Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?


Rules Questions

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,405 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>

Butt_Luckily wrote:
thaX wrote:
Just as you still use Power Attack when Lethal Damage does not reduce HP (because of Temperary HP or DR), you will still use Power Attack with Nonlethal Damage, no matter when or if it reduces "real" HP. This has been Irontruth's point here, not that it matters on a particular instant.

Irontruth's point is that, under our definition of hit point damage and his interpretation of nonlethal overflow, the overflow damage should count as hit point damage and qualify for power attack.

I'm just applying the definition of hit point damage you gave me and seeing how it applies to other rules. You tell me that we can ignore them, but there doesn't seem to be a justification for this ignoring. The "overflow" rule isn't a separate rule, it is an inherent part of how all nonlethal damage works.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Butt_Luckily wrote:


thaX wrote:
Look, it isn't hard. Both of these are forms of Damage, and the damage dealt is not Ability damage or the like, it is regular Damage. One subtracts from HP while the other measures itself against the other's current status. Both are a form of HP damage, and in extreme cases, Nonlethal turns into Lethal.
Except that, in our view, "one subtracts from HP" is literally the definition of hit point damage. So the one that only measures itself against the other isn't. Because we are currently discussing only our interpretation, there is an assumption of agreement on our definition of hit point damage.
So, the question remains, if Nonlethal damage is not HP damage, then what is it? Bacon?
Butt_Luckily wrote:

thaX wrote:
The character hits with an attack after factoring in Power Attack, and deals out the damage that includes Power Attack when he hits. This is with Lethal and Nonlethal. Nothing excludes either option in that feat. GA has you thinking that Nonlethal is this mythical bacon pool that is divorced from HP completely, or is somehow damage but not HP damage, or is a tomato? Maybe?
Nonlethal damage is nonlethal damage, and is measured in hit points.

And? Where is it said that it is not HP yet is measured by HP while being Bacon instead of HP while being measured in HP yet is somehow not HP damage and is a tomato instead as it is measured in HP but not actually HP but is snowflake special somehow that is measured in HP yet not really HP....

Butt_Luckily wrote:
thaX wrote:
It is a conclusion that is the result of this interpretation
Not really, because DR doesn't mention hit point damage as far as I am aware. Because that is the only difference being introduced, I don't see why any rule that doesn't mention hit point damage would change at all.
It doesn't? What? Damage Reduction (DR) reduces the amount of damage of Hit Points (HP) by the listed amount, how is that not measured in HP? Here is the entry from the CRB.
CRB page 12 wrote:

Damage Reduction (DR): Creatures that are resistant

to harm typically have damage reduction. This amount is
subtracted from any damage dealt to them from a physical
source.

Where in that entry does it include Nonlethal? If you maintain that Nonlethal is not HP damage, why would it include being Damage at all? The Appendix 1 entry is more detailed, and mentions a normal attack. Do you maintain that Nonlethal is not considered a normal attack, as it isn't HP damage, or does DR work as intended with both types of (HP) damage?


Butt_Luckily wrote:

I have read the whole entry. How would you describe an "exceptionally deadly" nonlethal attack?

In any case, we understand you believe something different. The current discussion is whether or not there is an internal consistency problem with our interpretation.

You are aware that there are Rogues focused on only dealing nonlethal damage, right? As in, dealing so much nonlethal damage with one hit that their foes outright die. That's a clear example of an "exceptionally deadly" nonlethal attack.

While I agree that an exceptionally deadly nonlethal attack is hard to imagine, the whole concept of nonlethal damage is hard to imagine.

In what way could a 7 ft tall Goliath deal nonlethal damage when bringing down his Earthbreaker? What can he aim for when he brings down certain death upon you, to avoid creating human paste?


Irontruth wrote:
I'm just applying the definition of hit point damage you gave me and seeing how it applies to other rules. You tell me that we can ignore them, but there doesn't seem to be a justification for this ignoring. The "overflow" rule isn't a separate rule, it is an inherent part of how all nonlethal damage works.

I don't believe I misrepresented this.

Anyway, the justification is that it doesn't apply to the scenario. Similar to how a character without power attack can't use power attack.

The overflow rule is certainly a separate rule. Its not in the section "Dealing nonlethal damage" but, in your opinion, is a deviation in how one deals nonlethal damage. This makes it a specific rule that applies in certain scenarios, and that scenario never occurs in the power attack determination.

I do find it interesting that you hold us to different standard for power attack than you yourself use. You repeatedly point out the concern over a target losing hit points from an attack that doesn't deal hit point damage, but consistently dodge the point of an attack that deals hit point damage not causing a loss of hit points.

Why should one be an issue and not the other? Either power attack cares about whether or not the target loses hit points or it doesn't.

willuwontu wrote:
So non-lethal damages hit points is your interpretation?

Only that nonlethal damage is not considered hit point damage. If the rule doesn't mention hit point damage, then I don't see why anything about it should change.

thaX wrote:
So, the question remains, if Nonlethal damage is not HP damage, then what is it? Bacon?

Nonlethal damage is nonlethal damage, and it is measured in hit points.

thaX wrote:
And? Where is it said that it is not HP yet is measured by HP while being Bacon instead of HP ....

I don't really understand what you are going for here. Try to be more specific. We know that is it not hit point damage because it doesn't reduce hit points, and that it is measured in hit points at least from the healing rules.

thaX wrote:

It doesn't? What? Damage Reduction (DR) reduces the amount of damage of Hit Points (HP) by the listed amount, how is that not measured in HP? Here is the entry from the CRB.

...
Where in that entry does it include Nonlethal? If you maintain that Nonlethal is not HP damage, why would it include being Damage at all? The Appendix 1 entry is more detailed, and mentions a normal attack. Do you maintain that Nonlethal is not considered a normal attack, as it isn't HP damage, or does DR work as intended with both types of (HP) damage?

