.
This is a major distinction, as it is possible for spells/effects/abilities/etc to modify the result of the effect and change what happens to the target.
All the questions you answered were from the "deals" perspective of the Enforcer feat, but all your answers were based off what type of damage the target took.
I think the best example of this concept is the spell 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.
Based on your answer that someone with Enforcer who did zero damage to the target would not get the free intimidate check, you may run into trouble with this spell.
There is already a thread that discusses this here, so if you would read that and let me know if any of your answers change or if they remain the same, I would be very grateful. Alternatively, I can provide you with examples that show it is logically inconsistent to have such a view point.
Except it can damage hit points. It doesn't do it all the time, but under certain conditions it can. The rules for nonlethal clearly state that it CAN damage hit points given the conditions are met.
I 100% agree on this point. The rules do not provide any evidence that Power Attack interacts with what damage a target takes.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
The rule for dealing damage says nothing about the target. If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The only factor that determines the amount of damage you deal is the weapon.
If I attack with a weapon to deal nonlethal damage, then the result of the damage roll is how much the attack deals. It does not matter what happens to the target.
Power Attack uses "deals" language.
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 [b]effects that do not deal hit point damage.
How do we know whether or not the effect deals hit point damage? It is based on the type of weapon used.
Thus, if we assume that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, it is not eligible for Power Attack regardless of what happens to the target.
|
|
The Non Lethal damage reduced the available HP to 0, so your confused as to how that happened. Yes, you would roll the intimidate check against the Staggered opponent.It feels like sticking my hand in a hornets nest at this point, but some of the questions can actually be tackled, so here goes...
If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage, and the target somehow reduces the damage to zero, do I still make an intimidate check?RAW, no. Because the damage was reduced to 0, you did not actually "deal" nonlethal damage.
The damage done is Non Lethal, and Mallecks is referring to dealing that damage past the pool of Non Lethal to go past "0" and the rest of the damage beyond that threshold turns to Lethal damage that goes toward the hp total. The target is unconscious at this point, and whether or not you make the Intimidate check is moot, as the target no longer sees the threat to be intimidated and can't do anything about it at this point.If I make an attack to deal nonlethal damage and the target's already has nonlethal damage equal to their hit points, do I still make an intimidate check?RAW, no. When a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to their total hit points, all further nonlethal damage is "treated as lethal damage" -- unless the creature has regeneration, in which case it remains nonlethal damage.
If I make a lethal damage attack, but the target has an effect that causes it to take nonlethal damage instead, do I still make an intimidate check?RAW, yes. Because you have dealt nonlethal damage. RAI may be based on the intention to deal nonlethal damage, but the rule itself is only concerned with what you actually deal, not why you dealt it.
The damage dealt was Lethal damage, so the attacker can't actually use the ability when he makes the attack, it matters not what happens to the damage afterward.
The major disagreement currently, is how Power Attack is actually used. Irontruth is trying to claim that Power Attack works off of the damage dealt to the target. My claim is that Power Attack works off of what the effect does.
Swing and a miss.
Perhaps you need to stop debating me and just try to understand what it is you're actually debating against.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you look at Irontruth's posts, realize that he is using the proposition that GA put forth and Malleck is supporting. The position about the particular point with Power Attack (which the original thread was about) is if Non Lethal is not HP (and in turn, nothing) then it suddenly becomes HP in a given situation, then why it would be excluded in one instance and not the other.
He has expressed his counterpoint several times to this effect.
The major disagreement currently, is how Power Attack is actually used. Irontruth is trying to claim that Power Attack works off of the damage dealt to the target. My claim is that Power Attack works off of what the effect does.Swing and a miss.
Perhaps you need to stop debating me and just try to understand what it is you're actually debating against.
Yeah, I know right? How could someone possibly arrive at the conclusion that your argument is based on the damage taken by the target rather than the damage dealt by the effect of the attack?
