Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?


Rules Questions

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,405 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

thaX wrote:
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

Is there a minimum size for how big a section in the rules is? I was merely trying to direct your attention to the appropriate place.

Anyway, I do not feel it is accurate that I am considering only one little part of the rules. I have discussed portions of text from different sections of rules, applications of interactions between various rules, and even discussed my thoughts on RAI.

-----------
Irontruth, This may be a small point I disagree with Mallecks on. I feel his distinction of stopping the treatment of the damage taken as nonlethal is at least needless. It may be some more verbose application of "dealt vs taken", but that can be just left as dealt vs taken being open to interpretation depending on the ability. Even if one were to say that the damage taken by the target were nonlethal and caused a loss of hit points, this would not conflict with power attack not providing the bonus to a Nonlethal attack.


thaX wrote:
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.

In the Injury and Death section of the Combat Chapter, there is the subsection: Loss of Hit Point Damage. (Page 189)

Loss of Hit Points wrote:

The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
Effects of Hit Point Damage: 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.
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply

Nonlethal damage doesn't have have any of the effects listed in the "Effects of Hit Point Damage" paragraph. (It doesn't reduce hit points, or cause the disabled, unconscious + dying, or dead conditions.)

Healing Nonlethal Damage wrote:
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.

The Nonlethal Damage section uses the term one time, and it is used in a way to specifically be considered as a different concept.

When considering either subsection of rules, there is no reason to assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

Irontruth wrote:

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?

The analogy is a little off, because all squares are rectangles already. So, we already treat them as rectangles. You need to find a situation where what you are treating it as something different, because lethal and nonlethal damage are different things that are mutually exclusive.

Example:

If a rectangle is a square, treat it like a triangle.
4 sided polygons get colored red.
3 sided polygons get colored blue.

Mallecks: This rectangle has all sides of the same length, I'm not going to color it red, I'm going to color it blue.
Irontruth: I'm going to treat it like a triangle, so it gets colored [Idk what you say: Blue/Red/Purple. I think you say blue]. But it is still a 4 sided polygon.
Mallecks: No, if you still consider it a 4 sided polygon, then you aren't treating it like a triangle.

Not a perfect analogy, but I think it reflects the discussion a little better. Does it make sense now? Even if it doesn't, the "good news" is that we can agree to disagree on this point. There is no guidance on what it means to treat one thing as another.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Both of you are looking at one part of the whole section, when Nonlethal is a part of the overall puzzle instead of a separate piece of Bacon. It is a paragraph and is a part of the overall subsection of "Loss of Hit Points" subsection of the "Death and Injury" section of the rulebook

I can post the whole thing here, but really, posting four pages of material on a single post is overdoing it. Nonlethal is Damage, can we at least agree on this much?

I mean, when one is dealt damage, independent on if it is Lethal or Nonlethal, why does it make a difference which HP track the damage is on to determine if an ability from a class or feat can be used? Both get the character closer to unconsciousness, and both are considered Damage that is not Negative levels, stat damage or the like.

Is there something about Nonlethal that makes it less likely to incapacitate the character? Why do you want to limit players in this way?


thaX wrote:

I can post the whole thing here, but really, posting four pages of material on a single post is overdoing it. Nonlethal is Damage, can we at least agree on this much?

We never said nonlethal damage wasn't damage, and have already corrected more than once your assertion that we did not consider nonlethal damage damage.

thaX wrote:
I mean, when one is dealt damage, independent on if it is Lethal or Nonlethal, why does it make a difference which HP track the damage is on to determine if an ability from a class or feat can be used? Both get the character closer to unconsciousness, and both are considered Damage that is not Negative levels, stat damage or the like.

In your opinion, the difference may not matter. In ours, it does.

thaX wrote:
Is there something about Nonlethal that makes it less likely to incapacitate the character? Why do you want to limit players in this way?

Unfortunately, whether or not something is more or less likely to incapacitate a target is not the determination for whether or not the damage is hit point damage.


