Irontruth -- The problem with what you're trying to say (that the attack is dealing nonlethal over-flow therefore the attack is dealing lethal damage) is disproved by Fractions of Heal and Harm.
A spell deals 20 damage, someone makes their save and only takes 10 points of damage. Fractions of Heal and Harm show that the attack did 20 but the character changed the result for themselves.
In comparison, a nonlethal attack deals nonlethal damage. The character changes the result so that some of it is lethal damage. The attack was still for (let's say) 10 nonlethal.
I agree with you that nonlethal is hit point damage (in most cases) but your insistence of arguing with Mallecks that it has to be due to nonlethal over-flow isn't working. You two have been going back and forth with the exact same statements for weeks now. Please find something different to back up your claim.
How is fractions of heal and harm applying here? And am I gonna have to research this whole deal vs dealt thing like I did non-lethal and look for breaks in how it works?
It factors in because it shows there is a difference between what the effect deals versus what the target takes.
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.
The 30 points of damage is based off of what the caster rolled (plus bonuses) instead of the total amount of damage that the people in the area took.
(Damage dealt = 30; damage taken = 30*people in the area-resistances, saves, feats, abilities, etc)Therefore a nonlethal attack is dealing nonlethal but the target can end up taking lethal due to overflow. Fractions of Heal and Harm demonstrate that this is correct.
nothing in Fractions of heal or harm effects other people it simply modifies the spell being cast like power attack modifies the attack roll and damage of the attack. Evasion would be a better example if your trying to prove that somehow dealing damage and being dealt damage are different in the rules. They might be different numbers but its still the same thing there isn't a point at which damage a fireball deals stops being from the fireball and becomes something else and is now 'dealt'.
Does this mean there is a difference in dealing damage and inflicting damage?
So before I go digging let me ask what are we considering the point at which it matters ie when does deal become dealt. And what purpose are we believing this will show. I believe the answer to the second question would be to say that an attack can deal one type of damage but the target might be dealt a different one, would that be correct?
From my understanding of what Mallecks is trying to say (he may correct me) is that the attack deals damage so the player rolls and adds any modifiers.
In the case of nonlethal with power attack the player would roll with a negative to the 'to hit' but wouldn't add the bonus damage because the attack isn't dealing hit point damage.
After that, the target takes the damage and it is modified by effects on the target (such as nonlethal overflow).
Similar how (and I'll use evasion here if that helps you) fireball can deal 40 damage but the character that succeeds with evasion doesn't take any, the character that succeeds takes 20, and the character that failed takes 40. The fireball was dealing 40 even though different characters took different amounts.
Someone can deal nonlethal and it would count as nonlethal from the attackers perspective even though the target took lethal.
(Fraction of Heal and Harm was being used because both it and Power Attack use the word "deal" when referring to the damage.)
Small Edit:
Fireball cast with Fractions deals 30 (assuming that the total of the roll and bonuses is 40) damage even if it targets 4 people and they all take all of the damage. It didn't suddenly deal 120 damage making Fracions heal 40 instead of 10.)
So the essence is that since the damage type changed over after the damage was received it was still all non-lethal at that time. I can understand the crux of that.
I can provide a better post later, but basically, Irontruth is trying to argue that the type of damage an effect deals can be deduced by what happens to the target.
The target was hit with an attack, the target took hit point damage, therefore, the attack dealt hit point damage and should have benefited from Power Attack.
However, there are rules that determine what damage the effect of an attack deals, and none of them suggest this would be accurate. Not only that, but this causes many unintended consequences. Such as...
The target was hit by an attack. The target did not take hit point damage. Therefore, the attack dealt did not deal hit point damage and should not have benefited from Power Attack.
I have demonstrated similar points with many examples. He is also trying to argue that this would not be a problem for him, but won't explain how, just admits to immediately stopping reading because it is "stupid."
So, most of this topic has been my trying to explain to Irontruth how Power Attack works. He doesn't accept examples and only RAW from the CRB, so it has now settled into the rules on determining the damage an attack deals.
Edit: I think we can all agree that the term "Damage dealt" leaves room for interpretation. But "deals" is exclusively the statistic of the effect and "damage taken" is exclusively what the target takes.
Posted from phone while working, so may not be the clearest post.
Nope, because the issue being caused here does not exist when nonlethal damage is HP damage. Treating nonlethal as hit point damage doesn't require hit points to be lost to meet the criteria.
You: hit point damage is only that with ACTUALLY causes hit point loss.
Me: hit point damage is only that which POTENTIALLY causes hit point loss.That one word difference matters. Since I only care if it POTENTIALLY can, we don't have to ask the question "does it actually do it?" It is by very nature hit point damage, therefore the bonus from Power Attack always applies, whether hit points are lost or not.
This is not an accurate view of the stance. It is more definition-based, and is determined by the damage roll itself, not what "actually" happens. The inclusion of what actually happens is something that only you have introduced.
The question is: Is the type of damage dealt by the damage roll hit point damage?
I don't really care what happens to the target, actually or potentially.
Goldfish. We've been here before. I'm working off the definition that has been given to me by people arguing that nonlethal is not hit point damage.
Question: how do I know if damage is hit point damage or not?
I can provide a better post later, but basically, Irontruth is trying to argue that the type of damage an effect deals can be deduced by what happens to the target.