Nonlethal damage is damage because it is rolled on a damage roll and is named X damage. DR reduces damage from weapon rolls. If nonlethal is dealt by a weapon, it is applicable for damage reduction.

wonderstell wrote:

You are aware that there are Rogues focused on only dealing nonlethal damage, right? As in, dealing so much nonlethal damage with one hit that their foes outright die. That's a clear example of an "exceptionally deadly" nonlethal attack.

While I agree that an exceptionally deadly nonlethal attack is hard to imagine, the whole concept of nonlethal damage is hard to imagine.

In what way could a 7 ft tall Goliath deal nonlethal damage when bringing down his Earthbreaker? What can he aim for when he brings down certain death upon you, to avoid creating human paste?

I agree, non lethal is hard to imagine, and is ill-defined. So, in my opinion, dealing nonlethal damage changes the way the weapon is used. Because of this, it may be possible to have the result of a nonlethal attack be exceptionally deadly, but not possible to actually deliver it in an exceptionally deadly way. What makes the result deadly is all about the target, and I don't really consider the target part of the equation. If I brush aside a bug with my hand and kill it, was my attack exceptionally deadly? I would say no.

"Lethal" and "deadly" are direct synonyms, so it would be the same as saying the attack is an exceptionally lethal nonlethal attack. In general, I don't think something can be A and not A simultaneously.

Edit: sorry for edit, accidentally posted midway through.


willuwontu wrote:
So non-lethal damages hit points is your interpretation?

Nonlethal doesn't damage hit point in any interpretation presented. Do you believe that nonlethal damage damages hit points?

I'm going to need a full explanation of whatever it is you are trying to claim about damage reduction, because it seems to impact both sides equally. Maybe it needs a new topic?

Irontruth wrote:
I'm just applying the definition of hit point damage you gave me and seeing how it applies to other rules. You tell me that we can ignore them, but there doesn't seem to be a justification for this ignoring. The "overflow" rule isn't a separate rule, it is an inherent part of how all nonlethal damage works.

Do you feel that the Power Attack rule ignores the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule or that the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule is irrelevant for Power Attack? The Healing Nonlethal Damage rule is an inherent part of how nonlethal damage works.

To be clear, since you said an irrelevant rule and an ignored rule are the same, we better make sure we are on the same page.

If you ignore a rule, you never check it. You just treat it like it doesn't exist.
If a rule is irrelevant, it means the rule was checked and doesn't apply to the situation.

And again... for this rule to actually be relevant, it requires your homebrew rule on determining the type of damage an attack deals AND an interpretation of "rolling" that makes it possible to modify a roll after it happens.


Butt_Luckily wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm just applying the definition of hit point damage you gave me and seeing how it applies to other rules. You tell me that we can ignore them, but there doesn't seem to be a justification for this ignoring. The "overflow" rule isn't a separate rule, it is an inherent part of how all nonlethal damage works.

I don't believe I misrepresented this.

Anyway, the justification is that it doesn't apply to the scenario. Similar to how a character without power attack can't use power attack.

The overflow rule is certainly a separate rule. Its not in the section "Dealing nonlethal damage" but, in your opinion, is a deviation in how one deals nonlethal damage. This makes it a specific rule that applies in certain scenarios, and that scenario never occurs in the power attack determination.

I do find it interesting that you hold us to different standard for power attack than you yourself use. You repeatedly point out the concern over a target losing hit points from an attack that doesn't deal hit point damage, but consistently dodge the point of an attack that deals hit point damage not causing a loss of hit points.

Why should one be an issue and not the other? Either power attack cares about whether or not the target loses hit points or it doesn't.

If I didn't already know that you didn't understand the rules, this would definitely confirm it.

You're "I find it interesting" shows a basic lack of understanding of the things I've been saying. At this point it doesn't seem worth my time to try to clarify, but suffice to say that you're not understanding the difference between your position and my position, or my criticism of your position.


Mallecks wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So non-lethal damages hit points is your interpretation?

Nonlethal doesn't damage hit point in any interpretation presented. Do you believe that nonlethal damage damages hit points?

I'm going to need a full explanation of whatever it is you are trying to claim about damage reduction, because it seems to impact both sides equally. Maybe it needs a new topic?

Irontruth wrote:
I'm just applying the definition of hit point damage you gave me and seeing how it applies to other rules. You tell me that we can ignore them, but there doesn't seem to be a justification for this ignoring. The "overflow" rule isn't a separate rule, it is an inherent part of how all nonlethal damage works.

Do you feel that the Power Attack rule ignores the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule or that the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule is irrelevant for Power Attack? The Healing Nonlethal Damage rule is an inherent part of how nonlethal damage works.

To be clear, since you said an irrelevant rule and an ignored rule are the same, we better make sure we are on the same page.

If you ignore a rule, you never check it. You just treat it like it doesn't exist.
If a rule is irrelevant, it means the rule was checked and doesn't apply to the situation.

And again... for this rule to actually be relevant, it requires your homebrew rule on determining the type of damage an attack deals AND an interpretation of "rolling" that makes it possible to modify a roll after it happens.

Actually, I'm following the healing rules perfectly while applying Power Attack and I apply the healing rule fully.


Irontruth wrote:
Actually, I'm following the healing rules perfectly while applying Power Attack and I apply the healing rule fully.

I'm sorry, you are talking about following the rules.

I'm trying to figure out if the healing rule is ignored or if it isn't relevant to Power Attack.

Are you saying the nonlethal healing rule is relevant when using Power Attack?


Irontruth wrote:

If I didn't already know that you didn't understand the rules, this would definitely confirm it.

You're "I find it interesting" shows a basic lack of understanding of the things I've been saying. At this point it doesn't seem worth my time to try to clarify, but suffice to say that you're not understanding the difference between your position and my position, or my criticism of your position.

