Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?


Rules Questions

651 to 700 of 1,405 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

The question has been asked directly but there is no cut and dry answer so we have to dig through the rules for possible rules that might show one side or the other, and we have to look at other rules in context of how a ruling might effect other rules in the game in unexpected ways.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I _think_ what sometimes happens to start these threads is that someone notices a different way that the books could be interpreted. It's probably quite a cool feeling to discover that the way everyone has been playing the game for years is actually wrong. And then they post with a question, and almost everyone jumps on them to defend the usual understanding. However, human nature being what it is, their theory is so cool that they can't let go if it, and so the discussion goes like this one has.

If almost everyone has been playing with the rules a certain way for all these years, that traditional interpretation is probably the one that the developers intended. We're not going to find a new true rule by staring at the rules.


Primarily, the sticking point is that Irontruth argues that it is impossible for there to be an interpretation where nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, due to its interaction with power attack.

The proponents of nonlethal damage not being hit point damage are merely defending that both are internally consistent with the games rules. They do not claim that one side is definitely correct over the other, as it cannot be explicitly determined from the rules.

Other scenarios,spells,rules,etc are brought up because of that, and Irontruth has already said he does not agree to disagree.

The two current places of major disagreement:
1) Is nonlethal hit point damage?
2) Is there a conceptual or logical difference damage dealt vs damage taken? (This would be relevant to answering the question on Power Attack, nonlethal overflow, and other rules/spells/abilites)


Except your current interpretation of how Power Attack would interact with nonlethal exceeding maximum hit points does not follow the rules. (And if you claim I haven't cited rules, you're purposely lying at this point)

Feel free to cite a rule if you have one to back you up.

Here's the thing, damage rolled isn't damage dealt. Maybe that's where two are stuck. Just because I roll X damage (with modifiers) doesn't mean that is what the target takes. Things can, and do, happen after the damage roll. For example, Damage Reduction happens AFTER the damage roll, and modifies how much damage is dealt. Feats like Enforcer say "damage dealt" and would be affected by things like DR.

If you think the game has a cut and dry process of when certain things can and cannot be introduced into the total damage count, feel free to cite it. Without such a RAW process though, any process you come up with is only YOUR way of doing things and isn't actually RAW.

I don't care about YOUR way. That is for the homebrew forum. This is about the rules. Cite a rule, or you're just making s+%! up.


Irontruth wrote:

Show me in the rules where it says that that difference exists.

That's all I want. Show me in the rules.

Damage Reduction introduces a difference between damage dealt and damage taken.


I'd be real careful about making definitive statements about what "damage dealt" means. Because it's used a lot, and has different connotations.


born_of_fire wrote:
Dude. We know it’s hit point damage because it’s not ability damage, ability drain, energy damage, a spell effect or any other kind of damage. It’s a physical weapon attack and physical weapon attacks do hit point damage. It is immaterial to power attack whether that hit point damage is lethal or non-lethal because it’s all hit point damage. When you power attack, you take a penalty to attack and get a bonus to damage if you are dealing hit point damage but not if you are dealing ability damage, ability drain, energy damage, a spell effect or any other type of damage. Stop overcomplicating things. You are overcomplicating the rules and overcomplicating what Irontruth has explained as his position over and over and over and over and over. Enough already.

Determining what something is based on what it isn't only works if there is a discrete list of options. I am unaware of any official list that lists all damage types. If you can provide an official list, that would probably help clear things up.

I am not really overly complicated things. My position is simply that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage. Everything else has the thread has been about others attacking the position. Mostly through the evidence of Power Attack, but Power Attack doesn't work off of damage taken. So, it's mostly been me trying to explain how to properly use Power Attack. At one point, Irontruth refused to accept that damage rolls end, so I don't really see how I'm the one overly complicating things.

Warped Savant wrote:

This will, sadly, come back as "the weapon is dealing nonlethal damage, the target is taking lethal."

Do we have something that solidly shows that damage dealt and damage taken can sometimes be interchangeable? (I thought we did but I can't find it now.)

Warped Savant, I have provided many examples as to why damage dealt = damage taken. Irontruth's only response so far was "I am not saying damage dealt = damage taken" (until Butt_luckily went back and quoted a bunch of his posts where he was saying that exactly) and then saying that my example didn't prove anthing. His quote provided below:

Irontruth wrote:

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....").

So, Fractions of Harm and Heal isn't a good enough example. This is just another time he has moved the goalposts. He now is saying the only rules that *actually* matter are rules from the CRB or official statements from Paizo developers.

After this, I used another example where damage dealt can't be damage taken using a spell from the CRB (Stoneskin) but that just caused him to say that my example misrepresented how he thinks Power Attack invalidates my position, but refuses to describe how it actually does it.. he just keeps saying that it does over and over again.

Talonhawke wrote:
No because any example you provide would have to be iron-clad or it will simply "not disprove" the theory since he already has a few nebulous snippets of rules text he is using to support his argument. From the get go unless the PDT or a clear unambiguous piece of text side against GA and Mal we are wrong.

I will accept any example that shows my position is logically inconsistent. The hardest pill to swallow so far was my concession that regeneration wouldn't heal nonlethal damage. However, there is no logical requirement that regeneration must heal nonlethal damage.

Your position is logically inconsistent with the nonlethal healing rule. But no one really wants to talk about it. The only defense so far is from Irontruth claiming that because you can't benefit from the same bonus twice, you can't benefit from a spell effect twice. (which doesn't actually apply at all, as the rule isn't a bonus and you aren't benefiting from the effect twice.)

Redelia wrote:

I _think_ what sometimes happens to start these threads is that someone notices a different way that the books could be interpreted. It's probably quite a cool feeling to discover that the way everyone has been playing the game for years is actually wrong. And then they post with a question, and almost everyone jumps on them to defend the usual understanding. However, human nature being what it is, their theory is so cool that they can't let go if it, and so the discussion goes like this one has.

If almost everyone has been playing with the rules a certain way for all these years, that traditional interpretation is probably the one that the developers intended. We're not going to find a new true rule by staring at the rules.

I think the term you are looking for is the "backfire" effect. I am not trying to disprove anyone wrong. I am simply saying that nonlethal damage not being hit point damage is logically consistent way of playing the game. I think that nonlethal damage being hit point damage can also be logically consistent, but so far there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how the nonlethal healing rule works (that is also logically consistent.)

Speaking of which, I may have missed it, but I am still looking forward to your response on how Calming Touch interacts with the Nonlethal Healing Rule.

Irontruth wrote:


Except your current interpretation of how Power Attack would interact with nonlethal exceeding maximum hit points does not follow the rules. (And if you claim I haven't cited rules, you're purposely lying at this point)

Feel free to cite a rule if you have one to back you up.

Here's the thing, damage rolled isn't damage dealt. Maybe that's where two are stuck. Just because I roll X damage (with modifiers) doesn't mean that is what the target takes. Things can, and do, happen after the damage roll. For example, Damage Reduction happens AFTER the damage roll, and modifies how much damage is dealt. Feats like Enforcer say "damage dealt" and would be affected by things like DR.

If you think the game has a cut and dry process of when certain things can and cannot be introduced into the total damage count, feel free to cite it. Without such a RAW process though, any process you come up with is only YOUR way of doing things and isn't actually RAW.

I don't care about YOUR way. That is for the homebrew forum. This is about the rules. Cite a rule, or you're just making s!!# up.

Enforcer wrote:
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.

