# Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage?

### Rules Questions

 1,351 to 1,400 of 1,405 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:

I'm not disregarding any rule. That's the difference between you and me.

Actions are clearly intended to be discrete and separate events. You have to finish your move before you can attack (barring feats that let you circumvent that rule, like Spring Attack). If actions weren't separate events, then you wouldn't need a feat like Spring Attack, because all characters could use an action to modify another action directly.

See, when I tell you how you're wrong, I can talk about rules, and page numbers.

I have no problem with actions being discrete, separate events. Please provide the rule you are using to say a roll can be modified after the roll, but not after the action.

And, for reference, these are the instructions detailing what a roll is.

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

1. Choose to use Power Attack

2. Make an attack roll. -> Nothing can proceed until after you perform the rules provided. Once you complete the steps provided in the text above, the Attack roll is over, as there are no more steps to perform.
3. Make a damage roll. -> Nothing can proceed until after you perform the rules provided. Once you complete the steps provided in the text above, the damage roll is over, as there are no more steps to perform.
4. The effect deals its damage and modified by effects.

There are logical requirements. AFAIK, all steps that require a roll can not move forward without a total for that roll.

Authoritative Bluff wrote:
At 11th level, a daring infiltrator can spend 1 panache point to reroll a Bluff check after the roll is made but before the results are revealed. She must take the result of the second roll, even if it is lower. Additionally, a daring infiltrator with at least 1 panache point gains a +5 bonus on Bluff checks to pretend to be someone’s superior (socially or in the military). If she succeeds at the check, the target obeys any reasonable orders she gives as it would those of an actual superior in the situation. This deed replaces bleeding wound.

This ability shows that the "roll is made" before it is possible for the results to be revealed.

So, to make my criticism more in line with game language...

What rule are you using to modify the total results after the roll is made?

Also, which rule are you using to disregard the rules for determining a type of damage in favor of your "damage taken" determinism?

Edit:

Blessed Orphan wrote:
As an orphan, you have always looked to Folgrit for protection. Once per day, you gain a +1 trait bonus on any saving throw. You must use this ability after the roll is made but before the result is revealed.

Here's an ability that allows you to add a bonus after the roll is made. Why make the distinction if you could always do it anyway?

Ring of Terrible Cost wrote:

These rings once displayed the smiling face of a former king, and were forged in limited quantities to celebrate the end of his reign. As the years passed by, the rings were cast aside or lost. Recently, several resurfaced, but changed by unknown means— the former king’s face now bears a sorrowful expression, and flames loom behind him.

As a standard action, you may charge the ring with a +1 profane bonus by sacrificing 2 of your hit points. These hit points remain lost and cannot be healed by any means until the ring’s power is expended. You may do this multiple times, up to a maximum of a +5 profane bonus stored in the ring.

As an immediate action, you can add the stored profane bonus to any single attack roll, damage roll, skill check, or saving throw, which expends the charged energy from the ring. You must declare this use after rolling the die but before you learn the result of the roll. You must expend all the ring’s power at once. Once the charge is expended, you can heal your lost hit points normally. Expending this charge does not ruin the ring, and you may charge it again by sacrificing more hit points.

The charge in the ring can come from multiple donors, but none of the donors can regain their sacrificed hit points until the ring’s charge is spent or the ring is destroyed. For this reason, owners of a ring of terrible cost guard the item carefully.

This magic item seems to suggest that there is some amount of "time" that exists between rolling the die and the results happening. According to your (Irontruth) interpretation of rolling dice, the roll is happening all the way up until the action is over. (Despite being unable to provide a timing rule to back this up.)

Also, Irontruth, using your homebrew method of determining the type of damage dealt by an attack..

How does Sap Adept/Sap Master work?

Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage, you gain a bonus on your damage roll equal to the number of sneak attack damage dice you rolled.

If lethal overflow means the attack deals hit point damage (according to your homebrew rule) then would that mean a Rogue can't use Sap Adept / Sap Master when only dealing lethal overflow?

Rogue Nonlethal Sneak Attacks Target for 1d6+1d6. Target has Flagellent and Nonlethal = Total HP.

X+Y(+1 if attack deals nonlethal damage)?

Rogue Lethal Sneak Attacks Target for any damage. Ablative Barrier causes at least 1 damage to be converted to nonlethal damage. They get the full benefits of Sap Adept/Sap Master because the attack dealt nonlethal damage?

-------------------

Also, if the action isn't over, does that mean that mean that the attack rolls can be modified too? No "game time" has happened between the attack roll and the damage roll and the target taking damage.