The reason why I don't understand your version of power attack not using the same justification of nonlethal overflow counting and damage reduction not counting for retroactive changes is because you've never provided an explanation for why that would be the case.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
B lucky wrote:
thaX wrote:

wrote:

And? Where is it said that it is not HP yet is measured by HP while being Bacon instead of HP while being measured in HP yet is somehow not HP damage and is a tomato instead as it is measured in HP but not actually HP but is snowflake special somehow that is measured in HP yet not really HP....

I don't really understand what you are going for here. Try to be more specific. We know that is it not hit point damage because it doesn't reduce hit points, and that it is measured in hit points at least from the healing rules.

The paragam you presented is a circle and doesn't explain what Nonlethal damage is, but that it is somehow connected to HP. You maintain, however, that it isn't HP damage while being measured as such. That the Healing rules pushed your understanding to this point is amazing and a very good first step in understanding how Nonlethal (HP) damage works.

B lucky wrote:

I agree, non lethal is hard to imagine, and is ill-defined. So, in my opinion, dealing nonlethal damage changes the way the weapon is used. Because of this, it may be possible to have the result of a nonlethal attack be exceptionally deadly, but not possible to actually deliver it in an exceptionally deadly way. What makes the result deadly is all about the target, and I don't really consider the target part of the equation. If I brush aside a bug with my hand and kill it, was my attack exceptionally deadly? I would say no.

"Lethal" and "deadly" are direct synonyms, so it would be the same as saying the attack is an exceptionally lethal nonlethal attack. In general, I don't think something can be A and not A simultaneously.

So, in your stance and GA's understanding of the rules, can a Rogue use sneak attack with Nonlethal Damage, or is the rulebook wrong in the Sap entry?


thaX wrote:
The paragam you presented is a circle and doesn't explain what Nonlethal damage is, but that it is somehow connected to HP. You maintain, however, that it isn't HP damage while being measured as such. That the Healing rules pushed your understanding to this point is amazing and a very good first step in understanding how Nonlethal (HP) damage works.

You asked what nonlethal damage is, and the answer is nonlethal damage. It is its own kind of damage. The fact that it is measured in hit points is not enough to make it hit point damage in our interpretation. I understand your view and reasoning. But the current discussion is whether there is an internal consistency problem with our interpretation. This assumes an agreement on our definition of hit point damage.

If you'd like to return to and continue the original discussion of whether or not nonlethal is hit point damage , then we can try to press with it. I worry this will lead to confusion when posters may be responding to which discussions, but if you want...

Do you accept that hit point damage is not explicitly defined in the rules? If not, could your provide your explicit definition? If so, do you agree that what hit point damage is is open to interpretation?

thaX wrote:
So, in your stance and GA's understanding of the rules, can a Rogue use sneak attack with Nonlethal Damage, or is the rulebook wrong in the Sap entry?

I don't know why you mention GA, he has not posted in some time. I cannot speak for his understanding of the rules.

In any case, a rogue can use a weapon with the nonlethal quality to sneak attack with nonlethal damage. I am not sure what problem you see here. It would be better discourse if you were more direct with what you are trying to ask.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If Nonlethal is not HP, then the Rogue can not Sneak Attack with Nonlethal damage. That is, because of the belief that Nonlethal is not HP damage, but Bacon instead, then the Rogue can not use Sneak Attack while dealing Nonlethal damage. Even when using a sap, which specifically say that it can. Do you see the rules conflict here, or are you saying that is different than the Power Attack interaction?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Do you accept that hit point damage is not explicitly defined in the rules? If not, could your provide your explicit definition? If so, do you agree that what hit point damage is is open to interpretation?

I do not accept the flawed premise. I explained this in a previous post, here. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzm7&page=21?Is-nonlethal-damage-considere d-hit-point-damage#1029

I said this...

Quote:
It says it isn't "real" damage, but it doesn't say that it is not damage at all. Do you see the distinction? Your assessment says Nonlethal is nothing, that it is something akin to Bacon points.

...which was simply dismissed or ignored. Now you say that it is HP, but not HP, which makes no sense.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Actually, I'm following the healing rules perfectly while applying Power Attack and I apply the healing rule fully.

I'm sorry, you are talking about following the rules.

I'm trying to figure out if the healing rule is ignored or if it isn't relevant to Power Attack.

Are you saying the nonlethal healing rule is relevant when using Power Attack?

Everything about how I talk about doing things fully follows all the rules for nonlethal healing. I don't have to ignore them or call them irrelevant. I fully adhere to all of the rules for healing, both regular healing, and nonlethal healing.


thaX wrote:
Quote:
Do you accept that hit point damage is not explicitly defined in the rules? If not, could your provide your explicit definition? If so, do you agree that what hit point damage is is open to interpretation?

I do not accept the flawed premise. I explained this in a previous post, here. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzm7&page=21?Is-nonlethal-damage-considere d-hit-point-damage#1029

I said this...

Quote:
It says it isn't "real" damage, but it doesn't say that it is not damage at all. Do you see the distinction? Your assessment says Nonlethal is nothing, that it is something akin to Bacon points.
...which was simply dismissed or ignored. Now you say that it is HP, but not HP, which makes no sense.

The reason why it was ignored was because many of your posts are extremely difficult to understand or you are not engaging in the discussion.

For instance, you continually make the claim that we are saying that "nonlethal damage is nothing." This claim has never been made. In fact, in a recent post to you, I went on a limb to create two entirely new categories of damage to explain it.

There is "real" damage and not "real" damage. Both of these categories of damage are still damage. "real" damage contains ability damage and hit point damage (lethal damage). The not "real" damage contains Nonlethal damage.

In actuality, I would just say that Nonlethal Damage is its own type of damage.

In either case, Nonlethal Damage is a type of damage. It isn't nothing, it's damage.

The units the damage is measured in is hit points.