The target was hit with an attack, the target took hit point damage, therefore, the attack dealt hit point damage and should have benefited from Power Attack.
However, there are rules that determine what damage the effect of an attack deals, and none of them suggest this would be accurate. Not only that, but this causes many unintended consequences. Such as...
The target was hit by an attack. The target did not take hit point damage. Therefore, the attack dealt did not deal hit point damage and should not have benefited from Power Attack.
I have demonstrated similar points with many examples. He is also trying to argue that this would not be a problem for him, but won't explain how, just admits to immediately stopping reading because it is "stupid."
So, most of this topic has been my trying to explain to Irontruth how Power Attack works. He doesn't accept examples and only RAW from the CRB, so it has now settled into the rules on determining the damage an attack deals.
Edit: I think we can all agree that the term "Damage dealt" leaves room for interpretation. But "deals" is exclusively the statistic of the effect and "damage taken" is exclusively what the target takes.
Posted from phone while working, so may not be the clearest post.
I'm willing to discuss anything in the rules. Show me a rule about the process and we can talk about it.
Also, you're changing your story now. You just agreed earlier that if a target loses hit points, that the target took hit point damage. Are you backtracking on that statement now?
Lastly, these comments about deduction are not about the process. It is about proof.
When we check your answer: Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow, we see that we've broken a rule (PA applies to hit point damage). Therefore, when we go back and examine how you arrived at that conclusion we see that there must have been a fault in your method.
So the essence is that since the damage type changed over after the damage was received it was still all non-lethal at that time. I can understand the crux of that.
Yes, that is what the main argument between Irontruth and Mallecks has been.
Mallecks believes that a nonlethal attack is always nonlethal (even with overflow damage), nonlethal is not hit point damage, and therefore power attack would never apply to a nonlethal attack.Irontruth thinks that a nonlethal attack could deal lethal (in the event of overflow) and therefore, if nonlethal isn't hit point damage, a nonlethal attack could still have power attack applied as it is possible for a nonlethal attack to do hit point damage. (But he believes that nonlethal is hit point damage so is pointing out a problem with how he thinks damage dealt would create a problem if nonlethal wasn't hit point damage whereas, if nonlethal is hit point damage, the overflow problem doesn't exist.)
Mallecks view of nonlethal not being hit point damage appears to work consistently within itself but I have some issues with it because it stops some abilities/spells from stopping damage. (There are some spells/abilities that prevent hit point damage to an ally but if nonlethal isn't hit point damage that damage can't be prevented. It seems weird you could stop a friend from getting punched by a monk if it's doing lethal damage but you can't stop a punch from a monk because it's doing nonlethal.)
The problem with nonlethal being hit point damage is that if someone casts CLW for 5 on someone that has only taken nonlethal there doesn't appear to be a rule written that prevents the character from healing 5 nonlethal and removing 5 more nonlethal.
These appear to be the two issues that come up with either argument. Personally, I'd rather have a CLW for 5 heal/remove 10 nonlethal (because if you can cure 5 lethal and 5 nonlethal at one time but if the target has only taken nonlethal it seems like you SHOULD be able to heal 10 nonlethal. After all, nonlethal heals faster than lethal normally so doesn't that make it seem like nonlethal heals easier?) But then the Community cleric domain becomes an issue because it specifies that it heals nonlethal so it doesn't seem like it would heal nonlethal and then remove the same amount....
Wait... where was I?
Right! I prefer the idea of CLW 'double-dipping' if the character has only taken nonlethal than the idea of abilities being able to stop lethal damage but not nonlethal. ("Shield Other" is a good example of a spell that I mean.)
As a house rule, I don't have an issue with CLW result of 5 healing 10 nonlethal if the target has no lethal damage. I don't think it is technically supported within the rules though. It would not be overpowered or disrupt the game if it did though.
As a house rule, I don't have an issue with CLW result of 5 healing 10 nonlethal if the target has no lethal damage. I don't think it is technically supported within the rules though. It would not be overpowered or disrupt the game if it did though.
I must have missed a post somewhere... how is it not supported by the rules? I can find the page that says when you heal hit point damage you remove an equal amount of nonlethal. I haven't seen something saying that the damaged healed has to be lethal hit point damage.
Unless you're saying that the healing rules only applies to lethal damage because nonlethal specifies an additional way that it can be removed? (This is one of the problems.... in this case it appears that you're assuming that 'hit point damage' only means lethal hit point damage but other times you assume it means both. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Honestly, I want there to be something I can point at and say that healing nonlethal doesn't remove the same amount again.)Yes, bonuses don't stack unless they're different types of bonuses or, if untyped, have to be from a different source. This is two different ways of getting rid of damage. Some is healed, some is removed.
As to the double healing we assume that when lacking specific breakdowns we default 'normal' or 'lethal' hit point damage which would prevent the double healing from normal healing methods. We are seeing it not as one thing but as a category much like ability damage. Meaning that when something causes hit point damage to be dealt it would be lethal if not specified or given a choice. But when something is checking if hit point damage is being done it would look at the category.
As to the double healing we assume that when lacking specific breakdowns we default 'normal' or 'lethal' hit point damage which would prevent the double healing from normal healing methods. We are seeing it not as one thing but as a category much like ability damage. Meaning that when something causes hit point damage to be dealt it would be lethal if not specified or given a choice. But when something is checking if hit point damage is being done it would look at the category.