I make an attack roll and the target has ablative barrier up. My lethal weapon dealt nonlethal damage, therefore I performed an attack with a weapon that normally deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage, but I didn't take a penalty on the attack? (If you have a problem with this, just reverse the example and use lethal overflow instead.)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Warped Savant wrote:
thaX wrote:
Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is not Hit Point damage.

Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is Hit Point damage.

It is referred to when saying it isn't normal HP damage, but never says that it is not hp damage at all. The inference is that it is HP damage but needs to be denoted differently to effect it's outcome for the character/target. This is the part that is being interpreted differently by GA as meaning that it is Bacon instead.

Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not disregarding any rule. That's the difference between you and me.

Actions are clearly intended to be discrete and separate events. You have to finish your move before you can attack (barring feats that let you circumvent that rule, like Spring Attack). If actions weren't separate events, then you wouldn't need a feat like Spring Attack, because all characters could use an action to modify another action directly.

See, when I tell you how you're wrong, I can talk about rules, and page numbers.

I have no problem with actions being discrete, separate events. Please provide the rule you are using to say a roll can be modified after the roll, but not after the action.

Tell me the rule you're using to determine when the roll "ends". You keep saying "after the roll" but haven't shown me a rule that makes this clear. I can't answer a question that you can't define.

And then you still have to show that I can't put on conditional damage, that I've told you I can calculate prior to the target applying the damage.

1d8+3(+2 more if the target takes hit point damage)

See, I can calculate it prior to rolling.

Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not disregarding any rule. That's the difference between you and me.

Actions are clearly intended to be discrete and separate events. You have to finish your move before you can attack (barring feats that let you circumvent that rule, like Spring Attack). If actions weren't separate events, then you wouldn't need a feat like Spring Attack, because all characters could use an action to modify another action directly.

See, when I tell you how you're wrong, I can talk about rules, and page numbers.

I have no problem with actions being discrete, separate events. Please provide the rule you are using to say a roll can be modified after the roll, but not after the action.

Tell me the rule you're using to determine when the roll "ends". You keep saying "after the roll" but haven't shown me a rule that makes this clear. I can't answer a question that you can't define.

And then you still have to show that I can't put on conditional damage, that I've told you I can calculate prior to the target applying the damage.

1d8+3(+2 more if the target takes hit point damage)

See, I can calculate it prior to rolling.

--------------

1. AFAIK, this "conditional bonus" is a new concept you are bringing to Pathfinder. There is no rules to show it doesn't work like that because that isn't how it works. The rules don't say how many things work. You are making a positive claim saying "it works like this." Please provide your evidence to back it up. I am not familiar with any concept of "conditional bonus" anywhere in Pathfinder that allows for the value of a roll to change after it is made. You are, as you would say, "making all this up."
------------
2. Your example 1d8+3(+2 more if the target takes hit point damage) is misleading. If conditional bonuses exists, then Power Attack would be:

1d8+3(+2 unless the effect is a touch attack or doesn't deal hit point damage)

The conditional bonus provided by power attack doesn't use information about the target to determine if you get the bonus or not.

Which rule are you using to determine the type of damage the attack deals?
------------
3. You have refused to explain how your new conditional bonus works with Power Attack / Energy Resistance.

If Creature performs a lethal attack against Target with DR5 and gets 5 damage (+2 if the effect deals hit point damage)

Does the creature take the 0 damage or 2 damage?
------------
4. You have refused to explain how Stoneskin applies to conditional bonuses.

If a Creature performs a lethal attack against the Target with an active Stoneskin spell that has 10 points remaining on its effect and you deal 8(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage), what happens? Does Stoneskin have 0 or 2 points of DR remaining?
------------
5. How does your new conditional bonus work with the minimum damage rule?

Creature Power Attacks Target and is sickened. The attack deals 1d8+1-2(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage) and Creature gets a 1 on the die. The attack is 0(+2 if the effect deals hit point damage). The penalty has brought the roll below 1, so the minimum damage rule kicks in. What happens?

does the target take 1 Nonlethal, 2 Lethal, or 3 Nonlethal?
------------
6. How does your homebrew method of determining the type of damage an effect deals work with Sap Adept?