Mallecks wrote:
The analogy is a little off,

All analogies are "off", otherwise they wouldn't be analogies, they would just be "the thing".

Definition: a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Arguing with the specifics of an analogy is pointless, because if you understand the analogy well enough to argue with it, that means you understood it, WHICH IS THE POINT OF AN ANALOGY.

If you treat A like it is B, then you have to behave as if it is B. You are refusing to behave as if A is a B. Therefore you are failing to "treat as". Either A becomes a B, or it doesn't. It doesn't say "treat A as a B, except for....." It just says "Treat A as a B." There are no exceptions or modifications.

You are convinced that there are exceptions or modifications.

Okay, show me those exceptions or modifications. Don't tell me what they are, show them to me in the rules.


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
The analogy is a little off,

All analogies are "off", otherwise they wouldn't be analogies, they would just be "the thing".

Definition: a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Arguing with the specifics of an analogy is pointless, because if you understand the analogy well enough to argue with it, that means you understood it, WHICH IS THE POINT OF AN ANALOGY.

If you treat A like it is B, then you have to behave as if it is B. You are refusing to behave as if A is a B. Therefore you are failing to "treat as". Either A becomes a B, or it doesn't. It doesn't say "treat A as a B, except for....." It just says "Treat A as a B." There are no exceptions or modifications.

You are convinced that there are exceptions or modifications.

Okay, show me those exceptions or modifications. Don't tell me what they are, show them to me in the rules.

There isn't any exception. This is why nonlethal damage can't damage hit points in any situation.


You are claiming that a nonlethal attack can never result in a loss of hit points.


If a creature's Nonlethal Damage exceeds their total HP, then the the nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.

So, yeah, it is possible for the result of a nonlethal attack to be hit point damage.

Similarly, it is possible for a Lethal attack to result in no hit point damage.


But you said the damage can't change. That the attack type determines the damage, and so the attack only deals nonlethal.


The effect of the attack doesn't change. The effect of the attack exists independently as its own statistic.

The result of the attack is how the target responds to the effect. The effect doesn't retroactively change to match what happened to the target.


re·sult
rəˈzəlt/Submit
noun
1.
a consequence, effect, or outcome of something.

ef·fect
əˈfekt/Submit
noun
1.
a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

You're telling me that the square has too few sides too be a triangle.


If you are using the term "result" to mean the effect of the attack, then it is an independent statistic.

If you are using the term "result" to mean the ultimate outcome of the attack action, then that is based on how the target reacts.

Creature attacks Target with nonlethal attack. Target is immune to nonlethal.

Creature rolls 6 damage.

The result of the damage roll is 6 Nonlethal damage.

The result of the attack is no damage.

So, it kinda depends on what specifically you are talking about. It is better to use the language from the book in this aspect, to prevent confusion.

The effect of the attack is 6 Nonlethal damage. The target takes zero damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You both have said that Nonlethal is not HP damage at all. That assertion means that it is nothing, and should be considered Bacon Point instead. Tell me how it is damage, that it is not HP damage, and what type of damage it is instead. You have not done that.


I think I disagree. An effect is usually something like "1d8 Cold damage". Or "Heal 1d8+1 per caster level". Nearly all effects have some modifier to them. I think I would refer to the determination of the effect as the result of the effect as opposed to the effect itself.

Of course, referring to the result of the effect as "the effect" is probably acceptable short-hand, but we've been pretty specific about language in this thread.

thaX wrote:
You both have said that Nonlethal is not HP damage at all. That assertion means that it is nothing, and should be considered Bacon Point instead. Tell me how it is damage, that it is not HP damage, and what type of damage it is instead. You have not done that.

I'm pretty sure this is all covered already.

How it is damage: It Is literally named damage. It is rolled as a damage roll, or is the kind of damage dealt by an attack or effect.

How it is not hit point damage: It doesn't reduce hit points, not does it accomplish anything under the "Effects of Hit Point Damage" portion of rules.