A long long time ago, I summarized both sides of this argument:

1. Nonlethal Damage is Damage that is measured in hit points. Therefore, it is hit point damage.
2. Nonlethal Damage doesn't damage hit points. Therefore, it is not hit point damage.

You seem to have an issue with #2. Please try to explain what you believe the issue is in a way that is suitable for discourse. I do not feel we can move forward if you unable or unwilling to engage in actual discussion.

Irontruth wrote:
Everything about how I talk about doing things fully follows all the rules for nonlethal healing. I don't have to ignore them or call them irrelevant. I fully adhere to all of the rules for healing, both regular healing, and nonlethal healing.

Ok, so, you are saying it is relevant. Please provide the text from Power Attack that is relevant for the Nonlethal Healing rule.


Sure, when you hit someone with a melee attack (and Power Attack) you deal damage. If you heal them for any hit points, you also heal an equal amount of nonlethal. For 99.999% of attacks, this will be 0 healing, and so 0 nonlethal.

How often will it come up? Rarely, if ever.
Do I IGNORE the rules? No.
Do I apply the rules, even if that application is usually automatic and has no noticeable effect? Yes.

Unless otherwise indicated (ie, the rules tell you) you follow all the rules.


Irontruth wrote:

Sure, when you hit someone with a melee attack (and Power Attack) you deal damage. If you heal them for any hit points, you also heal an equal amount of nonlethal. For 99.999% of attacks, this will be 0 healing, and so 0 nonlethal.

How often will it come up? Rarely, if ever.
Do I IGNORE the rules? No.
Do I apply the rules, even if that application is usually automatic and has no noticeable effect? Yes.

Unless otherwise indicated (ie, the rules tell you) you follow all the rules.

The example you have provided introduces an ability or effect that is relevant to the nonlethal healing rule, but doesn't demonstrate that it is relevant for Power Attack.

Please provide the Power Attack text that is relevant for the Nonlethal Healing Rule.


Oh, you want the reverse?

Well, when I cast Cure Light Wounds, if it isn't an attack, then Power Attack isn't eligible to add it's bonus. Then I heal an equal amount of nonlethal as the effect would heal hit points.

See, I check Power Attack, but I find that the action isn't a qualifying melee attack, so I don't get to apply the bonus damage.

Following all the rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nonlethal damage is something other than "Nonlethal" damage. It isn't something written down in a vacuum. To say that it just it's own damage is to say that it is nothing, and has no relation to HP. That simply is not the case.

So, I ask again. If Nonlethal damage is not HP damage, what is it?


Irontruth wrote:

Oh, you want the reverse?

Well, when I cast Cure Light Wounds, if it isn't an attack, then Power Attack isn't eligible to add it's bonus. Then I heal an equal amount of nonlethal as the effect would heal hit points.

See, I check Power Attack, but I find that the action isn't a qualifying melee attack, so I don't get to apply the bonus damage.

Following all the rules.

No, I just want to know which parts of Power Attack are relevant to the Nonlethal Healing Rule.

thaX wrote:


Nonlethal damage is something other than "Nonlethal" damage. It isn't something written down in a vacuum. To say that it just it's own damage is to say that it is nothing, and has no relation to HP. That simply is not the case.

So, I ask again. If Nonlethal damage is not HP damage, what is it?

Please provide a logical requirement or rule that disallows a type of damage from being only its own type of damage.

Alternatively, I can breakdown Damage into categories if you feel that it is required.

Damage is a set that contains "real" damage and not "real" damage.
"Real" damage is a set that contains hit point damage and ability damage.
Not "real" damage is a set that contains Nonlethal Damage.


Irontruth wrote:

How often will it come up? Rarely, if ever.

Do I IGNORE the rules? No.
Do I apply the rules, even if that application is usually automatic and has no noticeable effect? Yes.

Oh sure, if that's how you want to treat it. That's the same thing we do. The rule is always applied, to no effect.

thaX wrote:
If Nonlethal is not HP, then the Rogue can not Sneak Attack with Nonlethal damage. That is, because of the belief that Nonlethal is not HP damage, but Bacon instead, then the Rogue can not use Sneak Attack while dealing Nonlethal damage. Even when using a sap, which specifically say that it can. Do you see the rules conflict here, or are you saying that is different than the Power Attack interaction?

I do not see anything in the rogue sneak attack entry about hit point damage. Perhaps you should quote the actual rule you have concern with.

thaX wrote:
I do not accept the flawed premise.

I didn't even provide you a premise. I asked you a direct question with a follow-up.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Oh, you want the reverse?

Well, when I cast Cure Light Wounds, if it isn't an attack, then Power Attack isn't eligible to add it's bonus. Then I heal an equal amount of nonlethal as the effect would heal hit points.

See, I check Power Attack, but I find that the action isn't a qualifying melee attack, so I don't get to apply the bonus damage.

Following all the rules.

No, I just want to know which parts of Power Attack are relevant to the Nonlethal Healing Rule.

The part that is relevant is that Power Attack applies to attacks. So, if the healing isn't part of an attack, then Power Attack isn't activated.

See, you're trying to force an idea in your head into how you think the rules should work. This has always been your problem, and will continue to be your problem.


Butt_Luckily wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

How often will it come up? Rarely, if ever.

Do I IGNORE the rules? No.
Do I apply the rules, even if that application is usually automatic and has no noticeable effect? Yes.

Oh sure, if that's how you want to treat it. That's the same thing we do. The rule is always applied, to no effect.

No, you aren't applying the rules, because there isn't anything that prevents Power Attack from applying to hit point damage caused by a melee attack.


Irontruth wrote:

The part that is relevant is that Power Attack applies to attacks. So, if the healing isn't part of an attack, then Power Attack isn't activated.

See, you're trying to force an idea in your head into how you think the rules should work. This has always been your problem, and will continue to be your problem.

Are you still talking about CLW with Power Attack? You are still answering questions I'm not asking.

There are two possible options.