...#74
Whether you attack for nonlethal or not, once the TARGET receives lethal damage, it is now... lethal damage. It converts over and becomes lethal damage. Once it is lethal damage, it must be eligible for Power Attack bonus damage.#74
You can Power Attack on a touch attack which means you take the penalty to your attack roll, but because the DAMAGE is ineligible, the bonus from PA is not applied. That means that the type of attack is irrelevant, only the damage that is applied.#74
So, if PA doesn't apply bonus damage to nonlethal, than it means that you don't count the bonus damage until you apply at least 1 point of lethal damage to the target.#78
The point is though, if your attack results in lethal damage, you gain the bonus damage from Power Attack.#83
Power Attack says it modifies all melee damage (and later excludes non-hit point damage). If a point of damage qualifies as melee AND hit point damage, Power Attack applies and the bonus goes through. I see no other rules that tell us how else to make that determination. There is no clause in PA that requires the attack roll to be a specific type, so it doesn't matter if the attack roll is intended as nonlethal or not. It just has to result in hit point damage.#137
Nonlethal overflow does hit point damage. Power Attack applies to hit point damage.#150
Power Attack applies to lethal damage. If
My position is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, so asking if Power Attack applies to nonlethal overflow is irrelevant, since it applies to all nonlethal damage.
As for damage taken versus dealt, there is no distinction that I can see evidence for in this case. So saying that I'm making a claim about taken versus dealt is at best silly. At worst it is an outright fabrication.
The damage is the damage. If you concur that there is at least 1 point of hit point damage though, if you want to exclude Power Attack, you must provide a rule that indicates that you can do that. Because Power Attack says you include it.
The original argument against nonlethal was "it doesn't reduce current hit points, therefore not hit point damage." Well, nonlethal overflow does reduce current hit points. So by the determination that excludes regular nonlethal damage, nonlethal overflow meets that criteria. If you have a different criteria, from the rules, that you'd like to propose... please feel free to do so.
Here's the funny thing IMO:
If you two argued that Power Attack damage was included, that would actually be closer to RAW (since you're no longer breaking any rules). It creates a weird situation that no one has ever realized existed before, but it IS technically within the rules and I don't have a legitimate rules argument against it. My only evidence against it is that it seems unlikely that such a basic interaction would have taken 10 years to discover, but that isn't really "evidence" and is just taking on faith that both the community and Paizo would have realized this earlier. It's unlikely to be right, but technically within the rules it would be.
Instead, you two are defending an obviously non-RAW argument. Mallecks has actually swtiched from the above (an actual solid argument... though it was formulated by someone else) to the nonsense one he is making now.
As long as you claim that Power Attack doesn't apply, you're obviously not making a RAW argument. It really is so simple and clear, but it's is wrong.
There is no rule that says damage doesn't change part way through the application of damage. If nothing says it is illegal, and it is a logical consequence of other rules, than it might actually be correct.
There IS a rule that says Power Attack applies to hit point damage. And you guys are breaking it. You need a RULE that justifies breaking it.
Of course, then there's the issue that Mallecks has multiple times said that RAI he thinks nonlethal probably counts as hit point damage. So he's arguing his RAW technicality (that he now backs up by trying to ignore RAW) from a position of already admitting that it isn't right.
As you look at Irontruth's posts, realize that he is using the proposition that GA put forth and Malleck is supporting. The position about the particular point with Power Attack (which the original thread was about) is if Non Lethal is not HP (and in turn, nothing) then it suddenly becomes HP in a given situation, then why it would be excluded in one instance and not the other.
He has expressed his counterpoint several times to this effect.
The answer is that the situation in which nonlethal "can deal hit point damage" (when it is in excess of a character's HP) does not happen when Power Attack is used, it happens after Power Attack is used.
It is exactly the same as the Enforcer feat. You said that if you deal nonlethal damage to someone whose nonlethal damage is equal to their total HP, you WOULD get the intimidate check. The attack does nonlethal, the target takes lethal. You still get the free intimidate check.