That might work... Mallecks, does that seem to fall within the rules and work with when we assume lethal hit points versus generic hit points?
If we consider hit point damage to be a category and thus lethal to be the 'normal' I haven't found a situation where much confusion would arise.
When something is doing hit point damage it can't do a category it has to do a specific type so we know that it has to be one or the other (as far as i know we don't have more than 2 types) since we have a specific feat that allows us to do non-lethal with spells we know it can't be nonlethal or a choice so it must be normal. Much like how when something says it deals damage without a qualifier we know it means lethal hit point damage and not str or dex damage.
When something is checking to see if hit point damage is being done or has been done then there is no reason to assume that any thing under the category wouldn't count.
If you find any examples that would fail under this reading please provide them.
I can provide a better post later, but basically, Irontruth is trying to argue that the type of damage an effect deals can be deduced by what happens to the target.
The target was hit with an attack, the target took hit point damage, therefore, the attack dealt hit point damage and should have benefited from Power Attack.
However, there are rules that determine what damage the effect of an attack deals, and none of them suggest this would be accurate. Not only that, but this causes many unintended consequences. Such as...
The target was hit by an attack. The target did not take hit point damage. Therefore, the attack dealt did not deal hit point damage and should not have benefited from Power Attack.
I have demonstrated similar points with many examples. He is also trying to argue that this would not be a problem for him, but won't explain how, just admits to immediately stopping reading because it is "stupid."
So, most of this topic has been my trying to explain to Irontruth how Power Attack works. He doesn't accept examples and only RAW from the CRB, so it has now settled into the rules on determining the damage an attack deals.
The reason you're having trouble is because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what Irontruth is doing. Yes, it is true that it would cause lots of silly untended consequences if the ability of power attack to work depended on actually doing damage to the target. It would invalidate the ability use PA if the target has DR - unless the damage roll was high enough to overcome the DR - and plenty of other really stupid problems. BUT THAT'S HIS POINT.
What all of this means is - if a non-lethal attack was capable of doing lethal damage via spillover IT WAS COUNTING ITS DAMAGE DEALT IN HIT POINTS ALL ALONG. And therefore, power attack would be valid to use with a non-lethal attack.
As a house rule, I don't have an issue with CLW result of 5 healing 10 nonlethal if the target has no lethal damage. I don't think it is technically supported within the rules though. It would not be overpowered or disrupt the game if it did though.I must have missed a post somewhere... how is it not supported by the rules? I can find the page that says when you heal hit point damage you remove an equal amount of nonlethal. I haven't seen something saying that the damaged healed has to be lethal hit point damage.
Unless you're saying that the healing rules only applies to lethal damage because nonlethal specifies an additional way that it can be removed? (This is one of the problems.... in this case it appears that you're assuming that 'hit point damage' only means lethal hit point damage but other times you assume it means both. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Honestly, I want there to be something I can point at and say that healing nonlethal doesn't remove the same amount again.)Yes, bonuses don't stack unless they're different types of bonuses or, if untyped, have to be from a different source. This is two different ways of getting rid of damage. Some is healed, some is removed.
Healing heals hit points.
Nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but the tally of nonlethal damage you've taken... is not lost hit points. It is a tally of nonlethal damage you've taken.
In addition, there is no reverse nonlethal healing overflow rule. Once your hit points are full, all excess healing disappears. It doesn't overflow into nonlethal. Nonlethal damage specifically has an overflow rule. Note that lethal damage doesn't overflow into nonlethal, and healing specifically calls out that you don't heal past your maximum.
Just because you are at your maximum doesn't mean you don't receive the healing though. If you are at full HP, and receive 5 hp of healing, you still received 5 hp of healing. It has no effect on your HP total, but the nonlethal healing rule kicks in and says "Oh, you received HP healing, we will also heal your nonlethal damage."
At the same time though, excess nonlethal healing does not overflow into healing hit points. Ie, if you have 10 points of damage, and 0 nonlethal damage, and get healed for 5 hp, you only receive 5 hp of healing and not 10. Because nonlethal healing does not have a mechanism for overflow.
Goldfish. We've been here before. I'm working off the definition that has been given to me by people arguing that nonlethal is not hit point damage.
Question: how do I know if damage is hit point damage or not?
Unless I missed it, I did not see anyone describe the requirement to retroactively change values before you brought it up yourself. So I'm not sure whose definition you're using.
Damage is hit point damage if it is subtracted from a target's hit points.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly. You, Butt_Luckily are telling me a method of knowing whether damage is hit point damage or not. That method is to ask "If the damage subtracts hit points from the target, it is hit point damage."
Is that correct?
I'm willing to discuss anything in the rules. Show me a rule about the process and we can talk about it.
Also, you're changing your story now. You just agreed earlier that if a target loses hit points, that the target took hit point damage. Are you backtracking on that statement now?
Lastly, these comments about deduction are not about the process. It is about proof.
When we check your answer: Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow, we see that we've broken a rule (PA applies to hit point damage). Therefore, when we go back and examine how you arrived at that conclusion we see that there must have been a fault in your method.