1. Power Attack has text that is relevant to the Nonlethal Healing rule.
2. Power Attack has text that is not relevant to the Nonlethal Healing rule.

If you are saying that 1 is true, all you have to do is provide the text from Power Attack.

Irontruth wrote:
No, you aren't applying the rules, because there isn't anything that prevents Power Attack from applying to hit point damage caused by a melee attack.

For this claim to be accurate, it would require your homebrew calculation based determination of what type of damage an attack deals AND able to modify rolls after they happen AND when you treat nonlethal as lethal damage, you still treat it as nonlethal.

If any one of those is not RAW, then your claim is inaccurate.

1 is a homebrew rule, so we can just stop here.
2 is an interpretation of rolling that allows rolls to be modified after they happen, which has many unintended consequences to the point of the game breaking.
3 is a vague portion of the rules and we can agree to disagree and make the assumption part of the overall position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a longer politer post, but I decided... naaah.

You're intentionally being dumb at this point. If you don't want to get it, I can't explain it to you. You're wrong. You've admitted as such weeks ago, but you've decided to dig in your heels and won't give up. So be it. Enjoy your being wrongness. It's all you have at this point.

Every time you post, I just find your argument to be more stupid than I did previously. Based on this trend, you're not going to convince me.


Irontruth wrote:

I had a longer politer post, but I decided... naaah.

You're intentionally being dumb at this point. If you don't want to get it, I can't explain it to you. You're wrong. You've admitted as such weeks ago, but you've decided to dig in your heels and won't give up. So be it. Enjoy your being wrongness. It's all you have at this point.

Every time you post, I just find your argument to be more stupid than I did previously. Based on this trend, you're not going to convince me.

So far I think I get it.

You are saying that if Creature attacks Target with nonlethal damage, that the target taking lethal damage from the attack changes the effect to be considered as dealing lethal damage. Dealing lethal damage means that the damage roll gets the Power Attack bonus.

This has 2 problems.

1. Determining Type of Damage

You determine what type of damage an attack deals based on what happens to the target. This is not in the RAW and I don't think its RAI or even makes sense. Nothing about the target should change how I swing my sap. I can swing my sap literally the same way every single time and it should be nonlethal damage every single time. It doesn't matter if the target takes nonlethal, lethal, or no damage.

In any case, this is a major issue because you aren't using one of the provided rules to determine what type of damage an attack deals.

2. Modifying the melee damage roll

The rules say that when you roll dice, you total up the results and the results are modified by +X or -X. If you want to say that this isn't restricted to the roll of the die, then how are you determining the restriction? We've already agreed there is no "timing" rule. So, if you are saying it can be modified after it happens, there is no "timing" rule to restrict a player from modifying a turn later (or more.)

However, even if your position on these two were RAW, then my position is STILL logically consistent because it would rightfully grant the Power Attack Bonus.

So, we agree in that with your homebrew rule + interpretation of rolling, it would absolutely be granted the Power Attack bonus. If we agree that in this situation, the Power Attack bonus is granted, does it matter what I think about the rules provided? You think it is RAW, I don't. Either way, with the given conditions, we agree the bonus is provided. Why aren't you accepting that we agree and moving on to the next point?

If you don't want to accept that we agree, then (whenever you feel up to it), please let me know which part of your position I don't fully understand or misrepresented, and we can clear up the confusion.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It isn't preventing it from being it's own type of damage, it never excluded it from being HP damage. Nonlethal is just a different type of HP damage, not a separate thing that counts as Bacon.

The thing your backtracking with in your conversation with Irontruth isn't the point of the discussion, the fact that Nonlethal Damage isn't excluded from being HP damage is the main point he is trying to get across. The fact that it eventually turns into "real" HP damage doesn't beget a wait and see if it does so, but that it is treated the same as Lethal damage for Power Attack when it comes to if and when you can use the Feat. Your timing invention and play be play is moot at this point, Nonlethal is HP damage, how the player denotes on the sheet is irrelevant.


Mallecks wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So non-lethal damages hit points is your interpretation?

Nonlethal doesn't damage hit point in any interpretation presented. Do you believe that nonlethal damage damages hit points?

I'm going to need a full explanation of whatever it is you are trying to claim about damage reduction, because it seems to impact both sides equally. Maybe it needs a new topic?

It doesn't need a new topic as it's relevant to this one.

If non lethal does not damage hit points, it doesn't damage anything, therefore damage reduction has nothing to reduce.

If non lethal is considered as hit point damage, it would be reduced by DR.


thaX wrote:

It isn't preventing it from being it's own type of damage, it never excluded it from being HP damage. Nonlethal is just a different type of HP damage, not a separate thing that counts as Bacon.

The thing your backtracking with in your conversation with Irontruth isn't the point of the discussion, the fact that Nonlethal Damage isn't excluded from being HP damage is the main point he is trying to get across. The fact that it eventually turns into "real" HP damage doesn't beget a wait and see if it does so, but that it is treated the same as Lethal damage for Power Attack when it comes to if and when you can use the Feat. Your timing invention and play be play is moot at this point, Nonlethal is HP damage, how the player denotes on the sheet is irrelevant.

Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.

When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.

This is the closest thing we have to a definition of hit point damage.

Nonlethal damage doesn't do any of this.

willuwontu wrote:

It doesn't need a new topic as it's relevant to this one.

If non lethal does not damage hit points, it doesn't damage anything, therefore damage reduction has nothing to reduce.

If non lethal is considered as hit point damage, it would be reduced by DR.

Please provide your evidence that Damage Reduction only applies to Hit Point Damage.

I would say that ability damage is reduced by Damage Reduction, if it meets all the requirements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I had a longer politer post, but I decided... naaah.

You're intentionally being dumb at this point. If you don't want to get it, I can't explain it to you. You're wrong. You've admitted as such weeks ago, but you've decided to dig in your heels and won't give up. So be it. Enjoy your being wrongness. It's all you have at this point.