Power Attack is exactly the same. You use Power Attack. The attack does nonlethal, the target takes lethal. It still does not qualify. (assuming nonlethal damage is not hit point damage)
My position is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, so asking if Power Attack applies to nonlethal overflow is irrelevant, since it applies to all nonlethal damage.
Given this position, would you agree that spells and abilities that heal nonlethal damage specifically are healing hit point damage? If it is not healing hit point damage, what it is healing?
As for damage taken versus dealt, there is no distinction that I can see evidence for in this case. So saying that I'm making a claim about taken versus dealt is at best silly. At worst it is an outright fabrication.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Rule States: Type of weapon used determines how much you deal
Rule does not state: anything about the target of the attack taking damageThe damage is the damage. If you concur that there is at least 1 point of hit point damage though, if you want to exclude Power Attack, you must provide a rule that indicates that you can do that. Because Power Attack says you include it.
Any melee attack that has lethal damage dice would qualify for Power Attack. Power Attack does not interact with the target at all. It modifies certain attack rolls, and it modifies certain damage rolls.
The original argument against nonlethal was "it doesn't reduce current hit points, therefore not hit point damage." Well, nonlethal overflow does reduce current hit points. So by the determination that excludes regular nonlethal damage, nonlethal overflow meets that criteria. If you have a different criteria, from the rules, that you'd like to propose... please feel free to do so.
This has been discussed and is a disagreement over exactly what "treated as" means. If you have some evidence that proves that your interpretation of what "treated as" means is correct, you can provide it.
Until then, we are both "treating" excess nonlethal damage as lethal damage, we are just doing it in different way. I treat excess nonlethal damage as lethal damage in every single way, you only treat excess nonlethal damage as lethal damage in some ways.
Here's the funny thing IMO:
If you two argued that Power Attack damage was included, that would actually be closer to RAW (since you're no longer breaking any rules). It creates a weird situation that no one has ever realized existed before, but it IS technically within the rules and I don't have a legitimate rules argument against it. My only evidence against it is that it seems unlikely that such a basic interaction would have taken 10 years to discover, but that isn't really "evidence" and is just taking on faith that both the community and Paizo would have realized this earlier. It's unlikely to be right, but technically within the rules it would be.
Your interpretation of how Power Attack works causes many problems with many effects that I have explained at length several times.
Here is one of them.
You animate a bone with necromantic energy, giving it the power to float near your body and interpose itself against physical attacks.
You gain damage reduction 5/bludgeoning. Once the bone has prevented a total of 5 points of damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), it is destroyed and the spell is discharged. This spell has no effect if you have damage reduction from another source.
There is a defending bone that blocks 50 damage.
You power attack and deal 5 piercing damage (3 + 2 from PA). Damage Reduction causes this to drop to zero. Which means your effect did not do hit point damage, retroactively removing the +2 from PA. How much more damage can defending bone block? 45 or 47?
Instead, you two are defending an obviously non-RAW argument. Mallecks has actually swtiched from the above (an actual solid argument... though it was formulated by someone else) to the nonsense one he is making now.
There is no RAW argument that Power Attack interacts with the target. There is a RAW argument that Power Attack only interacts with the damage roll. (Damage quote provided above)
As long as you claim that Power Attack doesn't apply, you're obviously not making a RAW argument. It really is so simple and clear, but it's is wrong.
Please provide evidence that Power Attack interacts with the target.
There is no rule that says damage doesn't change part way through the application of damage. If nothing says it is illegal, and it is a logical consequence of other rules, than it might actually be correct.
Sure, damage can change part way through the application of damage.
Unfortunately, if you are applying damage, that means you have finished the damage roll and Power Attack is no longer in effect, it only modifies the damage roll. You can't apply damage to the target before you roll it. Once you roll it, Power Attack is over.