It says "Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action." Regardless of what damage the target takes, how do we know whether or not the weapon did nonlethal damage? It's based on the weapon type.

Similar language in Power Attack. Power Attack doesn't provide the bonus damage to "effects that do not deal hit point damage." How do we know whether or not the effect did hit point damage? It's based on the weapon type.

Also, yes, you have cited rules. But no rules that show that Power Attack works of damage taken. Power Attack modifies the damage roll. When the damage roll is complete, Power Attack's effect is completed. The target can't take the damage before you roll it.

So, at this point, a clear demonstration of why you think Power Attack fails would be ideal. However, I assume you will continue to refuse to show one.


Irontruth wrote:
I'd be real careful about making definitive statements about what "damage dealt" means. Because it's used a lot, and has different connotations.

Yes, it is unfortunate. "Dealt" kind of overlaps and would depend on context.

"The spell dealt 10 damage." That can easily be read either way. The spell's effect dealt 10 damage or the target was dealt 10 damage by a spell effect.

The good news is...

Power Attack uses "deal" language. Power Attack doesn't provide it's bonus to the damage roll for "effects that do not deal hit point damage." Weapon type determines the damage an attack deals.

As that is the only provided example of a logical inconsistency, we do not have to worry about this unfortunate overlap in terms.


Where did the damage come from?

Did it come from a source other than the weapon?


Mallecks wrote:
...I have provided many examples as to why damage dealt = damage taken... I used another example where damage dealt can't be damage taken using a spell from the CRB (Stoneskin)...

So your stance is that damage dealt is sometimes, but not always the same as damage taken, right?


Mallecks wrote:

So, it's mostly been me trying to explain how to properly use Power Attack. At one point, Irontruth refused to accept that damage rolls end, so I don't really see how I'm the one overly complicating things.

All I'm asking is for you to point me to the rule you're using to make this determination. You talk as if it is set in stone, so just tell me which page number it is on and I'll read it.


I am aware of only one logically consistent way of using Power Attack. Yours may be different, but you won't share what it is.


YES WE WILL WE HAVE USING POWER ATTACK IS LOGICALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES WHICH YOU TAKE A PENALTY TO THE ATTACK ROLL AND YOUR ATTACKS WITH A WEAPON THAT AREN'T TOUCH ATTACK DEAL EXTRA DAMAGE.

As to your apparent double dipping "loophole" lets assume your right non lethal heals so quick as to not matter if your speeding it up and if Nonlethal isn't HP then you can't recover it all with a spell that heals "hit point damage". As to logical inconsistencies we have presented them and you and GA have dismissed them over and over again either by saying that's fine like with regeneration or by outright ignoring it. But you know what I'll go back through and rehash this whole shebang for you if I can find the time. But honestly your either being obtuse at this point or purposely trolling for your own enjoyment.


Mallecks wrote:
I am aware of only one logically consistent way of using Power Attack. Yours may be different, but you won't share what it is.

I follow what is in the rule book.

I apply PA to all melee attacks that are hit point damage. What criteria do you use to determine whether PA applies or not? Can you give a page number for the rule you use?

Here's a breakdown as a dichotomous key:

1. Is the attack a melee attack?
a. Yes - go to 2
b. No - power attack does not apply.
2. Is the attack a touch attack?
a. Yes - power attack does not apply.
b. No - go to 3
3. Does the attack deal hit point damage?
a. Yes - power attack applies.
b. No - power attack does not apply.

That's it. That is all that I see IN THE RULE BOOK that determines whether power attack applies or not. Is there a rule you would like me to consider adding?


Going to add this early while I compile this list

Consumed wrote:
Consumed (Blood of Fiends pg. 26 (Amazon)): Your connection to Abaddon and the daemons that call it home has left you diminished but still able to scorn many mortal frailties. Whenever you take lethal hit point damage, you take an additional number of points of nonlethal damage equal to 1/2 the lethal damage you took. You automatically stabilize when brought below 0 hit points. At 5th level, whenever you make a saving throw against a disease or poison effect, roll twice and use the higher roll as your result. At 10th level, you can go without food or water for a number of days equal to your oracle level before suffering any ill effects due to starvation or thirst. At 15th level, whenever a creature within 30 feet takes damage while in combat, you automatically gain 1 temporary hit point. You can benefit from this ability a number of times per round equal to your Charisma modifier, and you can gain a total number of temporary hit points in this way equal to your oracle level. Temporary hit points gained this way disappear after 1 hour.

More use of the lethal terminology.


Mallecks wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Redelia wrote:
Uggh, what ever happened to the ordinary definition of hit point damage as 'any damage that is counted in hit points'? The reason for that terminology is just to exclude ability drain/ability damage/rounds of debuffs.
That would be way to simple

And it would make sense.

And it would fit the rules contextually.

And with that definition no one could possibly misunderstand how it works.

But this thread is way more fun....

Well, there is a hiccup with the Nonlethal Healing Rule, but otherwise, I think it is logically consistent.

Not if you understand "And it would fit the rules contextually." - I'm assuming this is in reference to your calming touch pedantism.


Here are the question your interpretation has to account for and explain. You cannot hand wave these as bad writing or bad rules understanding any more than you would allow us to do so to your evidence.
1. See the Septic wound Aura and Scroll down to Consumed. What is “lethal” hit point damage?
2. What is “normal” hit point damage.

Things that break down when they are not both considered a form of hit point damage.
1. Several abilities or spells like the Spontaneous Healing discovery, Protector Familiar, Shield Other and Inner Peace do not activate based of nonlethal do you think this was intentional?
2. Do you think Rage Chemist are meant to not berserk if they take only Non-Lethal in a fight (possibly making access to spells like ablative barrier better)
3. Vindictive Bastards activate their ability to smite off of allies being dealt Hit point damage so they can’t smite targets that only use non-lethal.
4. Why do you feel the designers intended for only the healing of “real” hit point damage to stop bleed or things with similar clauses?
5. One of the few instances of an ability that triggers from unconsciousness or death from HP damage is “From the Ashes”, so going unconscious from Non-lethal was too easy or what?
6. Life oracles still provoke when casting spells that only fix non-lethal.
7. Abilities such as Brutal bloodline or shadow don’t get their extra triggers off of non-lethal spells.
8. Using non-lethal and Draining Strike you can keep someone fatigued till they are unconscious.


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
I am aware of only one logically consistent way of using Power Attack. Yours may be different, but you won't share what it is.

I follow what is in the rule book.

I apply PA to all melee attacks that are hit point damage. What criteria do you use to determine whether PA applies or not? Can you give a page number for the rule you use?

Here's a breakdown as a dichotomous key:

1. Is the attack a melee attack?
a. Yes - go to 2
b. No - power attack does not apply.
2. Is the attack a touch attack?
a. Yes - power attack does not apply.
b. No - go to 3
3. Does the attack deal hit point damage?
a. Yes - power attack applies.
b. No - power attack does not apply.

That's it. That is all that I see IN THE RULE BOOK that determines whether power attack applies or not. Is there a rule you would like me to consider adding?

Yep. I agree with this. You left out the part where Power attack interacts with damage a target takes though, nothing here invalidates my position.

We appear to disagree on what it means to "deal damage." I am using this rule:

Damage wrote:
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

So, to answer the question at step 3, we would use the weapon type. Weapons only deal nonlethal or lethal damage, so not really seeing where the issue is.