If the target loses hit points, I would agree that the target took hit point damage. I just disagree that this has any impact on the effect. I am using this rule to determine what the effect deals:
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.
I understand that you want to do some type of "calculation based" determination of what the effect does, but this is not supported by the rules, afaik.
Please provide your citation that supports your claim about this new way of how Power Attack works. If you are unable to, then we cannot move forward. I cannot help you reconcile your logically inconsistent homebrew rules on this topic.
My answer is:
Power Attack would apply to "nonlethal overflow" IF the weapon was dealing "nonlethal overflow."
Here is an example of what I think such a rule would look like if it existed:
You can use a melee weapon that deals nonlethal damage to deal "nonlethal damage in excess of a character's HP" instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
If this were a rule, I would say that it would benefit from Power Attack, as I would treat it as lethal damage.
However, I do not think this rule exists, and even if it did, my position is still logically consistent.
Here is an ability that works the way you think Power Attack should work:
An ally who also has this feat can deal damage to you in order to break an ongoing mind-affecting effect that allows a saving throw. The ally must cause at least 5 points of damage to you with an attack, spell, or other ability. You then reroll your saving throw, with a +1 bonus for every 5 additional points of damage the attack caused. If your save is successful, the mind-affecting effect ends. Only damage actually dealt counts for purposes of this feat; nonlethal damage and damage reduced or eliminated by damage reduction, resistances, and so on does not qualify.
So, if we ignored the nonlethal damage aspect of this, it would work the way you think Power Attack ought to work. As you can see, the language is drastically different.
The reason you're having trouble is because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what Irontruth is doing. Yes, it is true that it would cause lots of silly untended consequences if the ability of power attack to work depended on actually doing damage to the target. It would invalidate the ability use PA if the target has DR - unless the damage roll was high enough to overcome the DR - and plenty of other really stupid problems. BUT THAT'S HIS POINT.
What all of this means is - if a non-lethal attack was capable of doing lethal damage via spillover IT WAS COUNTING ITS DAMAGE DEALT IN HIT POINTS ALL ALONG. And therefore, power attack would be valid to use with a non-lethal attack.
The reason you're having trouble is because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what Mallecks is doing. Yes, it is true that it would cause lots of silly unintended consequences if the ability of power attack to work depended on actually doing damage to the target. It would invalidate the ability to use PA if the target has DR - unless the damage roll was high enough to overcome the DR - and plenty of other really stupid problems. BUT THAT'S HIT POINT.
What all of this means is - if a lethal attack was not capable of doing lethal damage via Damage Reduction IT NEVER COUNTED ITS DAMAGE DEALT AS HIT POINT DAMAGE. And therefore, power attack would be invalid to use with a lethal attack.
Hopefully, that makes sense. The argument he is using to "invalidate my position" (besides having no basis in rules or even being logically valid) also invalidates his own position. And I suspect that if we allow each other to come up with silly and zany homebrew interpretations of rules, we would be able to "disprove" any position.
I'm willing to discuss anything in the rules. Show me a rule about the process and we can talk about it.
Also, you're changing your story now. You just agreed earlier that if a target loses hit points, that the target took hit point damage. Are you backtracking on that statement now?
Lastly, these comments about deduction are not about the process. It is about proof.
When we check your answer: Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow, we see that we've broken a rule (PA applies to hit point damage). Therefore, when we go back and examine how you arrived at that conclusion we see that there must have been a fault in your method.
If the target loses hit points, I would agree that the target took hit point damage. I just disagree that this has any impact on the effect. I am using this rule to determine what the effect deals:
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.I understand that you want to do some type of "calculation based" determination of what the effect does, but this is not supported by the rules, afaik.
Please provide your citation that supports your claim about this new way of how Power Attack works. If you are unable to, then we cannot move forward. I cannot help you reconcile your logically inconsistent homebrew rules on this topic.
My answer is:
Power Attack would apply to "nonlethal overflow" IF the weapon was dealing "nonlethal overflow."
Here is an example of what I think such a rule would look like if it existed:
You can use a melee weapon that deals nonlethal damage to deal "nonlethal damage in excess of a character's HP" instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
If this were a rule, I would say that it would benefit from Power Attack, as I would treat it as lethal damage.
However, I do not think this rule exists, and even if it did,...
You are claiming that "nonlethal overflow" is a completely separate type of damage from nonlethal damage?
Because that is bullshit and patently not in the rules. It would be yet another invention on your part of something that doesn't exist.
To be clear, there are rules for what happens with nonlethal damage when it exceeds the targets capacity for nonlethal damage, but that damage does not have a separate type.
Healing heals hit points.
Nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but the tally of nonlethal damage you've taken... is not lost hit points. It is a tally of nonlethal damage you've taken.
So nonlethal is hit point damage unless you're targeted by something that heals hit point damage? Do you not see the problem with this?
In addition, there is no reverse nonlethal healing overflow rule. Once your hit points are full, all excess healing disappears. It doesn't overflow into nonlethal. Nonlethal damage specifically has an overflow rule. Note that lethal damage doesn't overflow into nonlethal, and healing specifically calls out that you don't heal past your maximum.
Are you simply saying this because you're trying to be clear about something? No one has indicated that there's overflow when it comes to healing.