There IS a rule that says Power Attack applies to hit point damage. And you guys are breaking it. You need a RULE that justifies breaking it.
I agree, if we were breaking the rule, we would need justification. However, we are not breaking the rule. Power Attack only modifies the damage roll and does not interact with the target.
Of course, then there's the issue that Mallecks has multiple times said that RAI he thinks nonlethal probably counts as hit point damage. So he's arguing his RAW technicality (that he now backs up by trying to ignore RAW) from a position of already admitting that it isn't right.
I can't remember if I said RAI that nonlethal was hit point damage or only that it was eligible for Power Attack.
In any case, I have since been convinced that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
The answer is that the situation in which nonlethal "can deal hit point damage" (when it is in excess of a character's HP) does not happen when Power Attack is used, it happens after Power Attack is used.As you look at Irontruth's posts, realize that he is using the proposition that GA put forth and Malleck is supporting. The position about the particular point with Power Attack (which the original thread was about) is if Non Lethal is not HP (and in turn, nothing) then it suddenly becomes HP in a given situation, then why it would be excluded in one instance and not the other.
He has expressed his counterpoint several times to this effect.
Where do the rules lay out this process?
Quote it for me and I'll agree with you.
So far you're relying on a RAI approach where you have to infer the meaning based on the assumption that you're already right. That's now how this works though. If you want to be right, cite a rule that lays out the damage process as you describe. Otherwise it's just your opinion and not RAW.
Quote a rule, or acknowledge that it's just your opinion that that is how this works.
Where do the rules lay out this process?
Quote it for me and I'll agree with you.
So far you're relying on a RAI approach where you have to infer the meaning based on the assumption that you're already right. That's now how this works though. If you want to be right, cite a rule that lays out the damage process as you describe. Otherwise it's just your opinion and not RAW.
Quote a rule, or acknowledge that it's just your opinion that that is how this works.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Here it is again.
Weapon determines how much damage you deal. Not how much damage the target takes.
If I succeed on an attack with a weapon that does 1d6 nonlethal damage, that is what the attack deals.
If I attack a creature with 10 HP, 10 nonlethal damage taken, and my weapon does 1d6 nonlethal, the weapon still determines what the damage is.
If I attack a creature that is immune to nonlethal damage, and my weapon does 1d6 nonlethal, the weapon still determines what the damage is.
Can you provide an instance where the damage is not determined by the weapon or otherwise explain why you aren't following this rule?
Edit: I didn't think I had to explain Power Attack again, but just in case..
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.
How do we know if the effect did or did not deal hit point damage?
According to the damage rule cited above, the weapon is used to determine the damage.
We have provided an example in the form of a spell that converts lethal to nonlethal damage so yes. I believe it was Ablative Barrier.
We have provided an example in the form of a spell that converts lethal to nonlethal damage so yes. I believe it was Ablative Barrier.
Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage. Against attacks that already deal nonlethal damage, the target gains DR 5/—. Once this spell has converted 5 points of damage to nonlethal damage per caster level (maximum 50 points), the spell is discharged.
This modifies the damage the target takes, it does not modify what the attack deals.
So, to be more clear...
Can you provide an instance where the damage [of the damage roll] is not determined by the weapon or otherwise explain why you aren't following this rule?
Oh that's easy Warpriest uses a completely unrelated chart for determining damage of weapon focus weapons than what the weapon says.
But more importantly wouldn't you be the one who needs to prove that there is a difference in deals vs. dealt? Yours is the position that needs this to be a thing to function per the rules. If nonlethal is hit point damage then it doesn't matter if deals and dealt are the same thing.
I have already provided numerous examples as to why what an effect "deals" and what the target "takes" are two separate things.
My most recent three is Defending Bone Example, Fractions of Harm and Heal, and the Damage rules text. These should all be on this page or the previous one. If you don't want to look, I can go into them in detail again.