Which rule are you using?

bbangerter wrote:
Not if you understand "And it would fit the rules contextually." - I'm assuming this is in reference to your calming touch pedantism.

Calming Touch being modified by Nonlethal Healing Rule is explicit RAW.

A: Assume nonlethal damage is hit point damage

P1: Calming Touch heals hit point damage. (Given assumption A)
P2: When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
C: When Calming Touch heals hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

Talonhawke wrote:

Here are the question your interpretation has to account for and explain. You cannot hand wave these as bad writing or bad rules understanding any more than you would allow us to do so to your evidence.

1. See the Septic wound Aura and Scroll down to Consumed. What is “lethal” hit point damage?

Seems like lethal damage to me. This does not logically require the existence of nonlethal hit point damage.

My argument would be that it is a redundant term, but I haven't had the time to go find other similar sentences, which will be difficult to find. The text of the abilities you have provided does not invalidate the position. However, if the consumed ability had said "nonlethal hit point damage" instead of "nonlethal damage," it would seal the deal.

Talonhawke wrote:
2. What is “normal” hit point damage.
Slaver Pantheron wrote:
The slaver panthereon was initially designed to supervise recalcitrant slaves, but it has since proved equally useful when hunting anyone the golem’s creator wants to have captured alive. Because slaves and prisoners are often a very valuable commodity, the slaver panthereon has the ability to, as a swift action, convert all of its attacks to nonlethal damage. When it does so, its slam attacks also gain the grab special ability. As another swift action, it can change its attacks back to dealing normal lethal damage (losing the grab ability in the process). Since they are nonintelligent, slaver panthereons default to dealing nonlethal damage unless their master orders otherwise.

What is "normal" lethal damage? Does this suggest there are other types of lethal damage that exist?

Talonhawke wrote:

Things that break down when they are not both considered a form of hit point damage.

1. Several abilities or spells like the Spontaneous Healing discovery, Protector Familiar, Shield Other and Inner Peace do not activate based of nonlethal do you think this was intentional?

Do you think it was intentional for Calming Touch to interact with the Nonlethal Healing Rule?

As long as the position is logically consistent, that's all that really matters. Should nonlethal damage not interact with spells or abilities that refer to hit point damage or should nonlethal healing remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage? Both of these do not seem to be intended, but are the results of the positions we have taken. (No one really defending the nonlethal healing rule yet, but we'll have to get there eventually.)

Talonhawke wrote:

2. Do you think Rage Chemist are meant to not berserk if they take only Non-Lethal in a fight (possibly making access to spells like ablative barrier better)

3. Vindictive Bastards activate their ability to smite off of allies being dealt Hit point damage so they can’t smite targets that only use non-lethal.

Doesn't seem to be a problem. All I care about is that my position is logically consistent. A specific ability would have to be extremely problematic for it to cause concern.

Talonhawke wrote:
4. Why do you feel the designers intended for only the healing of “real” hit point damage to stop bleed or things with similar clauses?

Personally, I don't believe that nonlethal healing should stop bleed (or similar) effects. (just my opinion, though)

Talonhawke wrote:

5. One of the few instances of an ability that triggers from unconsciousness or death from HP damage is “From the Ashes”, so going unconscious from Non-lethal was too easy or what?

6. Life oracles still provoke when casting spells that only fix non-lethal.

7. Abilities such as Brutal bloodline or shadow don’t get their extra triggers off of non-lethal spells.

Doesn't seem to be a problem. All I care about is that my position is logically consistent. A specific ability would have to be extremely problematic for it to cause concern.

Talonhawke wrote:
8. Using non-lethal and Draining Strike you can keep someone fatigued till they are unconscious.

You will need to be more detailed here. A review of Draining Strike seems to be that Draining Strike is removed when hit point damage is healed.

Draining Strike wrote:
You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Draining Strike forces a foe that was damaged by your unarmed attack to attempt a Fortitude saving throw (DC = 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is fatigued for 1 minute or until the foe is subject to any spell or effect that heals hit point damage any spell. If you have a base attack bonus of +14 or higher, the target is exhausted for the same duration instead. You can attempt to use Draining Strike once per day for every 4 character levels you have, but you can use it no more than once per round. Constructs, incorporeal creatures, plants, undead, and creatures that are immune to critical hits cannot be affected by this ability.

Again, the only thing that ultimately matters is if something is shown that nonlethal being hit point damage is logically inconsistent. Technically, someone could try to introduce something that would be so extreme that even though it is logically valid, it would cause me to change my mind. (Instantly killing enemies, becoming immortal, etc. etc.) That one is kind of subjective / abstract, and I assume such a thing would have been suggested by now.

Look at the nonlethal healing rule. This is an explicit interaction and no one is on board with it. It is logically inconsistent to say that nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but effects that heal it don't trigger the nonlethal healing rule. Just like all those other examples you have shown, this is something you will have to accept for your position to be logically consistent within the rules. (Alternatively, you can provide some other rule or explanation as why that rule is bypassed, which is not impossible.)

You asked about spells and abilities based on what is intended...

Cloak of Blood Alarm wrote:
This leather cloak looks tattered and stained no matter how carefully it is cleaned and repaired. Once per day, when a ratfolk wearer bleeds upon the cloak (generally when he takes hit point damage), the cloak mentally alerts the wearer’s nearest ratfolk ally within 10 miles, telling her the approximate distance and direction to the wearer. It also alerts the wearer to the approximate distance and direction of that ally.

Splinter the Ratfolk trips and skins his knee and takes 1 nonlethal damage. Does the Cloak of Blood Alarm activate? If you require it, the cloak brushes his knee and blood is transferred by the contact.

Do you think it was intended for it to work of nonlethal?

Adhesive Blood wrote:
Your blood thickens to becomes a glue-like substance upon contact with air. A piercing or slashing weapon that deals hit point damage to you is stuck fast unless the wielder succeeds at a Reflex save. A creature can pry off a stuck weapon on its turn as a standard action with a successful Strength check against the spell’s DC. Strong alcohol or universal solvent dissolves the adhesive. The glue breaks down 5 rounds after you die, or when the duration ends. This glue has no effect while underwater or in environments that lack air.

Target has Adhesive Blood active.

Creature with 8 Str stabs the Target with a dagger and rolls a 1. The attack deals 1 nonlethal damage. Does his dagger get stuck in blood?

Creature does a nonlethal, piercing unarmed strike for 1 nonlethal damage. Does his finger get stuck in the blood?

Was this spell intended to work with nonlethal damage?

I don't know if these were intended to work with nonlethal damage or not, but they will for the people who say nonlethal is hit point damage. Does this cause problems for you? If not, great, your position is logically consistent. If you do think it is a problem, you will need an explanation as to why it shouldn't happen or concede that your position is logically inconsistent.

Edit:

Warped Savant wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
...I have provided many examples as to why damage dealt = damage taken... I used another example where damage dealt can't be damage taken using a spell from the CRB (Stoneskin)...
So your stance is that damage dealt is sometimes, but not always the same as damage taken, right?

Almost forgot. I saw it at the time, but was busy and didn't have time to get to it right then.

The damage that an effect "deals" is a statistic about the effect that exists independently of the target.

Targets of the effect interact with that statistic to determine how much damage they take. Nothing the target does changes the statistics of the effect (in general. It may be possible for an ability to exist, but I am currently unaware of one.)


Irontruth wrote:

I follow what is in the rule book.