What type of damage it is: It is its own kind of damage. The question you are asking is similar to asking "What kind of damage is hit point damage?" or "What kind of damage is ability damage?"


Mallecks wrote:

If you are using the term "result" to mean the effect of the attack, then it is an independent statistic.

If you are using the term "result" to mean the ultimate outcome of the attack action, then that is based on how the target reacts.

Creature attacks Target with nonlethal attack. Target is immune to nonlethal.

Creature rolls 6 damage.

The result of the damage roll is 6 Nonlethal damage.

The result of the attack is no damage.

So, it kinda depends on what specifically you are talking about. It is better to use the language from the book in this aspect, to prevent confusion.

The effect of the attack is 6 Nonlethal damage. The target takes zero damage.

TOO FEW SIDES TO BE A TRIANGLE!

Don't forget, the rules don't differentiate between what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.

Quote:

For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.

Damage Reduction uses both synonymously. Unless you're claiming that all DR happens twice, applying to both what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nonlehtal damage is not in itself a particular damage separated from everything else like Cold damage, Ability Damage, or Negitive levels. It is under the "Death and Dying" section where it talks about Hit Points and how it is used by the character and what it represents. Lethal Damage is the "Normal" damage that is most commonly used, Nonlethal Damage is another way to effect HP.

What else do you need to know?


thaX wrote:

Nonlehtal damage is not in itself a particular damage separated from everything else like Cold damage, Ability Damage, or Negitive levels. It is under the "Death and Dying" section where it talks about Hit Points and how it is used by the character and what it represents. Lethal Damage is the "Normal" damage that is most commonly used, Nonlethal Damage is another way to effect HP.

What else do you need to know?

The answer for whether nonlethal is hit point damage is not explicitly in the rules. So rules you present will just be corroborating evidence for your view. I already understand your view of the rules. The question is if there is a problem with ours.

Irontruth wrote:
Damage Reduction uses both synonymously. Unless you're claiming that all DR happens twice, applying to both what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.

The damage reduction use of deals and taken merely means that any use of the terms will have to be open to interpretation. A character with improved evasion should not reduce the damage dealt to everyone else hit by the spell.


Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

If you are using the term "result" to mean the effect of the attack, then it is an independent statistic.

If you are using the term "result" to mean the ultimate outcome of the attack action, then that is based on how the target reacts.

Creature attacks Target with nonlethal attack. Target is immune to nonlethal.

Creature rolls 6 damage.

The result of the damage roll is 6 Nonlethal damage.

The result of the attack is no damage.

So, it kinda depends on what specifically you are talking about. It is better to use the language from the book in this aspect, to prevent confusion.

The effect of the attack is 6 Nonlethal damage. The target takes zero damage.

TOO FEW SIDES TO BE A TRIANGLE!

Don't forget, the rules don't differentiate between what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.

Quote:

For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.

Damage Reduction uses both synonymously. Unless you're claiming that all DR happens twice, applying to both what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.

I think that damage reduction modifies the amount of damage an attack deals, and in this way, reduces the damage it takes.

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

Damage Reduction modifies the amount of damage an effect deals to a target, instead of determining it based solely off the type of weapon. In this way, it causes the creature to take X less damage.

Damage the target takes can't determine the effect of an attack because it is a logical requirement to first know the damage being dealt to the target before it can take the damage.

thaX wrote:


Nonlehtal damage is not in itself a particular damage separated from everything else like Cold damage, Ability Damage, or Negitive levels.

Actually, nonlethal damage is separated from the other types of damage. It is defined as not "real" damage. So, everything else is "real" damage and nonlethal damage is not "real" damage. I am unaware of any other types of damage defined as not "real" damage.

thaX wrote:
It is under the "Death and Dying" section where it talks about Hit Points and how it is used by the character and what it represents.

The section is called "Injury and Death" and is its own subsection titled: "Nonlethal Damage."