No one.Just because you are at your maximum doesn't mean you don't receive the healing though. If you are at full HP, and receive 5 hp of healing, you still received 5 hp of healing. It has no effect on your HP total, but the nonlethal healing rule kicks in and says "Oh, you received HP healing, we will also heal your nonlethal damage."
At the same time though, excess nonlethal healing does not overflow into healing hit points. Ie, if you have 10 points of damage, and 0 nonlethal damage, and get healed for 5 hp, you only receive 5 hp of healing and not 10. Because nonlethal healing does not have a mechanism for overflow.
Back to healing curing lethal hit point damage. Great, okay... What indicates that healing cures lethal hit points instead of just general hit point damage?
And then right back into clarifying something doesn't happen that no one has indicated would happen...Seriously, what has anyone said to make you think that they belive in overflow healing?
Healing heals hit points.
Nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but the tally of nonlethal damage you've taken... is not lost hit points. It is a tally of nonlethal damage you've taken.
So nonlethal is hit point damage unless you're targeted by something that heals hit point damage? Do you not see the problem with this?
In addition, there is no reverse nonlethal healing overflow rule. Once your hit points are full, all excess healing disappears. It doesn't overflow into nonlethal. Nonlethal damage specifically has an overflow rule. Note that lethal damage doesn't overflow into nonlethal, and healing specifically calls out that you don't heal past your maximum.Are you simply saying this because you're trying to be clear about something? No one has indicated that there's overflow when it comes to healing.
No one.Just because you are at your maximum doesn't mean you don't receive the healing though. If you are at full HP, and receive 5 hp of healing, you still received 5 hp of healing. It has no effect on your HP total, but the nonlethal healing rule kicks in and says "Oh, you received HP healing, we will also heal your nonlethal damage."
At the same time though, excess nonlethal healing does not overflow into healing hit points. Ie, if you have 10 points of damage, and 0 nonlethal damage, and get healed for 5 hp, you only receive 5 hp of healing and not 10. Because nonlethal healing does not have a mechanism for overflow.
Back to healing curing lethal hit point damage. Great, okay... What indicates that healing cures lethal hit points instead of just general hit point damage?
And then right back into clarifying something doesn't happen that no one has indicated would happen...
Seriously, what has anyone said to make you think that they belive in overflow healing?
You have 10 HP max. You've take no damage (lethal or nonlethal). You take 3 points of nonlethal.
How many hit points are you down?
I'm going basic, because there seems to be some confusion (and you're dismissive of my attempts to clear it up so far).
If we consider hit point damage to be a category and thus lethal to be the 'normal' I haven't found a situation where much confusion would arise.
When something is doing hit point damage it can't do a category it has to do a specific type so we know that it has to be one or the other (as far as i know we don't have more than 2 types) since we have a specific feat that allows us to do non-lethal with spells we know it can't be nonlethal or a choice so it must be normal. Much like how when something says it deals damage without a qualifier we know it means lethal hit point damage and not str or dex damage.
When something is checking to see if hit point damage is being done or has been done then there is no reason to assume that any thing under the category wouldn't count.
If you find any examples that would fail under this reading please provide them.
Butt_luckily and I seem to be on the same page on what we think the issue is. We are OK with the existence of a default assumption, we just want to a way for someone to determine whether or not one would use the default assumption.
In an effort to make this more succinct, would you agree:
The default assumption only applies when the term is being applied in some way (heals/deals for example, not sure if this is the only way) and if it isn't "doing" anything, then don't use the default assumption.
This will cause nonlethal to work with Power attack, but resolve what happens when something "deals hit point damage."
The nonlethal healing is still doubled, but you are OK with that. (Honestly, I didn't think it was going to be as big of an issue as it was.)
If we are OK with all that, I do not suspect I will find anything that will cause major issues, but I will spend a little time looking into it. But, I suspect this will be logically consistent.
Warped Savant,
The way the healing rules are written, it doesn't appear that CLW interacts with nonlethal damage directly. Irontruth and I agree on this, more or less.
When CLW wounds "heals someone," it is recovering their hit points. Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce hit points, therefore, CLW doesn't cause nonlethal damage to be recovered directly. (And of course, the nonlethal healing rule will modify the CLW spell to remove an equal amount of nonlethal)
The only spells that would "double dip," that is to say that they would "heal X nonlethal" and "remove X nonlethal" are spells/abilities that strictly heal nonlethal damage, such as Calming Touch.
You are claiming that "nonlethal overflow" is a completely separate type of damage from nonlethal damage?
Because that is b+#!$+#% and patently not in the rules. It would be yet another invention on your part of something that doesn't exist.
To be clear, there are rules for what happens with nonlethal damage when it exceeds the targets capacity for nonlethal damage, but that damage does not have a separate type.
1. I would claim that "nonlethal overflow" is lethal damage. However, I know that you and I disagree on what "treated as" means.
2. Well, if you believe that "lethal damage" and "nonlethal damage" are different types of damage, then yeah, I would say that you do believe "nonlethal overflow" is a separate type than "nonlethal damage."
In any case, you have avoided the question.
Please provide the specific citation you are using to determine what the effect of an attack deals.
The homebrew "calculation" method is not logically valid for any position being discussed and is not backed by the rules, afaik.
I'm using the nonlethal damage rules.
It clearly states the conditions under which nonlethal damage causes a loss of hit points. The effect of the attack is the damage. That damage causes hit point loss, therefore it satisfies any definition anyone has ever given for hit point damage.