Creature attacks with a sap and deals SA. The damage roll is 1d6+1d6(+1 if the attack deals nonlethal.) If Target has nonlethal damage = max HP, then they lose the benefit of Sap Adept?
------------
7. How does your homebrew method of determining the type of damage an effect deals work with Ablative barrier + Sap adept?
Creature attacks with a light mace and deals SA. The damage roll is 1d6+1d6(+1 if the attack deals nonlethal.) If the target has an active Ablative Barrier effect, then some of the damage will be converted to nonlethal. Does that mean the attack deals nonlethal damage and you get the bonus damage even though you rolled a lethal attack?
------------
8. You didn't respond to it, so just to make sure. Based on some of the examples provided, do you now agree that there is a distinction between when a damage roll is made and when the target takes damage such that it is accurate to say that the "roll is over" once you initially total the results?
-------------
9. Assuming no on Q8: Based on this new conditional bonus, wouldn't that mean there is conditional penalties? This is especially concerning when using your definition of rolling where total results can be modified as long as "no game time passes" or "it is the same action". This example also uses your homebrew rule for determining the type of damage an attack deals.

Creature makes an attack roll and its attack roll is 1d20+BAB+STR(-4 if the attack deals nonlethal damage. Target has AC 14 and an active Ablative Barrier effect.

Creature's attack roll is 16. Creature hits Target and Ablative Barrier converts some damage to nonlethal. No game time has passed and/or it is the same action, so the attack roll is modified because the attack now deals nonlethal damage and is subject to a -4 penalty, making the attack miss. However, if the attack misses, then it doesn't deal nonlethal damage, so it loses the -4 penalty and can no hit the target.

I'm not sure how to move on here.

----

I think I had more, but I forgot while I typed these up.

thaX wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
thaX wrote:
Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is not Hit Point damage.
Nothing in the Core Rulebook ever says that Nonlethal damage is Hit Point damage.
It is referred to when saying it isn't normal HP damage, but never says that it is not hp damage at all. The inference is that it is HP damage but needs to be denoted differently to effect it's outcome for the character/target. This is the part that is being interpreted differently by GA as meaning that it is Bacon instead.

Okay, but the book also says "Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest." Now, yes, that's indicating that the 'not normal' part it's talking about is the healing rate, so that kind of indicates it's 'normal' except as noted (healing rate, how it's tracked, effects that happen when it gets to various points, etc).

The fact that the book refers to it as 'harm' means that it's damaging the character (as well as the fact that it's called nonlethal 'damage')... So what is it damaging or hurting? Hit points is the obvious answer, but surely that can't be the answer because... ummm.... because it's not hit point damage because... umm.... the book doesn't say 'nonlethal hit point damage' and because it's tracked differently than lowering your current hit point score.

Oh! Right! The book says: "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."
That shows that nonlethal isn't hit point damage because... wait.... no.... that just says that hit point damage can eventually slow you down. So that doesn't disqualify nonlethal as being hit point damage.

The damage section talks about how "Damage reduces a target’s current hit points." What kind of damage would that mean? Obviously not any type of damage because ability damage doesn't reduce your current hit points. The default is lethal damage as there's special rules that talk about nonlethal damage. So therefore lethal is the standard (instead of 'hit point damage') and nonlethal has to be specified, right? So that would mean this sentence says "Lethal damage reduces a target's current hit points." That checks out as being solidly true. But still doesn't disqualify nonlethal as being hit point damage...

I know! Right at the beginning of Injury and Death it says "The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points." So that means that lethal damage is the only thing that effects hit points! No, wait... sorry... it says that lethal damage is the most common way... that would mean that there's other ways... Which would mean that there's other ways to get injured.

The entire Injury and Death section is talking about various things that hit points represent and how they're effected. You could likely point out that Loss of Hit Points is right at the beginning so that you understand how it relates to everything that comes after. Let's take a look at that...
Disabled (0 Hit Points) - Yep, says hit points right there.
Dying (Negative Hit Points) - Yep, hit points.
Stable Characters and Recovery - Yep, definitely about dealing with hit point damage.
Healing - Yep, that's about hit point damage.
Temporary Hit Points - Yep, says hit points right in the header and it talks about what happens to that hit point damage when the temporary hit points go away.
Nonlethal Damage - Doesn't directly say it (other than that they're healed in a rate of hit points) but since every single other thing in this section has to do with hit points you would think that this one would be as well, right?

Mallecks, here's a good question for you:
The entire Injury & Death section has to do with hit points, how to damage them, the affects of different levels of hit point damage, healing hit point damage, and gaining temporary hit points (and how they work when they've been damage and what happens when the affect granting them ends)... But you honestly believe that the nonlethal damage section is the only one in that entire section has nothing to do with hit point damage?
That seems like a really weird thing to me...

Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not disregarding any rule. That's the difference between you and me.

Actions are clearly intended to be discrete and separate events. You have to finish your move before you can attack (barring feats that let you circumvent that rule, like Spring Attack). If actions weren't separate events, then you wouldn't need a feat like Spring Attack, because all characters could use an action to modify another action directly.