Based on this, I think we can agree that nonlethal damage is an injury of some kind.

thaX wrote:

Lethal Damage is the "Normal" damage that is most commonly used, Nonlethal Damage is another way to effect HP.

What else do you need to know?

You keep saying this and it isn't true.

Nonlethal damage doesn't affect Hit Points.

Let's say there's a Slayer with the Blood Reader Talent.

Blood Reader wrote:
While able to see a studied target, a slayer with this talent knows exactly how many hit points his opponent has remaining. This only works against living targets.

Slayer studies a target that has 10 HP and 1 Nonlethal damage taken.

What would the Slayer say his studied target's remaining Hit Points are?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
The answer for whether nonlethal is hit point damage is not explicitly in the rules.

It isn't?

"All weapons do Hit Point damage."

Didn't we go through this?


Ok. Let's simplify.

How does "all weapons do hit point damage" not apply to non lethal damage.

Let's just cover that first and build from there.


Cavall wrote:

Ok. Let's simplify.

How does "all weapons do hit point damage" not apply to non lethal damage.

Let's just cover that first and build from there.

Yeah, because there is additional context.

Weapons wrote:
All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon.

This is an explicit definition of hit point damage that excludes nonlethal damage.


So merciful weapons or saps aren't weapons anymore? As they do nonlethal which by your definition makes them no longer weapons as ALL weapons deal hit point damage


Cavall wrote:
So merciful weapons or saps aren't weapons anymore? As they do nonlethal which by your definition makes them no longer weapons as ALL weapons deal hit point damage

They have specific rules where they instead deal nonlethal damage.


So specific weapons trumps the word "all".

Even though some non let weapons were made in that same corebook.

Interesting as the book doesn't say "all weapon (barring non lethal weapons) deal hit point damage."

Therefore, non lethal is hit point damage, as ALL weapons deal hit point damage and there is no exceptions made thereafter.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

DR does not apply to Energy Attacks, which do HP damage. If you think Nonlethal damage is Bacon, then it would not apply to it either.


Cavall wrote:

So specific weapons trumps the word "all".

Even though some non let weapons were made in that same corebook.

Interesting as the book doesn't say "all weapon (barring non lethal weapons) deal hit point damage."

Therefore, non lethal is hit point damage, as ALL weapons deal hit point damage and there is no exceptions made thereafter.

I don't really agree with the logic here, but it doesn't matter.

Nonlethal weapons can deal hit point damage by taking a -4 to their attack roll. This sufficiently meets your claim that "All weapons deal hit point damage," whether I agree with it or not.


I disagree with your assessment of the word sufficient.


Cavall wrote:
I disagree with your assessment of the word sufficient.
Cavall wrote:

So specific weapons trumps the word "all".

Even though some non let weapons were made in that same corebook.

Interesting as the book doesn't say "all weapon (barring non lethal weapons) deal hit point damage."

Therefore, non lethal is hit point damage, as ALL weapons deal hit point damage and there is no exceptions made thereafter.

There's two basic claims in this post that both must be true for your point.

1. Rule conflicts don't exist within a single rulebook.

Improvised Weapons wrote:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Catch Off-Guard wrote:
You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flatfooted against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.

The rules in the CRB don't say that you get a -4 penalty (unless you have Catch Off-Guard).

So, how does this work?

Range wrote:
Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range. Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target. For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot to 10 range increments.
Far Shot wrote:
You only suffer a –1 penalty per full range increment between you and your target when using a ranged weapon.

Rules for Range increments say you take -2. Rules for far shot say you take -1 one.

It doesn't say: "the attack takes a cumulative -2 penalty (unless you have Far Shot, then you only take a cumulative -1 penalty)"

Why didn't they put an exception here?

2. All weapons deal hit point damage.

Nonlethal weapons can deal hit point damage at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. Therefore, all weapons can deal hit point damage without requiring nonlethal damage to be hit point damage.