Every time you post, I just find your argument to be more stupid than I did previously. Based on this trend, you're not going to convince me.

So far I think I get it.

You are saying that if Creature attacks Target with nonlethal damage, that the target taking lethal damage from the attack changes the effect to be considered as dealing lethal damage. Dealing lethal damage means that the damage roll gets the Power Attack bonus.

This has 2 problems.

1. Determining Type of Damage

You determine what type of damage an attack deals based on what happens to the target. This is not in the RAW and I don't think its RAI or even makes sense. Nothing about the target should change how I swing my sap. I can swing my sap literally the same way every single time and it should be nonlethal damage every single time. It doesn't matter if the target takes nonlethal, lethal, or no damage.

In any case, this is a major issue because you aren't using one of the provided rules to determine what type of damage an attack deals.

2. Modifying the melee damage roll

The rules say that when you roll dice, you total up the results and the results are modified by +X or -X. If you want to say that this isn't restricted to the roll of the die, then how are you determining the restriction? We've already agreed there is no "timing" rule. So, if you are saying it can be modified after it happens, there is no "timing" rule to restrict a player from modifying a turn later (or more.)

However, even if your position on these two were RAW, then my position is STILL logically consistent because it would rightfully grant the Power Attack Bonus.

So,...

No, you don't get it. I've wasted hours trying to explain it to you, so not sure why I should waste more.


Mallecks wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

It doesn't need a new topic as it's relevant to this one.

If non lethal does not damage hit points, it doesn't damage anything, therefore damage reduction has nothing to reduce.

If non lethal is considered as hit point damage, it would be reduced by DR.

Please provide your evidence that Damage Reduction only applies to Hit Point Damage.

I would say that ability damage is reduced by Damage Reduction, if it meets all the requirements.

Damage reduction only applies to damage, non lethal is not damage (nothing is actually reduced by it), therefore damage reduction has no effect. Ability damage on the other hand, reduces a statistic (an ability score), and is therefore reduced by DR.


Mallecks wrote:
If you don't want to accept that we agree, then (whenever you feel up to it), please let me know which part of your position I don't fully understand or misrepresented, and we can clear up the confusion.

I don't want to completely abandon you though, so I'll make you a deal. If you keep posting, I'll keep telling you when you're wrong.


Irontruth wrote:
No, you don't get it. I've wasted hours trying to explain it to you, so not sure why I should waste more.

Judging from the literally thousand of posts before this, I'm guessing you'll waste some more.

Hours? Try weeks.


willuwontu wrote:
Damage reduction only applies to damage, non lethal is not damage (nothing is actually reduced by it), therefore damage reduction has no effect. Ability damage on the other hand, reduces a statistic (an ability score), and is therefore reduced by DR.

In my interpretation, nonlethal damage is damage because it literally calls itself damage, and is rolled as a damage roll, or is the kind of damage dealt by an attack. It behaves differently, which is why it's its own kind of damage, but it is still damage.


Wonderstell wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
No, you don't get it. I've wasted hours trying to explain it to you, so not sure why I should waste more.

Judging from the literally thousand of posts before this, I'm guessing you'll waste some more.

Hours? Try weeks.

I was thinking cumulative time, not calendar days :D

Probably, I'm a glutton for punishment.


willuwontu wrote:
Damage reduction only applies to damage, non lethal is not damage (nothing is actually reduced by it), therefore damage reduction has no effect. Ability damage on the other hand, reduces a statistic (an ability score), and is therefore reduced by DR.

I don't think I agree with your definition that for something to be damage, it must reduce something. Can you provide a reference for this definition?

Ability damage doesn't reduce anything. Are you saying that Ability Damage isn't damage?

Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain wrote:
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.

Ability Damage is just tracked against a stat. It provides an increasing penalty until it incapacitates you (or kills you for CON).

Butt_Luckily has provided some other points, so I will wait for your responses to that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
Effects of Hit Point Damage wrote:

Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you are unconscious and dying.

When your negative hit point total is equal to your Constitution, you're dead.

This is the closest thing we have to a definition of hit point damage.

Nonlethal damage doesn't do any of this.

Huh?

Nonlethal Damage page 191 CRB wrote:

Staggered and Unconscious: When your nonlethal

damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered.
You can only take a standard action or a move action in
each round (in addition to free, immediate, and swift
actions). You cease being staggered when your current hit
points once again exceed your nonlethal damage.
When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current
hit points, you fall unconscious. While unconscious,
you are helpless (see page 567).
Spellcasters who fall unconscious retain any spellcasting
ability they had before going unconscious.
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.

Did you miss this, or is it something that you ignore in your homebrew game, while you eat bacon?


thaX wrote:

Huh?

Nonlethal Damage page 191 CRB wrote:

Staggered and Unconscious: When your nonlethal

damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered.
You can only take a standard action or a move action in
each round (in addition to free, immediate, and swift
actions). You cease being staggered when your current hit
points once again exceed your nonlethal damage.
When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current
hit points, you fall unconscious. While unconscious,
you are helpless (see page 567).
Spellcasters who fall unconscious retain any spellcasting
ability they had before going unconscious.
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.
Did you miss this, or is it something that you ignore in your homebrew game, while you eat bacon?

Nonlethal Damage:

1. When Nonlethal Damage = current HP, you are staggered.
2. You cease being staggered when your current hit points once again exceed your nonlethal damage.
3. When Nonlethal Damage > current HP, you are unconscious.
4. If a creature's nonlethal damage = max HP, all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.

Hit Point Damage:
1. When HP = 0, you are disabled.
2. When HP < 0, you are unconscious and dying.
3. When HP < -Constitution, you are dead.

Not seeing how the Nonlethal damage reduces your hit points or causes the disabled, dying, or dead conditions.

Much like with the conversation with Irontruth, there is no guidance on what it means to "treat" something as something else. He wanted it to be treated as lethal damage in some ways, but as nonlethal damage in other ways.