I apply PA to all melee attacks that are hit point damage. What criteria do you use to determine whether PA applies or not? Can you give a page number for the rule you use?

Here's a breakdown as a dichotomous key:

1. Is the attack a melee attack?
a. Yes - go to 2
b. No - power attack does not apply.
2. Is the attack a touch attack?
a. Yes - power attack does not apply.
b. No - go to 3
3. Does the attack deal hit point damage?
a. Yes - power attack applies.
b. No - power attack does not apply.

That's it. That is all that I see IN THE RULE BOOK that determines whether power attack applies or not. Is there a rule you would like me to consider adding?

No one has ever argued anything about the text of Power Attack. Only its interaction with other rules. Most specifically, what does and does not qualify an attack to be one that deals hit point damage.

Talonhawke wrote:

Here are the question your interpretation has to account for and explain. You cannot hand wave these as bad writing or bad rules understanding any more than you would allow us to do so to your evidence.

1. See the Septic wound Aura and Scroll down to Consumed. What is “lethal” hit point damage?
2. What is “normal” hit point damage.

Poorly written rules are absolutely an acceptable answer. Unfortunately, Irontruth is the one primarily driving the conversation for those criticizing the nonlethal is not hp damage stance, and it is his common response to only consider RAW with no interpretation whatsoever, no consideration of RAI, "take that to the homebrew forum", etc.

If we agree that there is sufficient explanation (RAW, at least) for nonlethal damage not being hit point damage being internally consistent (or at least being somewhat as consistent as it being hit point damage), then it's simply agree to disagree there and the thread is over.

Talonhawke wrote:

Things that break down when they are not both considered a form of hit point damage.

1. Several abilities or spells like the Spontaneous Healing discovery, Protector Familiar, Shield Other and Inner Peace do not activate based of nonlethal do you think this was intentional?
2. Do you think Rage Chemist are meant to not berserk if they take only Non-Lethal in a fight (possibly making access to spells like ablative barrier better)
3. Vindictive Bastards activate their ability to smite off of allies being dealt Hit point damage so they can’t smite targets that only use non-lethal.
4. Why do you feel the designers intended for only the healing of “real” hit point damage to stop bleed or things with similar clauses?
5. One of the few instances of an ability that triggers from unconsciousness or death from HP damage is “From the Ashes”, so going unconscious from Non-lethal was too easy or what?
6. Life oracles still provoke when casting spells that only fix non-lethal.
7. Abilities such as Brutal bloodline or shadow don’t get their extra triggers off of non-lethal spells.
8. Using non-lethal and Draining Strike you can keep someone fatigued till they are unconscious.

Going into my answers here, it'll help to say that I have uncertainty over what is "actually happening" with nonlethal damage, which makes some of these questions easier/harder than others. (My post here asked some of the types of questions that I mean)

It seemed like your intention to be asking this from a more RAI angle, so these are my opinions on these questions considering nonlethal is not hit point damage.

1. I'd argue that if the character had any lethal damage, it would still trigger, but, if you were knocked unconscious taking only nonlethal, then RAW it would not trigger. Is this intended? Perhaps. If nonlethal is just a way of tiring/dazing a person to the point of falling unconscious, they have no wounds to heal (arguably, for dazing).

2. I have no problem believing that a person that is attacked and is dealt nonlethal damage does not get as angry as someone that is attacked and is dealt lethal damage.

3. If nonlethal damage isn't "real" damage, then suffering from it means you weren't "really" harmed. If it's nonlethal overflow, however, we're in the unfortunate use case of "has dealt", so it'd be up to interpretation. I believe that, in my opinion, you could use this ability for nonlethal overflow.

4. If you're bleeding to the point that it's actively deteriorating your health, I think I would absolutely consider that a lethal wound, and I think it makes perfect sense for that to only be healed by the healing of "real" hit point damage.

5. Just throwing this out there: One possible reading is that you could use it when you are about to fall unconscious any circumstances. In any case, "From the Ashes" makes me think of a phoenix reviving after death. I don't really have a problem with this not triggering from being knocked unconscious by nonlethal, because the character was never mortally wounded.

6. I could only find one spell that directly heals nonlethal damage. Is it not possible that, at the time of writing the class, there were no spells that healed nonlethal, and so nothing was accidentally excluded?

7. I have no problem thinking abilities associated with the "Brutal" bloodline and an ability described as becoming "fury personified" would not benefit from not attempting to deal nonlethal to their targets.

8. I am not sure I see the issue here. Couldn't you only keep them fatigued/exhausted for a maximum of 5 minutes anyway?


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
I am aware of only one logically consistent way of using Power Attack. Yours may be different, but you won't share what it is.

I follow what is in the rule book.

I apply PA to all melee attacks that are hit point damage. What criteria do you use to determine whether PA applies or not? Can you give a page number for the rule you use?

Here's a breakdown as a dichotomous key:

1. Is the attack a melee attack?
a. Yes - go to 2
b. No - power attack does not apply.
2. Is the attack a touch attack?
a. Yes - power attack does not apply.
b. No - go to 3
3. Does the attack deal hit point damage?
a. Yes - power attack applies.
b. No - power attack does not apply.

That's it. That is all that I see IN THE RULE BOOK that determines whether power attack applies or not. Is there a rule you would like me to consider adding?

Yep. I agree with this. You left out the part where Power attack interacts with damage a target takes though, nothing here invalidates my position.

We appear to disagree on what it means to "deal damage." I am using this rule:

Damage wrote:
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

So, to answer the question at step 3, we would use the weapon type. Weapons only deal nonlethal or lethal damage, so not really seeing where the issue is.

Which rule are you using?

No, you have not been agreeing with me. You are claiming that a weapon can deal hit point damage and not activate Power Attack. For that to be true, we'd need to add a rule.

What page should I look on for this rule?


Irontruth wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about here in bold. Are you talking about a rule that I missed? Can you cite the rule?

A weapon deals nonlethal. Nonlethal is hit point damage, so Power Attack applies to all nonlethal damage. I agree with this assessment. Do you have something different to say?

I don't know. You keep saying nonlethal overflow is eligible for Power Attack. Power Attack modifies the effect of an attack. The effect of an attack cannot be "nonlethal overflow." Although, if an attack *could* deal "nonlethal overflow" damage, it would qualify for Power Attack, as I would treat it as lethal damage. None of this has anything to do with what a target takes.


Where does it say that the target, but not the attacker, treats it as lethal damage?

Bolded the important part for you. You keep implying that this is true. I just want to know what page you found this on.


Mallecks wrote:


bbangerter wrote:
Not if you understand "And it would fit the rules contextually." - I'm assuming this is in reference to your calming touch pedantism.

Calming Touch being modified by Nonlethal Healing Rule is explicit RAW.

A: Assume nonlethal damage is hit point damage

P1: Calming Touch heals hit point damage. (Given assumption A)
P2: When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
C: When Calming Touch heals hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

I understand your argument perfectly well. I even understand why you think you are correct on this point. You don't understand the context though, and possibly what being pedantic is (I'm not sure on that last one). You can make a RAW argument to support your view, by being pedantic. But it completely lacks the context of how the rules are written. It completely lacks the context the relationship between real HP and "real" HP. And it completely lacks the context of intent.

When two views of a rule are both supported by RAW, I'll take the one with a clear intent every time.

Are there some contradictions and questions that need to be answered regardless of which side of the discussion anyone is on? Yes, there are. So why take the one that fails intent as the correct one?