Your distinction of the damage changing types is irrelevant. The damage is the result of the attack. It didn't come from some other source. Since it causes loss of hit points, it satisfies your criteria of being hit point damage. I'm literally using YOUR definition to arrive at this conclusion.
If the damage changes to lethal damage, it still satisfies the requirements for Power Attack.
If it doesn't change types, it is still causing a loss of hit points, which is your definition of hit point damage, which all hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
If there's a rule that says "don't modify a roll after this point", I'd love to read it. Have you found it yet?
I'm using the nonlethal damage rules.
It clearly states the conditions under which nonlethal damage causes a loss of hit points. The effect of the attack is the damage. That damage causes hit point loss, therefore it satisfies any definition anyone has ever given for hit point damage.
I am unaware of nonlethal rules that determine what the effect of an attack deals.
Please provide the rule you are using.
Your distinction of the damage changing types is irrelevant. The damage is the result of the attack. It didn't come from some other source. Since it causes loss of hit points, it satisfies your criteria of being hit point damage. I'm literally using YOUR definition to arrive at this conclusion.
If the damage changes to lethal damage, it still satisfies the requirements for Power Attack.
If it doesn't change types, it is still causing a loss of hit points, which is your definition of hit point damage, which all hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
If there's a rule that says "don't modify a roll after this point", I'd love to read it. Have you found it yet?
Please provide the citation to back up your claim that the "damage is the result of the attack."
Outside of your home-brew calculation based determination of what damage an effect deals, I am not familiar with the how the result of the attack is factored in.
You have 10 HP max. You've take no damage (lethal or nonlethal). You take 3 points of nonlethal.
How many hit points are you down?
I'm going basic, because there seems to be some confusion (and you're dismissive of my attempts to clear it up so far).
You are down 0 hit points, you have 10 hit points remaining, and can take 7 until you're staggered, 8 until you're unconscious.
I have no idea when I was dismissive of you trying to clear something up but that was not my intention. You seemed to think that someone was saying that you can have an overflow of healing so I was trying to clarify what was making you say that.The way the healing rules are written, it doesn't appear that CLW interacts with nonlethal damage directly. Irontruth and I agree on this, more or less.
CLW et al. doesn't heal nonlethal, okay, good to know.
Back to healing curing lethal hit point damage. Great, okay... What indicates that healing cures lethal hit points instead of just general hit point damage?
The same rule that tells us that when I stab you with a dagger you take lethal hit point damage. That is, there isn't explicitly a rule, but there is a very strong implication when the rules talk about damage they don't mean strength damage, or wisdom damage, or damage to your movement, or even nonlethal damage. The rules in these instances mean lethal hit point damage in ALL cases where another type is not specified.
So when CLW says it cures 1d8+1/level of damage, it means it cures 1d8+1/level of lethal hit point damage, and not that amount in strength damage, nonlethal damage, or any other type of damage.
If it doesn't say what type of damage it is, then the default is always lethal HP damage.
When calming touch says it heals X amount of nonlethal damage, that is the type it heals, and the only type it heals.
|
As mentioned earlier, Non Lethal is Heal when Lethal HP are healed. (on a 1-1 basis)
The problem that is perceived is the circumstance when no Lethal Damage has been taken, or a spell heals only Non Lethal. Somehow, if GA's interpreted version of the Non Lethal RAW, if the target of a Healing effect has not taken Lethal damage, or is only healing Non Lethal, then if it counts as HP as presented by GA's disenters, then it heals again for the same amount as if the first healing effect was Lethal Damage. (the argued Double dip)
They know it does not work that way, but are being obtuse on purpose to try and keep on their point.
I'm using the nonlethal damage rules.
It clearly states the conditions under which nonlethal damage causes a loss of hit points. The effect of the attack is the damage. That damage causes hit point loss, therefore it satisfies any definition anyone has ever given for hit point damage.
Your distinction of the damage changing types is irrelevant. The damage is the result of the attack. It didn't come from some other source. Since it causes loss of hit points, it satisfies your criteria of being hit point damage. I'm literally using YOUR definition to arrive at this conclusion.
If the damage changes to lethal damage, it still satisfies the requirements for Power Attack.
If it doesn't change types, it is still causing a loss of hit points, which is your definition of hit point damage, which all hit point damage qualifies for Power Attack.
If there's a rule that says "don't modify a roll after this point", I'd love to read it. Have you found it yet?
You keep repeating that you're using what "we say", but you're only using pieces of it.
I don't know why you are avoiding the discussion of damage dealt vs damage taken so strongly.
The discussion can't move forward until then, as that is currently the major point of disagreement.
I've been asking for a page in the rule book I can look at where the difference between taken/dealt is explained. Have you found it?
You have 10 HP max. You've take no damage (lethal or nonlethal). You take 3 points of nonlethal.
How many hit points are you down?
I'm going basic, because there seems to be some confusion (and you're dismissive of my attempts to clear it up so far).
You are down 0 hit points, you have 10 hit points remaining, and can take 7 until you're staggered, 8 until you're unconscious.