Butt_Luckily wrote:
thaX wrote:

Nonlehtal damage is not in itself a particular damage separated from everything else like Cold damage, Ability Damage, or Negitive levels. It is under the "Death and Dying" section where it talks about Hit Points and how it is used by the character and what it represents. Lethal Damage is the "Normal" damage that is most commonly used, Nonlethal Damage is another way to effect HP.

What else do you need to know?

The answer for whether nonlethal is hit point damage is not explicitly in the rules. So rules you present will just be corroborating evidence for your view. I already understand your view of the rules. The question is if there is a problem with ours.

Irontruth wrote:
Damage Reduction uses both synonymously. Unless you're claiming that all DR happens twice, applying to both what the weapon deals, and what the target takes.
The damage reduction use of deals and taken merely means that any use of the terms will have to be open to interpretation. A character with improved evasion should not reduce the damage dealt to everyone else hit by the spell.

So, you are admitting that "damage taken", "damage dealt", and "deals damage" are not defined game terms, but rather we have to actually rely on the English language to inform us what these words mean?


I could potentially argue that they are still game terms if Damage Reduction is used a specific rule that trumps the general rule of determining the amount of damage, but I don't think it is necessary.


A better way to put it is..

I am willing to concede the point if it has no impact on my position. Sure, the terms are not defined. It is up for interpretation. If you have any more problems with anything involving damage taken, damage dealt, or what it means to "deal damage," then we can agree to disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The book is. I'm just reading from the book.

Actually it's two books now.

1. Pathfinder Core Rule Book
2. The Dictionary

Your struggles have deepened so far that you're now battling the English language in your attempt to be right.


I'm not sure what your point is, and I'm unsure if we can proceed as we are coming dangerously close to the topic that you no longer want to discuss.

Here's my position:

I power attack with a sap.

I'm going to use this rule to determine which type of damage the attack deals.

Nonlethal wrote:
These weapons deal nonlethal damage (see Combat).

After successfully making an attack roll, I make a damage roll. Power Attack modifies the damage roll if conditions are met. Assuming Nonlethal Damage isn't hit point, the bonus to the melee damage roll isn't granted. The target takes the nonlethal damage. Any nonlethal damage in excess of the target's maximum HP is treated as lethal damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
After successfully making an attack roll, I make a damage roll. Power Attack modifies the damage roll if conditions are met. Assuming Nonlethal Damage isn't hit point, the bonus to the melee damage roll isn't granted. The target takes the nonlethal damage. Any nonlethal damage in excess of the target's maximum HP is treated as lethal damage.
You have the order of things all messed up... Here you go...
  • I am going to attack that target.
  • I will apply Power Attack
  • I will use the Blugueneer feat to deal Nonlethal Damage with my Earth Breaker
  • I hit the target with my Attack.
  • I roll damage and add my static modifiers. (this includes Power Attack)
  • Damage dealt.

Do this every game in PFS, and I wonder why the rules are so far from your grasp at this point that you want to punish the player for trying to not kill those he is attacking.

The thought that Nonlethal is it's own little thing and has nothing to do with HP is baffling to me, and I wish I had some bacon right now to eat.


So now you're claiming that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage. Cool.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Irontruth. - - I would add Power Attack to either type of (HP) Damage, just as you would. I just corrected the order and didn't bother with the unnecessary self check on what type of damage the attack is or how the target takes it. I already know that it is a melee damage attack and that Power Attack applies as it isn't a Touch Attack and it effects HP.


thaX wrote:

Do this every game in PFS, and I wonder why the rules are so far from your grasp at this point that you want to punish the player for trying to not kill those he is attacking.

The thought that Nonlethal is it's own little thing and has nothing to do with HP is baffling to me, and I wish I had some bacon right now to eat.

If you are trying to not kill something, I don't think you should be able to simultaneously make attacks that are exceptionally deadly.

Its not that baffling. Nonlethal damage doesn't change the amount of HP a character.

Irontruth wrote:
So now you're claiming that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage. Cool.