Cavall wrote:

Just wanted to point out that plants aren't immune to nonlethal. So you can in fact slice a tomato with non lethal. If you do enough. Like..say..add power attack.

I also wanted to point out no one ever says to ME "thanks for having the courage to post."

But you're welcome anyways.

Plant Creatures aren't, Plant Objects however most certainly are. Unless that particular Tomato has a wisdom score, you can hit it all day with your sap and not bruise the skin unless you choose to take a -4.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about here in bold. Are you talking about a rule that I missed? Can you cite the rule?

A weapon deals nonlethal. Nonlethal is hit point damage, so Power Attack applies to all nonlethal damage. I agree with this assessment. Do you have something different to say?

I don't know. You keep saying nonlethal overflow is eligible for Power Attack. Power Attack modifies the effect of an attack. The effect of an attack cannot be "nonlethal overflow." Although, if an attack *could* deal "nonlethal overflow" damage, it would qualify for Power Attack, as I would treat it as lethal damage. None of this has anything to do with what a target takes.

Also to be clear... all nonlethal attacks can do "nonlethal overflow". There is no nonlethal attack where the damage is ineligible for overflow if it meets the conditions. If you know of something where the damage can't overflow, please share that rule with us. Nonlethal overflow is not a separate damage type, or specific attack. It is a characteristic of all nonlethal damage. All nonlethal damage is eligible to overflow... if it meets the conditions.

This is the core thing you, GA, and now butt seem to not get. Nonlethal is hit point damage, it just has more conditions on it than "normal" lethal damage. It has more rules and is less effective at killing, and heals faster naturally, but it is still hit point damage.


So you ask for things that are odd or might not work with your ruling and then dismiss them all as internally consistent. So no you clearly do not care about actual debate and are clearly going to continue trolling but sure I'll work up a response just to show you how its done.


1.

Slaver wrote:
The slaver panthereon was initially designed to supervise recalcitrant slaves, but it has since proved equally useful when hunting anyone the golem’s creator wants to have captured alive. Because slaves and prisoners are often a very valuable commodity, the slaver panthereon has the ability to, as a swift action, convert all of its attacks to nonlethal damage. When it does so, its slam attacks also gain the grab special ability. As another swift action, it can change its attacks back to dealing normal lethal damage (losing the grab ability in the process). Since they are nonintelligent, slaver panthereons default to dealing nonlethal damage unless their master orders otherwise.

Context Clues man look at this it talks about them converting all of their attacks to nonlethal and changing back to normal lethal damage in this case meaning normal damage. It’s all a matter of basic reading comprehension which coupled with my example shows 2 sides of the same coin.

2. I said in my earlier post that I actually am fine with non-lethal only spells healing double the amount. But you didn’t quote that to try and make me look bad. Now answer the question is the amount of non-lethal directly tied to the amount of hit-points healed?
3. Blood Cloak say typically taking Hp damage so yes I would allow blood transference to trigger off non-lethal if the type of non-lethal makes sense.
4. Adhesive Blood-You keep assuming that non-lethal can’t cause someone or something to bleed. I wouldn’t consider a paper cut lethal damage but damn is there blood now all over my desk.
5. Looking at the rest of you post I have nothing to say other than thank you for proving you aren’t actually here to do anything other than argue. My view on the rules is a logically consistent as yours is so now we can use that as a measuring stick answer the questions.


Quick review:

Argument for nonlethal as hit point damage:
1. It's in the hit point damage section of the combat chapter.
2. It's only referenced in comparison to lethal damage.
3. It's measured in hit points.
4. It 'exchanges' with hit points on a 1 for 1 basis, both in healing and damage.
5. The rules don't say it isn't hit point damage.
6. All weapons deal hit point damage which makes sense if nonlethal is a type of hit point damage.

Arguments against:
1. The rules don't explicitly say it is hit point damage.
2. It has specific rules.

If you say it can't damage hit points, you are lying, because the rules clearly say that it can. Not that it always does, but that under certain conditions it can.

Also note, #2 isn't definitive of a wholly different thing, it is also true of different categories within a section of rules.


Mallecks wrote:


Damage wrote:
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

So, to answer the question at step 3, we would use the weapon type. Weapons only deal nonlethal or lethal damage, so not really seeing where the issue is.

You're certain of this? If you are, you're mistaken. Most weapons (not going to say all since there may be oddball corner cases) can deal either. A lethal weapon can deal non-lethal damage if the wielder takes -4 to hit on the roll and any non-lethal weapon can deal lethal damage for the same penalty. Yet the damage is all rolled the same. Non-lethal damage can become lethal damage in certain circumstances (the oft-mentioned spillover referred to in this thread being an example).

So given the fairly impressive interchangeability of the damage a weapon is designated to do by its type, how exactly is non-lethal damage not a type of hit point damage?

As far as the double-dipping of healing non-lethal hit point damage - what you're missing is the implied "lethal" that normally could be appended to the beginning of most references to hit points. The reason "lethal" is most often left out is because it is, by far, the most common type of hit point damage. The people writing the rules never really assumed anybody would have such a hard time figuring that out. Thus, of the types of hit point damage, non-lethal is the only one that regularly needs to carry its specific qualifier. So if something is designated as healing non-lethal hit points, it is assumed that they don't heal lethal hit points. If something heals hit points with no qualifier, it assumed that it heals lethal hit points. And, thanks to a specifically called out rule, we know it also heals a like number of non-lethal hit points.
Honestly, it's that simple.


Irontruth wrote:
Where does it say that the target, but not the attacker, treats it as lethal damage?

The attacker also treats it as lethal damage.

If the attacker had an ability that was like...

"Whenever a creature takes 10 damage from your attack" or something like then, absolutely yes, they would treat it as lethal damage. (I tried to find something like this, but didn't come up with anything.)

Power Attack goes off what the effect is. Which is only based on the weapon type, not the damage the target takes.

Talonhawke wrote:
1.
Slaver wrote:
The slaver panthereon was initially designed to supervise recalcitrant slaves, but it has since proved equally useful when hunting anyone the golem’s creator wants to have captured alive. Because slaves and prisoners are often a very valuable commodity, the slaver panthereon has the ability to, as a swift action, convert all of its attacks to nonlethal damage. When it does so, its slam attacks also gain the grab special ability. As another swift action, it can change its attacks back to dealing normal lethal damage (losing the grab ability in the process). Since they are nonintelligent, slaver panthereons default to dealing nonlethal damage unless their master orders otherwise.
Context Clues man look at this it talks about them converting all of their attacks to nonlethal and changing back to normal lethal damage in this case meaning normal damage. It’s all a matter of basic reading comprehension which coupled with my example shows 2 sides of the same coin.

I was going to continue arguing semantics on this one, but we both know it would be disingenuous. In my personal opinion, normal used in that ability is a redundant term to make the ability easier to understand, as it is not required to be there at all.

I tried to find examples of "not normal" hit point damage, but obviously came up with nothing. I found plenty of examples of "not normal" ability damage, so I was kind of holding out the hope I'd get a lead on something.

The closest effect I think I could try to argue is that an Impact weapon doesn't deal normal damage for its weapon type. However, even I think that would be a stretch.

Overall, the Clobber trait is very convincing, but not enough by itself, as it does not logically invalidate my position. The existence of "normal hit point damage" does not logically require that nonlethal damage is a subtype of hit point damage. If there were more references to "normal hit point damage," I would probably be convinced, depending on the context.