See, when I tell you how you're wrong, I can talk about rules, and page numbers.

I have no problem with actions being discrete, separate events. Please provide the rule you are using to say a roll can be modified after the roll, but not after the action.

Tell me the rule you're using to determine when the roll "ends". You keep saying "after the roll" but haven't shown me a rule that makes this clear. I can't answer a question that you can't define.

And then you still have to show that I can't put on conditional damage, that I've told you I can calculate prior to the target applying the damage.

1d8+3(+2 more if the target takes hit point damage)

See, I can calculate it prior to rolling.

--------------

1. AFAIK, this "conditional bonus" is a new concept you are bringing to Pathfinder. There is no rules to show it doesn't work like that because that isn't how it works. The rules don't say how many things work. You are making a positive claim saying "it works like this." Please provide your evidence to back it up. I am not familiar with any concept of "conditional bonus" anywhere in Pathfinder that allows for the value of a roll to change after it is made. You are, as you would say, "making all this up."
------------
2. Your example 1d8+3(+2 more if the target takes hit point damage) is misleading. If conditional bonuses exists, then Power Attack would be:

1d8+3(+2 unless the effect is a touch attack or doesn't deal hit point damage)

The conditional bonus provided by...

This is the situation created by your interpretation. If you don't like it, change your interpretation of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Or find a rule that excludes it.

Irontruth wrote:

This is the situation created by your interpretation. If you don't like it, change your interpretation of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Or find a rule that excludes it.

Nothing about the definition of hit point damage changes how bonuses/penalties to rolls work, creates brand new types of conditional bonuses/penalties, changes when rolls are considered "made", or changes how to determine the type of damage dealt by an effect.

Several of the questions had nothing to do with nonlethal damage or hit point damage, but were just straight up problems caused by your interpretation of rules outside the topic's actual discussion.

If you provide an argument against my definition for hit point damage, and the argument is invalid in examples where the definition of hit point damage isn't used, then it isn't a valid argument.

Why do you feel that the target must take damage in order to determine the type of damage of the effect? We can update the definition slightly, if it was confusing you.

Hit Point Damage is damage that is defined as reducing hit points.

Thus, when you perform a nonlethal attack, you use the rule for determining the type of damage the attack deals (such as the nonlethal weapon quality), we can check the rulebook and see that it is defined as not reducing hit points and is not hit point damage.

This is what we were saying all along, but maybe it was confusing to you. Reading it out of context, I could see the misunderstanding.

Warped Savant wrote:

Mallecks, here's a good question for you:

The entire Injury & Death section has to do with hit points, how to damage them, the affects of different levels of hit point damage, healing hit point damage, and gaining temporary hit points (and how they work when they've been damage and what happens when the affect granting them ends)... But you honestly believe that the nonlethal damage section is the only one in that entire section has nothing to do with hit point damage?
That seems like a really weird thing to me...

The number of subsections concerning a particular topic within a section doesn't change the other subsections within a section.

In any case,

I only consider the "Effects of Hit Point Damage" Paragraph to be about hit point damage. The Disabled section is about being disabled, not hit point damage. The dying section is about dying, not hit point damage. ect...

Mallecks wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

This is the situation created by your interpretation. If you don't like it, change your interpretation of what is and isn't hit point damage.

Or find a rule that excludes it.

Nothing about the definition of hit point damage changes how bonuses/penalties to rolls work, creates brand new types of conditional bonuses/penalties, changes when rolls are considered "made", or changes how to determine the type of damage dealt by an effect.

All modifiers are conditional.

Heck, if you take Strength drain during the middle of a round that reduce your Strength to 12 or less, you'd lose the benefits of Power Attack between attacks. You don't lose the feat, but you don't meet the prerequisites any more, so the feat can no longer activate.

If I write: 1d6+3 (+4d6 Sneak Attack) the sneak attack is conditional damage. It doesn't apply to all attacks, just attacks that qualify for sneak attack. I could write it out like:

Quote:

1d6+3 (If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

But that's a waste of space, so we just write: 1d6+3 (+4d6 sneak attack) instead.

Well, to be more specific, you are persisting the conditional modifier past when the roll is made. This is not reflected in the rules for rolling.

You make the roll and total the values of any dice and any modifiers. There is no mechanism for modifying this the total result of the roll at a later time except where explicitly defined with certain abilities.

You not only want to modify a roll after it happens, you want to modify a roll after the results have been revealed. (with the conditional Power Attack.)

Much like your strength drain example, conditions only matter at the time of the roll. Iterative attacks that are somehow causing you to lose STR would result in subsequent attacks to lose benefits that are derived from the Strength score.