In your view, where the test of power attack involves checking against the target, I suppose this might be true. Also, I don't think anyone else checks for application of Power attack in this way.

In our view, if you are using any information from the target to check for bonus eligibility, you have already gone out of scope of Power Attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Butt_Luckily wrote:
If you are trying to not kill something, I don't think you should be able to simultaneously make attacks that are exceptionally deadly.

1} What you should be able to do and what you are able to do may not be the same.

2} I strongly disagree. If I'm being attacked by Andre the Giant and don't want to kill him to stop him, I'm going to use the strongest strikes I can, but I'm going to try to aim for places that won't likely cause fatal wounds.


Mallecks wrote:
Cavall wrote:

Ok. Let's simplify.

How does "all weapons do hit point damage" not apply to non lethal damage.

Let's just cover that first and build from there.

Yeah, because there is additional context.

Weapons wrote:
All weapons deal hit point damage. This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon.
This is an explicit definition of hit point damage that excludes nonlethal damage.

That's not a definition. It's a conversational tone used to describe what happens when you take damage to lay a general rule.

Given its the first time the CRB actually starts to talk about what damage is, and what it means, it would be a little strange for it to start talking about other types of damage other than the default one just yet.

This is a definition (of what a two-handed weapon is):

Quote:


Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

But let's also look at this line from the rules under loss of hit points.

Quote:


What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

Can you point to anything in the above paragraph that doesn't apply equally to both lethal and nonlethal damage? If I have few hp or a lot of hp, my ability to continue functioning (regardless of whether I'm taking all lethal or nonlethal damage) is based around my HP.

Nonlethal is measured in hp, there are consequences associated with it based on current and max hp. It is a form of hp damage. Just like str drain and str damage are both forms of damage (the general dictionary definition of damage) to your str. The ability drain/damage actually is a parallel of lethal/nonlethal. Drain actually reduces the score, damage counts up and when it matches the score you go unconscious.


Mallecks wrote:
Cavall wrote:

So specific weapons trumps the word "all".

Even though some non let weapons were made in that same corebook.

Interesting as the book doesn't say "all weapon (barring non lethal weapons) deal hit point damage."

Therefore, non lethal is hit point damage, as ALL weapons deal hit point damage and there is no exceptions made thereafter.

I don't really agree with the logic here, but it doesn't matter.

Nonlethal weapons can deal hit point damage by taking a -4 to their attack roll. This sufficiently meets your claim that "All weapons deal hit point damage," whether I agree with it or not.

I find this reasoning as flawed as Irontruths power attack argument...

It seems to be the same argument, only now you are supporting it.


Irontruth wrote:
So now you're claiming that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage. Cool.

No, Nonlethal Damage isn't lethal damage.

Power Attack modifies the damage roll and I'm using the nonlethal weapon quality to determine the effect deals nonlethal damage.

Which rule are you using that determines the type of damage an attack deals?

thaX wrote:

I am going to attack that target.

I will apply Power Attack
I will use the Blugueneer feat to deal Nonlethal Damage with my Earth Breaker
I hit the target with my Attack.
I roll damage and add my static modifiers. (this includes Power Attack)
Damage dealt.

I'm pretty sure this us how everyone besides Irontruth does it. I agree with this. The only difference for me is that I don't consider Nonlethal Damage to be hit point damage, so it doesn't get the Power Attack bonus on the damage roll.


Butt_Luckily wrote:

Irontruth wrote:
So now you're claiming that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage. Cool.

In your view, where the test of power attack involves checking against the target, I suppose this might be true. Also, I don't think anyone else checks for application of Power attack in this way.

In our view, if you are using any information from the target to check for bonus eligibility, you have already gone out of scope of Power Attack.

All I know is that Power Attack applies to lethal damage. You are telling me that there are situations where it doesn't, but I don't see that in the rule book. Feel free to show me where it says it doesn't apply to lethal damage in specific circumstances.


Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So now you're claiming that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage. Cool.

No, Nonlethal Damage isn't lethal damage.