Here is another:
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
When you make a saving through, it doesn't change the effect of the spell. It only changes how much you take from it. If damage taken = damage dealt, then multiple creatures saving against the same spell would continue to cut it half and all creatures would benefit even if they failed.
Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type.
Another great reference. Unfortunately, I do not see how this works off what the target takes or how it causes a logical inconsistency with Power Attack with my position. It is what I asked for in general, but does not answer the question within the scope of the conversation.
Where do the rules lay out this process?
Quote it for me and I'll agree with you.
So far you're relying on a RAI approach where you have to infer the meaning based on the assumption that you're already right. That's now how this works though. If you want to be right, cite a rule that lays out the damage process as you describe. Otherwise it's just your opinion and not RAW.
Quote a rule, or acknowledge that it's just your opinion that that is how this works.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.Here it is again.
Weapon determines how much damage you deal. Not how much damage the target takes.
When the weapon does nonlethal overflow, the weapon is doing hit point damage. Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
When the weapon does nonlethal overflow, the weapon is doing hit point damage. Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
Weapons don't deal "Nonlethal overflow." The target would have to take it first, and Power Attack is over by then.
Please show a weapon or effect that deals "Nonlethal overflow."
Nonlethal overflow is shorthand we've been using. Agree or disagree?
Or are you such a gold-fish that you don't remember the rule I'm referencing?
When the weapon does nonlethal overflow, the weapon is doing hit point damage. Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.Weapons don't deal "Nonlethal overflow." The target would have to take it first, and Power Attack is over by then.
This is getting ridiculous. No - the power attack isn't "over" by the time the target takes damage. They occur in the same instant - the power attack determines, in part, the damage the target takes.
I missed that part.
Where does it say Power Attack is "over"? Where is that rule?
And here's a problem looking at specific examples of spells/feats, unless you find CLEAR indication that it is broadly applicable, it might actually NOT apply generally. Fractions of Harm and Heal might work on way, but that isn't a guarantee that ALL THE RULES work that way.
If you have to go outside the core book, it should really be a FAQ, or dev comment. If the best you have is a feat published 4 years later, that's only proof of how that feat works (unless the feat says "Just like all damage, do this....").
Nonlethal overflow is shorthand we've been using. Agree or disagree?
Or are you such a gold-fish that you don't remember the rule I'm referencing?
Yes, Nonlethal overflow is the shorthand that we've been using. The damage dealt by weapon is determined by the weapon type. I am unaware of any weapon that deals "nonlethal overflow." Weapons can deal nonlethal damage, but there is no HP value to compare it against until after you've already rolled damage (which is when Power attack happens.)
This is getting ridiculous. No - the power attack isn't "over" by the time the target takes damage. They occur in the same instant - the power attack determines, in part, the damage the target takes.
I'm sorry, but nothing about Power Attack determines how much damage the target takes. Power Attack modifies the damage roll and the result of damage roll is used to determine how much damage a target takes.
It may feel like I'm splitting hairs here, but Power Attack modifies the damage roll, and you cannot apply damage to the target without first calculating the damage.
So, I agree that in "game time" a power attack is instantaneous. In the process of making an attack, calculating the damage, and the target taking damage, there is a clear process of needs to happen step by step.
1. Make the attack
2. Calculate damage the effect of the attack deals
3. Modify damage based on spells/abilities/effects to get damage taken
4. Apply it to the target
3/4 could potentially happen "at the same time". However, it is not possible to do anything past the damage roll without complying with Power Attack's conditions. After the damage is calculated, Power Attack is "over" in that it no longer impacts the situation.
I missed that part.
Where does it say Power Attack is "over"? Where is that rule?
And here's a problem looking at specific examples of spells/feats, unless you find CLEAR indication that it is broadly applicable, it might actually NOT apply generally. Fractions of Harm and Heal might work on way, but that isn't a guarantee that ALL THE RULES work that way.
If you have to go outside the core book, it should really be a FAQ, or dev comment. If the best you have is a feat published 4 years later, that's only proof of how that feat works (unless the feat says "Just like all damage, do this....").