I believe that if you treat nonlethal damage as lethal damage, it is no longer considered nonlethal damage. This is because I don't normally consider lethal damage as nonlethal damage. However, as there is no guidance on what this means, we can agree to disagree here and it is factored into position.


Edit: Ninja'd

thaX, I don't see what you are getting at. Nothing in the section you quoted is found in the Effects of Hit Point Damage section.


Mallecks wrote:


Not seeing how the Nonlethal damage reduces your hit points or causes the disabled, dying, or dead conditions.

That's cause you've chosen not to see, and decided to be wrong instead.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you can't see that being Unconscious is as debilitating as when one is Unconscious and Dying, I am not sure if I can help you understand the parallel.

If you take these three points into account, one can conclude that Nonlethal is HP.

  • The fact that being not "real" damage, but still is damage that is instead compared to the current HP total, means that Nonlethal is still damage that is denoted by HP.
  • That Nonlethal that is beyond Max HP is treated as Lethal damage.
  • That the character is Unconscious when the combined HP taken by the character exceeds Max HP.

Thread tittle "Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?"

For feats and abilities that consider it as a quantifier, yes, it is.

Edit add on...

Forgot to mention bacon, sorry about that.

Lethal - Disabled - Dying - dead

Nonlethal - Staggered - Unconscious - Lethal damage.

So, still consider Nonlethal to be Bacon points instead of HP?


Mallecks wrote:


Much like with the conversation with Irontruth, there is no guidance on what it means to "treat" something as something else. He wanted it to be treated as lethal damage in some ways, but as nonlethal damage in other ways.

I believe that if you treat nonlethal damage as lethal damage, it is no longer considered nonlethal damage. This is because I don't normally consider lethal damage as nonlethal damage. However, as there is no guidance on what this means, we can agree to disagree here and it is...

By the way, this isn't true. I don't know why you have this compulsion to make things up. Makes it really hard to have an honest conversation though.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

btw, B Lucky, where is the Hit Point Section? I can't seem to find it. It is under the section "Injury and Death" in the Core rulebook, Pages 189 - 192. I am surprised you didn't know that, since we have been discussing this section for over a thousand posts.


thaX, I'm not sure which of my posts you're talking about. I checked my last few posts and I haven't mentioned a hit point section.

I did mention an Effects of Hit Point Damage section. I can't get a page number right now, but based on the prd appears to be in the same section you're looking at, Injury and Loss, between What Hit Points Represent and the Massive Damage(Optional Rule).

Did I mistake which section you said I was talking about?

Also, I don't recommend following Irontruth's example in insulting other users.


If you want to be taken seriously, don't lie, misrepresent, or make things up. All things the two of you have repeatedly done.


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:


Much like with the conversation with Irontruth, there is no guidance on what it means to "treat" something as something else. He wanted it to be treated as lethal damage in some ways, but as nonlethal damage in other ways.

I believe that if you treat nonlethal damage as lethal damage, it is no longer considered nonlethal damage. This is because I don't normally consider lethal damage as nonlethal damage. However, as there is no guidance on what this means, we can agree to disagree here and it is...

By the way, this isn't true. I don't know why you have this compulsion to make things up. Makes it really hard to have an honest conversation though.
Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
We were discussing this point earlier, but you decided you didn't want to continue that discussion. When incoming nonlethal damage is in excess of your HP, it is treated as lethal damage. It isn't tallied in your nonlethal damage tally, it is deducted from your HP. If you feel uncomfortable with the term "convert" that's fine, we can just say "treat as" since that is the game term. However, it loses all qualities of nonlethal damage and gains all qualities of lethal damage.

The damage doesn't actually change types. It is still nonlethal damage.

If I treat you like a brother, it does not mean your genetics (or mine) change to account for this fact. We don't actually become blood related, or members of the same family.

"Treating" something like something else doesn't change what it is. It just changes the rules for how it interacts with other things.

The target still takes nonlethal damage, but the damage is applied as if it were lethal. The whole thing is still nonlethal though.

Malleks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


The original argument against nonlethal was "it doesn't reduce current hit points, therefore not hit point damage." Well, nonlethal overflow does reduce current hit points. So by the determination that excludes regular nonlethal damage, nonlethal overflow meets that criteria. If you have a different criteria, from the rules, that you'd like to propose... please feel free to do so.

This has been discussed and is a disagreement over exactly what "treated as" means. If you have some evidence that proves that your interpretation of what "treated as" means is correct, you can provide it.

Until then, we are both "treating" excess nonlethal damage as lethal damage, we are just doing it in different way. I treat excess nonlethal damage as lethal damage in every single way, you only treat excess nonlethal damage as lethal damage in some ways.

Here's a couple of examples. Any time you claim that nonlethal damage is damaging hit points, that would be you not treating it as lethal damage. Because nonlethal damage doesn't damage hit points, lethal damage does. It would be more proper to say "Lethal Damage damages hit points." Although, we have taken to using the term "(Non)Lethal Overflow" to refer to a specific sitaution that causes lethal damage from the nonlethal rules.

Which is a perfectly fine way, there's no guidance on what it means to treat one thing as another, so we can't really argue it outside of logical requirements or consequences of it. I'm happy to agree to disagree on the point.

thaX wrote:
If you can't see that being Unconscious is as debilitating as when one is Unconscious and Dying, I am not sure if I can help you understand the parallel.

I don't agree with your claim that Unconscious is equally debilitating as Unconscious + Dying. Unconscious + Dying is way worse than Unconscious.

thaX wrote:

If you take these three points into account, one can conclude that Nonlethal is HP.

The fact that being not "real" damage, but still is damage that is instead compared to the current HP total, means that Nonlethal is still damage that is denoted by HP.
That Nonlethal that is beyond Max HP is treated as Lethal damage.
That the character is Unconscious when the combined HP taken by the character exceeds Max HP.
Thread tittle "Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?"