Talonhawke wrote:
2. I said in my earlier post that I actually am fine with non-lethal only spells healing double the amount. But you didn’t quote that to try and make me look bad. Now answer the question is the amount of non-lethal directly tied to the amount of hit-points healed?

I'm sorry I forgot or missed it when writing the post. If the spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage. This has nothing to do with how much healing the target actually takes.

Talonhawke wrote:

3. Blood Cloak say typically taking Hp damage so yes I would allow blood transference to trigger off non-lethal if the type of non-lethal makes sense.

4. Adhesive Blood-You keep assuming that non-lethal can’t cause someone or something to bleed. I wouldn’t consider a paper cut lethal damage but damn is there blood now all over my desk.

Nonlethal not causing bleeding is a personal opinion of mine. Just like healing nonlethal shouldn't stop bleeding from happening. These questions were more in line with "intention" questions you asked me. However, I 100% with your answers. There is no reason why it can't do those things and be logically consistent.

Talonhawke wrote:

5. Looking at the rest of you post I have nothing to say other than thank you for proving you aren’t actually here to do anything other than argue. My view on the rules is a logically consistent as yours is so now we can use that as a measuring stick answer the questions.

So, the only other question I have for the other side was kind of paired up with the nonlethal healing rule.

If an effect "deals hit point damage," what kind of damage does it do? There is some language that sets up a default assumption for "damage" to mean "reducing hit points" and whenever "damage" means something else, it must be specifically included.

Do you think that "hit point damage" should have a default assumption? Are you lumping it in with when the default assumption for "damage" is set? Does this default assumption impact the nonlethal healing rule? Does the default assumption apply everywhere?

Bill Dunn wrote:
You're certain of this? If you are, you're mistaken. Most weapons (not going to say all since there may be oddball corner cases) can deal either. A lethal weapon can deal non-lethal damage if the wielder takes -4 to hit on the roll and any non-lethal weapon can deal lethal damage for the same penalty. Yet the damage is all rolled the same. Non-lethal damage can become lethal damage in certain circumstances (the oft-mentioned spillover referred to in this thread being an example).

When I said "Weapons deal lethal or nonlethal damage." What I meant was that there are lethal and nonlethal attacks. It is not possible (afaik) for the damage dice of the weapon to simultaneously deal lethal and nonlethal damage. This was from the discussion where Irontruth is claiming that "nonlethal overflow" (that is, nonlethal damage that is in excess of a creature's total HP) is a problem for power attack with my position. I was making the point that isn't possible for weapons to deal "nonlethal damage that is in excess of a creature's total HP" because the damage of an effect is its own statistic and exists independently of the target. Irontruth and I have been talking about it for a very long time, so I didn't feel the need to type it all out, this has all been said. Sorry for any confusion.

Bill Dunn wrote:

As far as the double-dipping of healing non-lethal hit point damage - what you're missing is the implied "lethal" that normally could be appended to the beginning of most references to hit points. The reason "lethal" is most often left out is because it is, by far, the most common type of hit point damage. The people writing the rules never really assumed anybody would have such a hard time figuring that out. Thus, of the types of hit point damage, non-lethal is the only one that regularly needs to carry its specific qualifier. So if something is designated as healing non-lethal hit points, it is assumed that they don't heal lethal hit points. If something heals hit points with no qualifier, it assumed that it heals lethal hit points. And, thanks to a specifically called out rule, we know it also heals a like number of non-lethal hit points.

Honestly, it's that simple.

When is the qualifier for nonlethal damage required and when is it not required? The default assumption is really only set up for weapons, but I am OK with this default assumption being used everywhere. I'm not sure I'm OK with the default being used in some situation and not others, without justification.

Do you think the default assumption should only be used with weapons or with everything?

If you think it should only be used in some cases but not others, what is the justification?

bbangerter wrote:

I understand your argument perfectly well. I even understand why you think you are correct on this point. You don't understand the context though, and possibly what being pedantic is (I'm not sure on that last one). You can make a RAW argument to support your view, by being pedantic. But it completely lacks the context of how the rules are written. It completely lacks the context the relationship between real HP and "real" HP. And it completely lacks the context of intent.

When two views of a rule are both supported by RAW, I'll take the one with a clear intent every time.

Are there some contradictions and questions that need to be answered regardless of which side of the discussion anyone is on? Yes, there are. So why take the one that fails intent as the correct one?

Nonlethal damage is not "real" damage. So, it isn't the difference between real HP and "real" HP. It is the difference between real HP and not "real" HP.

I don't think intent is as clear as others are making it. There are topics on the forums that go either way.

Here is one where people quickly come to the conclusion that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.

Some go one way, some go the other.

Here is one where people say yeah, it's probably not "actually" hit point damage, but RAI is that it would work with Power Attack.


Since we have examples for usage of normal as it relates to nonlethal in the examples we can conclude that normal hp damage is lethal hp damage.

If we can conclude that Normal equals lethal then when we are generically told to to refer to hp damage we would refer to lethal hp damage.


Talonhawke wrote:

Since we have examples for usage of normal as it relates to nonlethal in the examples we can conclude that normal hp damage is lethal hp damage.

If we can conclude that Normal equals lethal then when we are generically told to to refer to hp damage we would refer to lethal hp damage.

So, you believe that the default assumption happens in all cases? Wouldn't this reverse your previous position on the nonlethal healing rule?


My position is that you default to lethal hp when not directed other wise. Yes per my understanding and reading of the rules I said after I posted the normal and lethal quotes before that healing would default to lethal. But I also really wouldn't be bothered by the only real inconsistency being double healing of nonlethal hp which is already healing at an hourly rate as is.

Now before you say that this means power attack would default to lethal power attack says it doesn't work for attacks that don't deal hit point damage. In this case if nonlethal is hp damage just not normal hp damage it still is dealing a form of hit point damage. It's like tires on a vehicle if you ask to price tires on your truck without specifying most shops will default to normal tires. If I say your truck won't work without tires then any type of tires that fit will work.


I agree with you Talon. In my mind that's how it works. Damage defaults to lethal unless told otherwise but they are both affecting hitpoints, and as such power attack would work on non lethal.

Which brings me to another point.

What would everyone WANT the system to be? For me? The above. Simple, clean, move on.

If we can all agree that it would be best that way, then maybe we can just move on and say that while wording may be murky, we can just clean it up ourselves by saying "this was the intent, move on".

I don't think it was the intent of the writers to make it where a sap upside the head doesn't knock someone out faster if you hit them harder with power attack. That seems not realistic or intentional, so I have to default to "murky wording use common sense". Hit someone hard, they get more hurt.


Ooh ooh ooh found something else interesting as to our early discussion

Stunning Fist (Ex): A hamatulatsu master expands the conditions that she can apply to the target of her stunning fist beyond merely stunning her target. At 4th level, she can choose to make the target shaken for 1 minute. At 8th level, she can choose to deal 1d10 points of nonlethal bleed damage. At 12th level, she can choose to make the target frightened for 1d3 rounds. At 16th level, she can deal 2d12 points of nonlethal bleed damage. The shaken and frightened conditions allow the target to attempt a Will save to negate the effect instead of a Fortitude save. This ability otherwise functions as normal for a monk of her level.

Non-lethal bleed damage is a thing already.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about here in bold. Are you talking about a rule that I missed? Can you cite the rule?