However, with your interpretation of rolling, a Full-Attack action is a single action. So, strength would actually retroactively apply to all attacks made within that action, because of the persistent nature of the conditional modifiers.

Creature gets 3 claw/claw/bite and 16 STR. Each time they hit Target, they suffer 2 STR drain.

Claw 1 = 1d4(+STR)
Claw 2 = 1d4(+STR)
Bite = 1d3(+STR)

Creature performs a Full-Attack Action. It is a single action, so all rolls can still be modified. Each attack gets +0 damage from STR.

Modifiers are only relevant at the time the roll is made. Any modifications after that point require special text that allows for the result of the roll to be modified that is not present in Power Attack.

Mallecks wrote:

The number of subsections concerning a particular topic within a section doesn't change the other subsections within a section.

In any case,

I only consider the "Effects of Hit Point Damage" Paragraph to be about hit point damage. The Disabled section is about being disabled, not hit point damage. The dying section is about dying, not hit point damage. ect...

Disabled starts with "When your current hit point total drops to exactly 0, you are disabled." But you're trying to claim that it has nothing to do with hit point damage? That's... interesting.

Dying starts with: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying." Tell me again how your hit points dropped to a negative score without this being about hit point damage...
Dead: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying." No, nothing to do with hit point damage at all... Clearly you're dead through something other than hit point damage!
Stable Characters and Recovery: "On the character’s next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points..." Still think each of these headers aren't about hit point damage?
Healing: "After taking damage, you can recover hit points through
natural healing or through magical healing..." Really? Not about hit point damage... it must mean recovering hit points that were lost through some other means?
Temporary Hit Points: "Certain effects give a character temporary hit points." Sure, it's right in the title but clearly isn't about hit points! We'll just ignore that it goes on to talk about how to deal with temporary hit points that were damaged.

But sure, let's ignore the fact that 7 out of 8 headers are clearly discussing something to do with hit point damage because otherwise it edges too closely to your view being wrong... let's look at the one thing that your entire argument seems to stand on...
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.

According to this I'm not slowed down until my hit points are 0 or less. That's great news! That means that no matter how much nonlethal damage I take I'm not unconscious!
No, we know that's not the case because nonlethal overrides that. That's logical to you, right?
Nonlethal overriding the sentence: "All weapons deal hit point damage." makes sense to you but it overriding the sentence that directly follows it in the same paragraph that says: "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon." seems bonkers to you?

You say that nonlethal damage is it's own type of damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage, you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others, nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points, some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you, Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal, and curing an affliction doesn't cure hit point damage nor ability score damage so does that mean that nonlethal damage from afflictions is cured when the affliction is cured? ... See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?
What's your justification for ignoring all of these things?

Mallecks wrote:

Well, to be more specific, you are persisting the conditional modifier past when the roll is made. This is not reflected in the rules for rolling.

You make the roll and total the values of any dice and any modifiers. There is no mechanism for modifying this the total result of the roll at a later time except where explicitly defined with certain abilities.

You not only want to modify a roll after it happens, you want to modify a roll after the results have been revealed. (with the conditional Power Attack.)

Much like your strength drain example, conditions only matter at the time of the roll. Iterative attacks that are somehow causing you to lose STR would result in subsequent attacks to lose benefits that are derived from the Strength score.

However, with your interpretation of rolling, a Full-Attack action is a single action. So, strength would actually retroactively apply to all attacks made within that action, because of the persistent nature of the conditional modifiers.

Creature gets 3 claw/claw/bite and 16 STR. Each time they hit Target, they suffer 2 STR drain.

Claw 1 = 1d4(+STR)
Claw 2 = 1d4(+STR)
Bite = 1d3(+STR)

Creature performs a Full-Attack Action. It is a single action, so all rolls can still be modified. Each attack gets +0 damage from STR.

Modifiers are only relevant at the time the roll is made. Any modifications after that point require special text that allows for the result of the roll to be modified that is not present in Power Attack.

Nope, I tally all the modifiers before the roll happens. The damage isn't appearing out of no where, it is there the whole time, but isn't activated until certain conditions are met. The bonus damage is present the whole time.

Feel free to show me the rule I'm breaking. You've had like 6 weeks to find that rule. Have you got it yet?

I already know you're breaking the Power Attack rules.

Warped Savant wrote:

Disabled starts with "When your current hit point total drops to exactly 0, you are disabled." But you're trying to claim that it has nothing to do with hit point damage? That's... interesting.