I have no idea when I was dismissive of you trying to clear something up but that was not my intention. You seemed to think that someone was saying that you can have an overflow of healing so I was trying to clarify what was making you say that.The way the healing rules are written, it doesn't appear that CLW interacts with nonlethal damage directly. Irontruth and I agree on this, more or less.CLW et al. doesn't heal nonlethal, okay, good to know.
I didn't say you did claim those things. I was using them to tell you why it works a certain way. What would you like me to do? Explain it the same way again (which you didn't seem to like) or try this second, step by step method? I'll do whichever you prefer.
This is the rules forum. How about we first agree what the rules say, then we can move onto how to interpret them.
If we can't agree what the text is saying, than there's no point in moving past the rules.
What are the criteria for determining whether Power Attack applies?
In the feat's text I see:
1: It needs to be a melee attack.
2: Can't be a touch attack.
3: Must include hit point damage as an effect.
And yet you and Mallecks tell me that nonlethal damage doesn't qualify, even though it meets all of those requirements.
I didn't say you did claim those things. I was using them to tell you why it works a certain way. What would you like me to do? Explain it the same way again (which you didn't seem to like) or try this second, step by step method? I'll do whichever you prefer.
I'm a simple, little guppy. Please explain it to me. Your 'no overflow of healing' doesn't make sense to me because my interpretation has nothing to do with overflow; it has to do with healing hit point damage (lethal and nonlethal).
Honestly, I believe that the Community Cleric domain shouldn't heal nonlethal twice, but I'm having a hard time understanding why, according the the rules, it doesn't. It's healing hit point damage so shouldn't it also remove an equal amount of nonlethal?When I asked a few pages ago if CLW et al. healed lethal damage I was told by you (and I believe others) that no, it in fact heals hit point damage. (If it healed lethal damage then there would be no double-dipping with CLW. You, and others, have a reason CLW doesn't heal nonlethal but removes it as per the nonlethal healing.... wait..... the nonlethal healing rules are what stops CLW from healing nonlethal and also removing nonlethal! Right?)
So, since the nonlethal healing rules say that when you cure hit point damage you also remove nonlethal. When a spell/ability specifically heals nonlethal (which is hit point damage) what, in the rulebook, tells us that you don't remove the same amount?
What are the criteria for determining whether Power Attack applies?
In the feat's text I see:
1: It needs to be a melee attack.
2: Can't be a touch attack.
3: Must include hit point damage as an effect.And yet you and Mallecks tell me that nonlethal damage doesn't qualify, even though it meets all of those requirements.
Well this is embarrassing, I thought this whole time that we were using the same text. Your 3 is a little different, at least.
Here's the one Mallecks and I are using.
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
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.
Are we okay to agree that the above text is correct? If not, you could provide whatever version you have, and we can see if we agree that it is sufficient to move forward with.
Yes. That is the text. I'm sorry, I assumed you had some form of long term memory and had seen it once before. I forgot that you're a goldfish.
Using that text, highlight the portion that excludes nonlethal damage.
I didn't say you did claim those things. I was using them to tell you why it works a certain way. What would you like me to do? Explain it the same way again (which you didn't seem to like) or try this second, step by step method? I'll do whichever you prefer.
I'm a simple, little guppy. Please explain it to me. Your 'no overflow of healing' doesn't make sense to me because my interpretation has nothing to do with overflow; it has to do with healing hit point damage (lethal and nonlethal).
Honestly, I believe that the Community Cleric domain shouldn't heal nonlethal twice, but I'm having a hard time understanding why, according the the rules, it doesn't. It's healing hit point damage so shouldn't it also remove an equal amount of nonlethal?
When I asked a few pages ago if CLW et al. healed lethal damage I was told by you (and I believe others) that no, it in fact heals hit point damage. (If it healed lethal damage then there would be no double-dipping with CLW. You, and others, have a reason CLW doesn't heal nonlethal but removes it as per the nonlethal healing.... wait..... the nonlethal healing rules are what stops CLW from healing nonlethal and also removing nonlethal! Right?)So, since the nonlethal healing rules say that when you cure hit point damage you also remove nonlethal. When a spell/ability specifically heals nonlethal (which is hit point damage) what, in the rulebook, tells us that you don't remove the same amount?
Nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but it must meet certain requirements in order to actually damage hit points.
The tally of nonlethal damage you've absorbed is not lost hit points. It's just a tally of nonlethal damage. When you heal nonlethal, you aren't healing hit points, because the hit point tally is separate.
The two tallies are separate, and only interact in specific ways that are outlined in the rules. They do not exchange freely in all directions at all times.
I use the overflow rules as an example. It is specifically called out as one way in which the damage from one spills over into the other.
Healing is similar, but uses it's own spill over method, and this method is completely different from the overflow rule.
When you heal nonlethal, you are not affecting your current hit point value. When you cast CLW, you are affecting your current hit point value. CLW doesn't target nonlethal damage though, it targets your HP value. It just also has a spillover effect.
You are at max HP, but have 3 points of nonlethal damage. You get healed for 5 hp. You are already at max, so nothing happens to your hit points. Then, we look at the nonlethal healing rule, and see that since you received 5 points of healing, you also remove 5 points of nonlethal, but you only have 3 to remove, so we stop at 0.
The two interactions are linked, but not the same thing.
Nonlethal damage is hit point damage, but it must meet certain requirements in order to actually damage hit points.