A weapon deals nonlethal. Nonlethal is hit point damage, so Power Attack applies to all nonlethal damage. I agree with this assessment. Do you have something different to say?

I don't know. You keep saying nonlethal overflow is eligible for Power Attack. Power Attack modifies the effect of an attack. The effect of an attack cannot be "nonlethal overflow." Although, if an attack *could* deal "nonlethal overflow" damage, it would qualify for Power Attack, as I would treat it as lethal damage. None of this has anything to do with what a target takes.

See, your continuing to use Irontruth's position as if he was not trying to play devil's advocate.

NonLethal Damage is eligible to use with Power Attack, independent of how it effects the target after the damage is rolled.

Why? Because it is not a touch attack and effects HP. Tell me where it says differently.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Where does it say that the target, but not the attacker, treats it as lethal damage?

The attacker also treats it as lethal damage.

If the attacker had an ability that was like...

"Whenever a creature takes 10 damage from your attack" or something like then, absolutely yes, they would treat it as lethal damage. (I tried to find something like this, but didn't come up with anything.)

Power Attack goes off what the effect is. Which is only based on the weapon type, not the damage the target takes.

Where does it say this? All I see is that the damage has to do hit point damage. Is there a passage I'm missing?

Nonlethal damage can do hit point damage. If the nonlethal damage IS doing hit point damage, then the effect is hit point damage. I don't see anything that says otherwise. The effect of nonlethal damage (which exceeds their nonlethal capacity) IS hit point damage. You have not provided a single thing to say otherwise. You tell me this isn't true, all I'm asking for is words from the book that tell you this. SHOW ME WORDS FROM THE BOOKS.

Can you provide specific wording that backs up your claim?

Because by reading Power Attack, the words of the feat do not support what you are saying. The effect of the attack is to cause hit point loss, therefore it MUST be hit point damage. Unless you are claiming that losing hit points through damage is not hit point damage. Or you have to claim that the damage is coming from something other than the weapon.


Talonhawke wrote:

My position is that you default to lethal hp when not directed other wise. Yes per my understanding and reading of the rules I said after I posted the normal and lethal quotes before that healing would default to lethal. But I also really wouldn't be bothered by the only real inconsistency being double healing of nonlethal hp which is already healing at an hourly rate as is.

Now before you say that this means power attack would default to lethal power attack says it doesn't work for attacks that don't deal hit point damage. In this case if nonlethal is hp damage just not normal hp damage it still is dealing a form of hit point damage. It's like tires on a vehicle if you ask to price tires on your truck without specifying most shops will default to normal tires. If I say your truck won't work without tires then any type of tires that fit will work.

The problem with the default assumption is that it isn't being used the same way every time. If you have a default assumption, then you don't need to worry about the nonlethal healing rule or effects that deal "hit point damage."

However, the default assumption should work the same way every time right? Otherwise, we are all just going to arbitrarily decide when it means one thing or the other.

For example:

Power Attack wrote:

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.

Fractions of Harm and Heal wrote:
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.

You are saying that despite the default assumption, Power Attack still works with nonlethal, because nonlethal is a type of hit point damage.

Would you also agree that despite the default assumption, Fractions of Harm and Heal would also modify a spell that deals ability damage? Because ability damage is a type of damage?

I am not aware of any rule that would create a justification to sometimes use the default assumption and not others.

I understand the tire example, but I feel that it doesn't accurately represent the situation. If there is a default assumption attached to the word tire, then no matter where I go or what I ask for, when I use the term "tire" everyone will be on the same page. If I want a different kind of tire other than whatever the assumption is for tire, I will need to specifically reference that tire. I am suggesting it would be the same for the default assumption for "hit point damage"

As for the nonlethal bleeding... regardless of whether or not nonlethal bleeding is possible within the rules, I do not feel that "nonlethal bleeding" should be a thing. That's just my opinion though.

Irontruth wrote:
Where does it say this? All I see is that the damage has to do hit point damage. Is there a passage I'm missing?

It says that "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage."

I'm not sure that "damage" actually does anything. It's just a statistic of the effect. The effect would have to deal hit point damage to get the benefit of Power Attack.

What determines the damage that the effect of an attack deals?

Damage wrote:
The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

Note that it doesn't require any information about the target.

[/quote="Irontruth"]Nonlethal damage can do hit point damage. If the nonlethal damage IS doing hit point damage, then the effect is hit point damage. I don't see anything that says otherwise. The effect of nonlethal damage (which exceeds their nonlethal capacity) IS hit point damage. You have not provided a single thing to say otherwise. You tell me this isn't true, all I'm asking for is words from the book that tell you this. SHOW ME WORDS FROM THE BOOKS.

Can you provide specific wording that backs up your claim?

Dealing nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Sure, as you can see, any weapon can deal nonlethal, even weapons that do not have the nonlethal weapon quality. When performing a "nonlethal attack", you attacks deal nonlethal damage.

The amount, is determined by weapon type, as I showed above. I will walk through a complete example RAW.

1. Choose to use Power Attack
2. Choose to make an attack that deals nonletahl damage
3. Roll a d20 and add modifiers.
4. Compare against AC of the target.
5. Roll weapon damage + modifiers (The result of this is nonlethal as per the rules provided)
6. Target takes damage. (Any nonlethal overflow is appropriately treated as lethal damage.)

It is not possible for the target of the attack to take the nonlethal damage that would then be treated as lethal before the damage roll is complete. Power Attack modifies the damage roll. Therefore, Power Attack happens before the "nonlethal overflow" is an issue.

Please provide the rule broken. Alternatively, you can try to argue that the logical consequences of the rules interactions is not correct. (That the target takes the damage before you make the damage roll but I am not certain this is possible.)

Irontruth wrote:
Because by reading Power Attack, the words of the feat do not support what you are saying. The effect of the attack is to cause hit point loss, therefore it MUST be hit point damage. Unless you are claiming that losing hit points through damage is not hit point damage. Or you have to claim that the damage is coming from something other than the weapon.

The effect of the attack is to deal nonlethal hit point damage, not to cause loss of HP. Whether or not the target takes nonlethal damage has no impact on what the effect of the attack is.

This position you are trying to take...

"If the nonlethal damage is doing hit point damage, then the effect is hit point damage"

is troublesome, and I suspect not logically consistent. But to be make sure I understand, are you saying..

"If the effect of an ability causes a creature to take [damage type], then the effect deals [damage type]?"

and would you also agree with...

"If the effect of an ability does not causes a creature to take [damage type]. then the effect deals [damage type]?"


Nonlethal damage does cause hit point loss.

Quote:
all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.

That sounds like hit point damage to me. Are you saying that this isn't damage to hit points?


Irontruth wrote:

Nonlethal damage does cause hit point loss.

Quote:
all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
That sounds like hit point damage to me. Are you saying that this isn't damage to hit points?

It sure is, it just doesn't matter to Power Attack, as it is not logically possible given the rules for it to interact with Power Attack, afaik.

I am only aware of one way that Power Attack works, and the argument that you are using does not apply to it. Can you provide a logically valid way of using Power Attack (and every other ability that has a benefit/penalty/effect/etc. with conditions based on what the effect deals) where it works based on what type of damage the target takes, rather than what the effect deals?

I have provided the rules for determining what an effect deals. So, unless you provide the citation for "damage taken" equaling "damage dealt," I don't see room to move forward. I cannot argue against the way you are using Power Attack. Based on the logical consequences of your argument against my position, I believe it may not be logically valid, but you won't explain how Power Attack is interacting with the damage taken, so I can't be sure. When you provide this critical detail, I feel we will be able to make progress.