Dying starts with: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying." Tell me again how your hit points dropped to a negative score without this being about hit point damage...
Dead: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying." No, nothing to do with hit point damage at all... Clearly you're dead through something other than hit point damage!
Stable Characters and Recovery: "On the character’s next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points..." Still think each of these headers aren't about hit point damage?
Healing: "After taking damage, you can recover hit points through
natural healing or through magical healing..." Really? Not about hit point damage... it must mean recovering hit points that were lost through some other means?
Temporary Hit Points: "Certain effects give a character temporary hit points." Sure, it's right in the title but clearly isn't about hit points! We'll just ignore that it goes on to talk about how to deal with temporary hit points that were damaged.

But sure, let's ignore the fact that 7 out of 8 headers are clearly discussing something to do with hit point damage because otherwise it edges too closely to your view being wrong... let's look at the one thing that your entire argument seems to stand on...
Effects of Hit Point Damage:
Damage doesn’t slow you down until...

The argument that 7 out of 8 things in a list are X therefore 8 must also be X is a very unconvincing argument.

If there were a section called "Prime Numbers" and each subsection were about a specific prime number, there would be infinite subsections. Even though there are infinite subsections in this "Prime Number" section, only 1 of them is even. (2)

7/8 involve hit point damage. That doesn't require the 8th to also be about hit point damage. It, also, makes sense that most of the sections would be "about hit point damage" as the section summary explicitly says that hit point damage is the most common way of taking damage.

However, I do not consider the "Death" section to be about "hit point damage." I consider it to be about "death." That doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with hit point damage, it just means that isn't the focus of that subsection.

Zero of the sections in the "Injury and Death" section of the Combat chapter are 100% dedicated to hit point damage.

There are probably rules that exist in sections where they don't necessarily "belong." However, in this case, I feel that the Nonlethal Damage rules are appropriately placed in the Injury and Death section of the Combat chapter.

Irontruth wrote:
Nope, I tally all the modifiers before the roll happens. The damage isn't appearing out of no where, it is there the whole time, but isn't activated until certain conditions are met. The bonus damage is present the whole time.

Right, so all the natural attacks in my example provided get a +0 damage from STR. They all happen within the same Full-Round action, so are all being modified until the action is complete.

All modifiers are tallied before the roll happens.

Claw 1 = 1d4+STR
Claw 2 = 1d4+STR
Bite = 1d3+STR

but the value of STR is changing throughout the full attack and the value of STR continues to change until the action is over.

*This is with your arbitrary homerule that rolls can be modified after the roll is made but before the action is over. Even though there are no rules backing this up and rolls can be modified at any point in time, including in subsequent turns. As you are unable to provide a rule that shows I can't.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

And no answer for the rest, Mallecks?

Here, I'll post them again as apparently you missed it the first time around:

let's look at the one thing that your entire argument seems to stand on...
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.

According to this I'm not slowed down until my hit points are 0 or less. That's great news! That means that no matter how much nonlethal damage I take I'm not unconscious!
No, we know that's not the case because nonlethal overrides that. That's logical to you, right?
Nonlethal overriding the sentence: "All weapons deal hit point damage." makes sense to you but it overriding the sentence that directly follows it in the same paragraph that says: "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon." seems bonkers to you?

You say that nonlethal damage is it's own type of damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage, you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others, nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points, some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you, Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal, and curing an affliction doesn't cure hit point damage nor ability score damage so does that mean that nonlethal damage from afflictions is cured when the affliction is cured? ... See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?
What's your justification for ignoring all of these things?

Warped Savant wrote:

The fact that the book refers to it as 'harm' means that it's damaging the character (as well as the fact that it's called nonlethal 'damage')... So what is it damaging or hurting? Hit points is the obvious answer, but surely that can't be the answer because... ummm.... because it's not hit point damage because... umm.... the book doesn't say 'nonlethal hit point damage' and because it's tracked differently than lowering your current hit point score.

Oh! Right! The book says: "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."
That shows that nonlethal isn't hit point damage because... wait.... no.... that just says that hit point damage can eventually slow you down. So that doesn't disqualify nonlethal as being hit point damage.

I try not to belittle your position and to represent it as accurately as I can. It would be nice to receive the same respect. I have to yet see thaX demonstrate an understanding of our position, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is not maliciously misrepresenting it.

Anyway, nonlethal damage is not hit point damage because it doesn't reduce hit points. This is based on the weapons section, and the Effects of Hit Point Damage section is only used as inferential evidence.

Warped Savant wrote:

Mallecks, here's a good question for you:

The entire Injury & Death section has to do with hit points, how to damage them, the affects of different levels of hit point damage, healing hit point damage, and gaining temporary hit points (and how they work when they've been damage and what happens when the affect granting them ends)... But you honestly believe that the nonlethal damage section is the only one in that entire section has nothing to do with hit point damage?

Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points and compared against a character's current hit points. I don't see any issue with nonlethal damage being in the Injury and Death section. Also, the entire nonlethal damage subsection is about how it is different than everything else presented in the section.

Warped Savant wrote:

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.

According to this I'm not slowed down until my hit points are 0 or less. That's great news! That means that no matter how much nonlethal damage I take I'm not unconscious!

thaX has already made the same argument. It doesn't need nonlethal damage to override it. Just consider that the sentence is merely talking about the loss of hit points. Ability Damage also slows you down without reducing your hit points.

Warped Savant wrote:
Nonlethal overriding the sentence: "All weapons deal hit point damage." makes sense to you but it overriding the sentence that directly follows it in the same paragraph that says: "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon." seems bonkers to you?

It doesn't seem bonkers at all. Once again, we are not saying that your interpretation is wrong. At this time, it appears to be a valid interpretation of the rules to me. Rather, people are telling us our interpretation is certainly wrong, and we are trying to provide explanations to their objections. We have no problem agreeing to disagree on the definition of hit point damage and its ramifications.

Warped Savant wrote:

You say that nonlethal damage is it's own type of damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage, you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others, nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points, some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you, Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal, and curing an affliction doesn't cure hit point damage nor ability score damage so does that mean that nonlethal damage from afflictions is cured when the affliction is cured? ... See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?

What's your justification for ignoring all of these things?

1) Sure, shield other can't help nonlethal. It only transfers "real" wounds. Whenever there is an interpretation needed, one interpretation may cause some spells or abilities to make less sense to some people than other interpretations.

2) In my interpretation, Regeneration does not directly heal nonlethal damage, but nonlethal healing is still triggered to occur. I am not sure if Mallecks feels the same way on this one. I believe he said he would agree to it not working merely to move along conversation at the time.
3) It appears you are correct about afflictions. Lethal damage would be healed, but not nonlethal. I didn't look in too much detail. Are there very many afflictions that cause nonlethal?

Mallecks wrote:
If there were a section called "Prime Numbers" and each subsection were about a specific prime number, there would be infinite subsections. Even though there are infinite subsections in this "Prime Number" section, only 1 of them is even. (2)

If there were a section called "Prime Numbers" you would assume that everything in that section was discussing prime numbers even if one of them didn't outright state it, wouldn't you? Unless you could prove that one demonstrably wasn't.

However, if the section started off saying that all prime numbers were odd and then had a section at the end talking about the number two that section would still be about a prime number even though it might not necessarily say that it is. But since the section is talking about prime numbers it would be assumed that the one talking about the number two was still talking about them.

Mallecks wrote:

It, also, makes sense that most of the sections would be "about hit point damage" as the section summary explicitly says that hit point damage is the most common way of taking damage.

However, I do not consider the "Death" section to be about "hit point damage." I consider it to be about "death." That doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with hit point damage, it just means that isn't the focus of that subsection.

Zero of the sections in the "Injury and Death" section of the Combat chapter are 100% dedicated to hit point damage.

First: no, the section summary says "Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower." Then the first subsection (Loss of Hit Points) says "The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points." If you're going to say that something explicitly says something you might want to ascertain that you're correct.

Secondly: I didn't say that any of the subsections focused on hit point damage, simply that they all discuss it in some way.

Thirdly: I didn't say anything that would make any reasonable person think that I was claiming that any of the subsections of Injury and Death were dedicated 100% to hit point damage. Or are you just stating obvious things that most reasonable people would be aware of?

Butt_Luckily -- Let me start off by apologizing. I did not intend to belittle you. I'm sorry that I said things that came across that way.

Butt_Luckily wrote:
...we are not saying that your interpretation is wrong. At this time, it appears to be a valid interpretation of the rules to me. Rather, people are telling us our interpretation is certainly wrong, and we are trying to provide explanations to their objections. We have no problem agreeing to disagree on the definition of hit point damage and its ramifications.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood. I thought that you and Mallecks were saying that interpreting nonlethal as hit point damage was wrong. It's good to see that you can understand our perspective.

I can see why you and Mallecks have the stance you do ("Damage reduces current hit points") but looking at how some things interact when you don't consider nonlethal to be hit point damage really doesn't sit right with me.

If the rest of this conversation is simply Irontruth pointing out what he sees as flaws in your thinking, well, I don't have much to add because I disagree with most (if not all) of the points he's trying to make.