Power Attack is complete when the damage roll is complete. Do we agree that Power Attack only happens on the damage roll or are you making a different claim?
Also, I have provided several examples where the logical consequences of your application of Power Attack causes problems. Some of which is from the CRB, but that's fine. Here's another...
The warded creature gains resistance to blows, cuts, stabs, and slashes. The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction. Once the spell has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per caster level (maximum 150 points), it is discharged
According to how you want Power Attack to work:
Target has stoneskin cast on them and gain DR10/adamantine until it blocks 100 damage. A creature using a Power Attack rolls 10 damage (8 + 2 from PA). Bone Armor can now only block 90 more damage. The target takes zero damage and would not qualify for Power Attack. (This is according to your current claim that damage taken = damage dealt.)
However, Power Attack didn't happen. So now we have to retroactively change the result of the damage roll to 8 instead of 10, and Bone Armor gets back 2 points of damage that it can block.
|
|
You take the penalty, you get the bonus to damage. Full Stop.
You can use Power Attack with both, Lethal and Non Lethal. Both effect HP, both hamper the character, both are considered "damage."
Not sure why Mallecks is still confused.
Let us look as something he posted.
You use Power Attack. The attack does nonlethal, the target takes lethal. It still does not qualify. (assuming nonlethal damage is not hit point damage)
So, when a character takes a penalty to hit the target, he gets a bonus to damage that target. This works with both types of weapon Damage that deal Melee damage.
That is, both Lethal and Non Lethal, which is still damage that effects HP, "real" or otherwise. Your assuming that Non Lethal is somehow divorced from HP in some way, that it is some other type of damage.
Now, I ask you, what type of Damage is Non Lethal Damage? Stat damage? Stamina? Spirit?
Does Non Lethal damage exist in a vacuum, in some sort of non-deminsional space? Does it come with cookies, and is good with milk?
Nonlethal overflow is shorthand we've been using. Agree or disagree?
Or are you such a gold-fish that you don't remember the rule I'm referencing?
Yes, Nonlethal overflow is the shorthand that we've been using. The damage dealt by weapon is determined by the weapon type. I am unaware of any weapon that deals "nonlethal overflow." Weapons can deal nonlethal damage, but there is no HP value to compare it against until after you've already rolled damage (which is when Power attack happens.)
All weapons deal nonlethal overflow (at least ones that deal damage).
Go ahead, pick ANY weapon you want. I will show you how it deals "nonlethal overflow".
All weapons deal nonlethal overflow (at least ones that deal damage).
Go ahead, pick ANY weapon you want. I will show you how it deals "nonlethal overflow".
Sure, any weapon will do. If you would like for me to pick one, just use a sap.
Sure, any weapon will do. If you would like for me to pick one, just use a sap.All weapons deal nonlethal overflow (at least ones that deal damage).
Go ahead, pick ANY weapon you want. I will show you how it deals "nonlethal overflow".
Target has 10 max hp. Has already taken 9 points of nonlethal. Sap wielder hits and does 2 points of damage.
Sap has done "nonlethal overflow."
Pick another weapon. Any weapon (that does damage).
All weapons deal nonlethal overflow (at least ones that deal damage).
Go ahead, pick ANY weapon you want. I will show you how it deals "nonlethal overflow".
Just like how all weapons deal damage. Some weapons deal nonlethal damage, but still damage.
To the recipients hit points (even if you're counting up from 0).
Target has 10 max hp. Has already taken 9 points of nonlethal. Sap wielder hits and does 2 points of damage.
Sap has done "nonlethal overflow."
Pick another weapon. Any weapon (that does damage).
Per RAW, the weapon type determines what damage is dealt.
Saps do 1d6 damage and the attack was nonlethal. Your damage roll result was 2, so the sap deals 2 points of nonlethal to the target.
Seems right to me.
The next example, you should do one with Power Attack