For feats and abilities that consider it as a quantifier, yes, it is.

I already understand your interpretation. Your above points convince you that Nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, despite the lack of an explicit definition. I do not find it convincing.

Do you have any concerns about my position?

thaX wrote:

Edit add on...

Forgot to mention bacon, sorry about that.

Lethal - Disabled - Dying - dead

Nonlethal - Staggered - Unconscious - Lethal damage.

So, still consider Nonlethal to be Bacon points instead of HP?

I consider Nonlethal damage to be Nonlethal damage. Alternatively, I have provided a new possible interpretation where Nonlethal Damage is within the category of "Not "Real" Damage."


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:


Much like with the conversation with Irontruth, there is no guidance on what it means to "treat" something as something else. He wanted it to be treated as lethal damage in some ways, but as nonlethal damage in other ways.

I believe that if you treat nonlethal damage as lethal damage, it is no longer considered nonlethal damage. This is because I don't normally consider lethal damage as nonlethal damage. However, as there is no guidance on what this means, we can agree to disagree here and it is...

By the way, this isn't true. I don't know why you have this compulsion to make things up. Makes it really hard to have an honest conversation though.
Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
We were discussing this point earlier, but you decided you didn't want to continue that discussion. When incoming nonlethal damage is in excess of your HP, it is treated as lethal damage. It isn't tallied in your nonlethal damage tally, it is deducted from your HP. If you feel uncomfortable with the term "convert" that's fine, we can just say "treat as" since that is the game term. However, it loses all qualities of nonlethal damage and gains all qualities of lethal damage.

The damage doesn't actually change types. It is still nonlethal damage.

If I treat you like a brother, it does not mean your genetics (or mine) change to account for this fact. We don't actually become blood related, or members of the same family.

"Treating" something like something else doesn't change what it is. It just changes the rules for how it interacts with other things.

The target still takes nonlethal damage, but the damage is applied as if it were lethal. The whole thing is still nonlethal though.

Malleks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


The original argument against nonlethal was "it doesn't reduce current hit points, therefore not hit point damage." Well, nonlethal overflow does reduce current hit points. So by the determination
...

So, in your twisted little mind....

I say that lethal damage does hit point damage, and because I say that nonlethal can also do that, that that means I'm NOT treating it like lethal damage.

(summarized)
Because I allow A to do the same thing as B, that means I am NOT treating A like B.

(summary of the summary)
Because I say A is like B, therefore I am saying that A is NOT like B.

That is how f+!+ed up all of this is in your mind. I'm sorry you got so confused. I don't know how to make you unconfused. You should take like 2 days away from this thread, and maybe rethink all of this after a break.


Irontruth wrote:

So, in your twisted little mind....

I say that lethal damage does hit point damage, and because I say that nonlethal can also do that, that that means I'm NOT treating it like lethal damage.

(summarized)
Because I allow A to do the same thing as B, that means I am NOT treating A like B.

(summary of the summary)
Because I say A is like B, therefore I am saying that A is NOT like B.

That is how f+%*ed up all of this is in your mind. I'm sorry you got so confused. I don't know how to make you unconfused. You should take like 2 days away from this thread, and maybe rethink all of this after a break.

Nonlethal Damage doesn't damage hit points.

Lethal Damage damages hit points.

If you are treating nonlethal damage as lethal damage, I don't think you should continue to consider it nonlethal damage, as you don't normally consider lethal damage as nonlethal damage.

I understand that you think that this means that it behaves like lethal damage, but it is still nonlethal damage.

There is no guidance, so we can agree to disagree. However, by still considering it "nonlethal damage" you are not treating it as lethal damage "in all ways" unless you normally treat lethal damage as nonlethal damage.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Butt_Luckily wrote:

thaX, I'm not sure which of my posts you're talking about. I checked my last few posts and I haven't mentioned a hit point section.

I did mention an Effects of Hit Point Damage section.

That isn't a section, that is a bullet point within the Injury and Death section, in the subsection Loss of HP. This section does have the Nonlethal Damage subsection in it, and should be a part of these rules instead of being considered Bacon or nothing. Concentrating on one little part of the rules and ignoring the rest is not the way to understand and use the rules to any type of manual, be it a game, rules of the road, or a recipe for Candied Bacon.

For example, if you only put the candied part on the bacon and ignore the part where you actually cook it, then you can't really complain when the raw bacon doesn't taste right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

So, in your twisted little mind....

I say that lethal damage does hit point damage, and because I say that nonlethal can also do that, that that means I'm NOT treating it like lethal damage.

(summarized)
Because I allow A to do the same thing as B, that means I am NOT treating A like B.

(summary of the summary)
Because I say A is like B, therefore I am saying that A is NOT like B.

That is how f+%*ed up all of this is in your mind. I'm sorry you got so confused. I don't know how to make you unconfused. You should take like 2 days away from this thread, and maybe rethink all of this after a break.

Nonlethal Damage doesn't damage hit points.

Lethal Damage damages hit points.

If you are treating nonlethal damage as lethal damage, I don't think you should continue to consider it nonlethal damage, as you don't normally consider lethal damage as nonlethal damage.

I understand that you think that this means that it behaves like lethal damage, but it is still nonlethal damage.

There is no guidance, so we can agree to disagree. However, by still considering it "nonlethal damage" you are not treating it as lethal damage "in all ways" unless you normally treat lethal damage as nonlethal damage.

Hopefully that makes sense.

No, that makes zero sense. It's ridiculous on the face of it. I get what you're TRYING to say, but it's illogical.

Analogy:
Me: I'm going to treat this square like a rectangle, because squares are rectangles.
You: But that changes the definition of what a rectangle is.
Me: That is stupid and doesn't make any sense.
You: Besides, both of them have too few sides to be a triangle.
Me: WTF is wrong with you?

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,405 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 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.