Again, I agree that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage, and therefore hit point damage. We are disagreeing on how you determine what the effect "deals."

I am using these two rules to determine what an effect "deals."

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Damage wrote:
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

Nothing about the rule you are using:

Nonlethal wrote:
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.

says anything about changing treating the damage of an effect as anything different than what it is and it logically requires the creature to first take the damage prior it exceeding their hit points. If they haven't taken the damage, it is not in excess of their hit points.

So, if you can not provide a logically valid interpretation for your claim that Power Attack does interact with the damage taken or provide some other citation for your claim "damage taken = damage dealt", then Power Attack is not an issue for my position.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Nonlethal damage does cause hit point loss.

Quote:
all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
That sounds like hit point damage to me. Are you saying that this isn't damage to hit points?

It sure is, it just doesn't matter to Power Attack, as it is not logically possible given the rules for it to interact with Power Attack, afaik.

I am only aware of one way that Power Attack works, and the argument that you are using does not apply to it. Can you provide a logically valid way of using Power Attack (and every other ability that has a benefit/penalty/effect/etc. with conditions based on what the effect deals) where it works based on what type of damage the target takes, rather than what the effect deals?

I have provided the rules for determining what an effect deals. So, unless you provide the citation for "damage taken" equaling "damage dealt," I don't see room to move forward. I cannot argue against the way you are using Power Attack. Based on the logical consequences of your argument against my position, I believe it may not be logically valid, but you won't explain how Power Attack is interacting with the damage taken, so I can't be sure. When you provide this critical detail, I feel we will be able to make progress.

Again, I agree that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage, and therefore hit point damage. We are disagreeing on how you determine what the effect "deals."

I am using these two rules to determine what an effect "deals."

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Damage wrote:
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

Nothing about the rule you are using:

Nonlethal wrote:
If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his
...

Yes, the weapon deals nonlethal. And nonlethal is hit point damage (unarguably when it is overflow). Therefore the weapon deals hit point damage. A weapon that deals hit point damage is eligible for Power Attack.

You have to show either:

1) it isn't actually hit point damage (which if you argue that lethal damage isn't hit point damage, you're so far off the deep end ...)
2) that there is a procedural point in time that it can no longer be added.

You've argued #2 for well over a week now. What page in the rules do I find this on?


Irontruth wrote:

Yes, the weapon deals nonlethal. And nonlethal is hit point damage (unarguably when it is overflow). Therefore the weapon deals hit point damage. A weapon that deals hit point damage is eligible for Power Attack.

You have to show either:

1) it isn't actually hit point damage (which if you argue that lethal damage isn't hit point damage, you're so far off the deep end ...)
2) that there is a procedural point in time that it can no longer be added.

You've argued #2 for well over a week now. What page in the rules do I find this on?

Oh yeah, sure, you can only add it on the actual damage roll, that much is clear.

Power Attack wrote:

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 bonus is added to the damage roll.

Getting Started wrote:
Whenever a roll is required, the roll is noted as "d#," with the "#" representing the number of sides on the die. If you need to roll multiple dice of the same type, there will be a number before the "d." For example, if you are required to roll 4d6, you should roll four six-sided dice and add the results together. Sometimes there will be a + or – after the notation, meaning that you add that number to, or subtract it from, the total results of the dice (not to each individual die rolled). Most die rolls in the game use a d20 with a number of modifiers based on the character's skills, his or her abilities, and the situation. Generally speaking, rolling high is better than rolling low. Percentile rolls are a special case, indicated as rolling d%. You can generate a random number in this range by rolling two differently colored ten-sided dice (2d10). Pick one color to represent the tens digit, then roll both dice. If the die chosen to be the tens digit rolls a "4" and the other d10 rolls a "2," then you've generated a 42. A zero on the tens digit die indicates a result from 1 to 9, or 100 if both dice result in a zero. Some d10s are printed with "10," "20," "30," and so on in order to make reading d% rolls easier. Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.

So, the bonus damage is added to the die roll. The bonus damage can't be added after it.


Yes, I'm adding it to the damage roll. I don't disagree.

I'm asking you for something that says I can't add it to the damage roll.

The damage came from the weapon. The effect of the damage roll is hit point damage. It isn't a touch attack.

Where is the rule that says Power Attack doesn't apply?


Irontruth wrote:

Yes, I'm adding it to the damage roll. I don't disagree.

I'm asking you for something that says I can't add it to the damage roll.

Ok, if you want to know if you can get the bonus or not...

Power Attack wrote:

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.

All right. Now, how do we know if the attack is dealing hit point damage or not?

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage wrote:
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll

or

Nonlethal Weapon Quality wrote:
Nonlethal: These weapons deal nonlethal damage

Whichever you prefer.

That determines the type of damage the attack deals.

If you assume that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage (my position), it would not be eligible for Power Attack's bonus damage.
If you assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage (your position), then it would be eligible for Power Attack's bonus damage.

I don't believe either of these positions violates any rules.


But the nonlethal is doing hit point damage. The effect of the attack IS hit point damage.

Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.

Neither of those rules exclude the hit point damage that results from nonlethal from benefiting from Power Attack.


Irontruth wrote:

But the nonlethal is doing hit point damage. The effect of the attack IS hit point damage.

Hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.

Neither of those rules exclude the hit point damage that results from nonlethal from benefiting from Power Attack.

I am unaware of any rule that retroactively changes an effect after it happens.

The rules I have cited clearly state the attack deals nonlethal damage. The nonlethal overflow rule cannot happen until after the target takes the damage, afaik.

So, RAW, the attack deals nonlethal damage.

AND

Once the nonlethal damage is in excess of a creature's hit points, it is treated as lethal damage.

If you can come up with a logically valid position that has the target take the damage before the damage roll, then we can deal with it, but you will have to explain it to me first, because I am unfamiliar with how that would be possible.


Let's get this really clear.

Being nonlethal damage is not a condition that excludes an attack from Power Attack. Right? No where does it say "attacks which include nonlethal don't benefit from Power Attack". That kind of language doesn't exist. Agree or disagree.

I'm saying to point out that we're discussing whether an inherent quality of nonlethal disqualifies it, because the damage type itself is not called out.

Analogy: If "cars with sporty paint jobs" were excluded from a parking lot, that wouldn't inherently exclude cars painted red, but depending on the specific paint job, a red car might be excluded. This would be different from "red cars" are excluded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

UGH.

It's damage. Just add power attack. Then you don't have to retro anything. It went from asking for clarity to just being stubborn.

How hard is it? Just treat it as damage. All problems solved.

How is this STILL a thing


No, an attack dealing nonlethal damage would not benefit from Power Attack on based on the assumption that nonlethal damage is not Hit point damage.

It is not possible for nonlethal damage to damage hit points. In some situations, (Nonlethal overflow), it is treated as lethal damage, and thus no longer nonlethal damage.

When I treat Nonlethal overflow as lethal damage, I no longer treat it as nonlethal damage, because I don't normally treat lethal damage as nonlethal damage.

Hopefully that makes sense, I know we disagree on what "treats as" means. I treat it in all ways as lethal damage and you don't, but as long as the way you are "treating" nonlethal overflow as lethal damage is logically consistent, I don't see a problem with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is hit point damage. On a different track.

651 to 700 of 1,405 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.