The tally of nonlethal damage you've absorbed is not lost hit points. It's just a tally of nonlethal damage. When you heal nonlethal, you aren't healing hit points, because the hit point tally is separate.
The two tallies are separate, and only interact in specific ways that are outlined in the rules. They do not exchange freely in all directions at all times.
I use the overflow rules as an example. It is specifically called out as one way in which the damage from one spills over into the other.
Healing is similar, but uses it's own spill over method, and this method is completely different from the overflow rule.
When you heal nonlethal, you are not affecting your current hit point value. When you cast CLW, you are affecting your current hit point value. CLW doesn't target nonlethal damage though, it targets your HP value. It just also has a spillover effect.
You are at max HP, but have 3 points of nonlethal damage. You get healed for 5 hp. You are already at max, so nothing happens to your hit points. Then, we look at the nonlethal healing rule, and see that since you received 5 points of healing, you also remove 5 points of nonlethal, but you only have 3 to remove, so we stop at 0.
The two interactions are linked, but not the same thing.
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it so well.
Now, when it comes to the Community domain, is there a similar justification for why you heal the nonlethal hit point damage but don't remove the same amount?Is it because Community calls out that it's specifically healing nonlethal damage therefore it wouldn't count as healing hit point damage? (But that kind of starts to fall into the 'assuming a default' grey area.)
I could be wrong, but I don't think it heals double. The explanation being that curing nonlethal doesn't affect hit points. The "nonlethal equal amount" comes from a restoration of hit points, which would avoid a double dipping effect.
Again though, from a GM perspective I would just let it heal double. Nonlethal damage is pretty rare overall (especially dealt to players) that I would let the ability have it's moment in the sun as it were.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it heals double. The explanation being that curing nonlethal doesn't affect hit points. The "nonlethal equal amount" comes from a restoration of hit points, which would avoid a double dipping effect.
Again though, from a GM perspective I would just let it heal double. Nonlethal damage is pretty rare overall (especially dealt to players) that I would let the ability have it's moment in the sun as it were.
Fair enough. I think this makes it so that there isn't a known issue with nonlethal being a form of hit point damage.
So, I think the only thing that's really an issue at this point is Mallecks thought that damage dealt doesn't equal damage taken. The theory is shown to be correct based off of the spell Fractions of Heal and Harm.
Do you have something that shows that "damage dealt" is the same/interchangeable with "damage taken"? (Or does Fractions not count because of the book it's in? It would be better if we could point at something showing that at least sometimes they're interchangeable.)
I don't think people in the 'nonlethal is hit point damage' group have been able to point at something that would indicate they're the same thing. If we can do that it would give weight to your argument and that a nonlethal power attack counts as a lethal attack when the nonlethal rolls over. Otherwise the other side will keep pointing out that damage dealt isn't the same as damage taken.
I have a better question outside of this argument over nonlethal does it matter if there is a difference or is it only applicable when trying to prove/disprove this one thing?
I have a better question outside of this argument over nonlethal does it matter if there is a difference or is it only applicable when trying to prove/disprove this one thing?
Depending on what you mean when you say "it".
If "it" = nonlethal being/not being hit point damage then yes, other things will be impacted as well. There are spells and abilities that prevent hit point damage. If nonlethal isn't hit point damage then those spells/abilities don't stop the damage. (If nonlethal is hit point damage I don't think it affects anything other than [possibly] the clerics Community Domain.)
If "it" = damage dealt being the same as damage taken, it affects things like Fractions of Heal and Harm, possibly Evasion (as I said, I'm a guppy, I don't remember how the Evasion discussion turned out a few pages ago when it came to damage dealt... I think there was something about what happens when you make a reflex save versus the wording of when Evasion lessens your damage), and probably some other things that haven't come up yet.
Mallecks' argument for nonlethal not being able to be used with power attack is highly impacted if it can be shown that damage dealt is the same thing as damage taken. Dealing nonlethal counting only as nonlethal even when it rolls over into lethal damage being taken is, I think, the main (only?) problem that Irontruth has with Mallecks' stance regarding nonlethal not being hit point damage.
No I mean is there an actual rules situation that the impact of how a spell or ability works besides power attack with a non-lethal attack pushing non-lethal damage over the threshold to lethal.
Fractions of heal and harm is not in the least effected based on deals vs dealt it spells out in its rules how it works precisely.
Personally, I think Enforcer is a great example.
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 we apply the same logic to Enforcer that Irontruth is using, then if someone had nonlethal damage = HP, someone using enforcer would not get Intimidate checks, as the attacks did not deal nonlethal damage.
According to the rules, you still would, as the type of attack determines the damage you deal, it doesn't matter what happens to the target.
The reason why enforcer is a great example, is because of the use of "Damage dealt" in the feat. Does damage dealt refer to damage dealt by the attack or damage dealt to the target? The language is a little unclear here, and I can understand there being a discrepancy.
Here's another one I used where I think we will find disagreement.
Whenever you deal a prone opponent at least 10 points of damage with a natural weapon or unarmed strike, you can savage your foe as a swift action. Your victim becomes disfigured unless it succeeds at a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier). The effects of this disfigurement are identical to those of a bestow curse spell (caster level equal to your character level).
If I roll 10 damage, and the target has DR 1/-, do I still get the Savage? RAW would be yes.