Power Attack modifies the damage roll and I'm using the nonlethal weapon quality to determine the effect deals nonlethal damage.

Which rule are you using that determines the type of damage an attack deals?

thaX wrote:

I am going to attack that target.

I will apply Power Attack
I will use the Blugueneer feat to deal Nonlethal Damage with my Earth Breaker
I hit the target with my Attack.
I roll damage and add my static modifiers. (this includes Power Attack)
Damage dealt.
I'm pretty sure this us how everyone besides Irontruth does it. I agree with this. The only difference for me is that I don't consider Nonlethal Damage to be hit point damage, so it doesn't get the Power Attack bonus on the damage roll.

I don't care about the process people use. I just want to know what rules you're using to arrive at that process.

Show me the rule that says Power Attack doesn't apply and I'll shut up. Of course we both know you can't do that. Nothing in the rules actually says what you want it to say. On the other hand, the rules DO say that Power Attack applies to hit point damage. And the rules DO say that Lethal damage is hit point damage. And the rules DO say that excessive nonlethal is treated as lethal damage.

I don't even have to have a position on this. I just have to look at the rules to know this stuff.

You have a position. You are trying to say stuff that you want to be true, and have to dissemble around the s%$# that doesn't agree with you. You try to confuse rules together, or only apply part of a rule. You are trying to convince us that to apply RAW, we have to ignore rules.

You are so full b~&#&%$~.


Using a weapon that deals non lethal and using it with harder swings would accomplish the same goal. To knock the person out. If you swing too hard you could end up hurting them. That's also covered in the rules.

So Butt_Luckilys example of how it shouldn't apply to non lethal attacks is absolutely terrible.

Boxers lift weights and train hard. So they can hit harder. And there is a difference between a jab and a haymaker. This is how we can see actual power attacks (less accurate more damaging).

If the idea that somehow swinging harder with less accuracy can't transfer over to this concept, or it's somehow unable to become exceptionally deadly by swinging harder, then the very idea that "take a -4 penalty to due lethal is sufficient to be lethal" is ALSO flawed.

It simply can't be both impossible to consider it not deadly AND consider a weapon to do hit point damage because you can take a penalty as satisfying the "all weapons do hit point damage" requirement.

The dog just don't hunt. The argument is trying to have it both ways, and it simply CAN'T.


Also, for like the 4th time this thread, Irontruth dial your anger down to like a 3. Your point doesn't sway people when all you do is insult them, and I'm going to start flagging you soon.

I don't agree with their stance but I don't need to insult them to prove mine.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:
I'm pretty sure this us how everyone besides Irontruth does it. I agree with this. The only difference for me is that I don't consider Nonlethal Damage to be hit point damage, so it doesn't get the Power Attack bonus on the damage roll.

Then the question remains. If Nonlethal is not HP damage, what is it? Ability Damage? Level Drain? Bacon?

EDiT - Wrong quote, pasted the right one. Apologizes.


The answer to that would be unsatisfactory to you because the answer is Nonlethal damage. It's tracked on its own and is used in comparison to your hit points but doesn't directly interact until you have maxed out the limit of it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is compared to the Current HP total, and if it equals that total the character is Staggered, or exceeds that total, he is unconscious. That would not be the case if Nonlethal was anything but a form of HP damage. That is why I am asking GA, Mallecks and B lucky this question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can actually tell you what it is.

Money.

Lethal damage
Hit points

See how one is shorter? And that's really all it means. It's a way of saving space, ink, paper, binding and shipping costs, all while using a term that's been around for 40 years.

When the book says hit points they want to say "hit points really means lethal damage normally, which is why non lethal is tracked the same way but separately. So treat as lethal unless it specifically says nonlethal"

It's all damage. It all runs off the same thing. It's just tracked in two ways, and the default way to do so is lethal. But instead we have to now tip toe around what it "could" mean when the answer is clear.

We are just arguing about a term that was left vague to save space. But it's all the same thing

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,405 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 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.