Mallecks wrote:
Right, so all the natural attacks in my example provided get a +0 damage from STR. They all happen within the same Full-Round action, so are all being modified until the action is complete.

I'm willing to address things like this once you admit that Power Attack applies to all hit point damage. You keep wanting to spiral the conversation out into other things without resolving the first thing. Do you think it productive for us to disagree on MORE things before we agree on ONE thing? That seems pretty dumb.

Or is your goal to have a never ending debate where we never agree on anything?

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Power Attack is concerned with Damage, which effects Hit Points and how close the target is to being unconscious and out of the fight, Dying or Stable. Nonlethal Damage is applicable to this limitation. To say it isn't because it is not Lethal Damage is ignoring basic rules interfacing with weapon damage and how Nonlethal damage is applied.

Thank you, Warped Servant, for understanding and offering a second perspective on this issue.

I ask this for a conclusion of this and the other two threads' particulars. If one of you sit at a table, as a player or GM, and I have my character use Nonlethal Damage with Power Attack, Vital Strike as my character is enlarged with a Earth Breaker, would you agree on his ability to do so, or consent to the table's agreement that my character can do this? Or would you bring the game to a halt with this interpretation of Nonlethal being Bacon?

GA, I invite you to chime in at this point, since you created this particular thread after the other two went off topic (sort of) with this "issue."

Warped Savant wrote:

Butt_Luckily -- Let me start off by apologizing. I did not intend to belittle you. I'm sorry that I said things that came across that way.

Butt_Luckily wrote:
...we are not saying that your interpretation is wrong. At this time, it appears to be a valid interpretation of the rules to me. Rather, people are telling us our interpretation is certainly wrong, and we are trying to provide explanations to their objections. We have no problem agreeing to disagree on the definition of hit point damage and its ramifications.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood. I thought that you and Mallecks were saying that interpreting nonlethal as hit point damage was wrong. It's good to see that you can understand our perspective.

I can see why you and Mallecks have the stance you do ("Damage reduces current hit points") but looking at how some things interact when you don't consider nonlethal to be hit point damage really doesn't sit right with me.

If the rest of this conversation is simply Irontruth pointing out what he sees as flaws in your thinking, well, I don't have much to add because I disagree with most (if not all) of the points he's trying to make.

Currently, there are two issues being that nonlethal healing spells are modified by the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule and the uses of hit point damage that are problematic by treating it as a category instead of a type. (Blood Leaf Residue)

Talonhawke has provided an explanation to handle the latter, but it is an extension of the interpretation that is not based on rules text, iirc.

Butt_Luckily is accurate in my conceding the Regeneration not healing nonlethal damage. I do not agree that the Regeneration behaves in a way that would prevent it from being modified by the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule. However, it was easier to just concede the point and move on, as it wasn't a point that would make the position logically invalid.

I believe that both positions can be logically consistent. It just depends which pros/cons you want to play with. I would like to fully explore both sides of the issue, but we've been bogged down on how to properly apply Power Attack.

Irontruth wrote:

I'm willing to address things like this once you admit that Power Attack applies to all hit point damage. You keep wanting to spiral the conversation out into other things without resolving the first thing. Do you think it productive for us to disagree on MORE things before we agree on ONE thing? That seems pretty dumb.

Or is your goal to have a never ending debate where we never agree on anything?

Power Attack provides a bonus to melee damage rolls based on whether or not the effect deals hit point damage.

Cool. I'll take that as agreement then.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Mallecks, any rules disparity that you are finding with this "issue" comes from your own deviation of the rules when you accept GA's interpretation of Nonlethal Damage becoming Bacon. When you do this, then we must try to interpret the other abilities as if this was the intent of Nonlethal to be. This gets kinda hard when the abilities assume that Nonlethal Bacon is actually Damage that effects Hit Points.

I am sure that you can find a way to see how it wouldn't be possible to use Nonlethal damage with anything but a basic swing of a weapon, but most others here have been playing the game using the rules as they are in the book, as they are intended to be played when it comes to this particular stance.

Power Attack gives the character a penalty to hit the target in exchange for additional damage when the attack hits. If it can not be used, we, as a player, would already know that and only apply the normal damage instead. Dealing Nonlethal Damage is not something that excludes the character from using Power Attack, as it is not a touch attack and uses a weapon to deal Melee damage.

Nonlethal damage will still get reduced by DR, acts the same way when hitting Ablative Barrier, and gets healed by Regeneration, unless Nonlethal was taken from Starvation, thirst or exhaustion, and so on. The complication is a fabrication on your end, not ours.

thaX wrote:
If one of you sit at a table, as a player or GM, and I have my character use Nonlethal Damage with Power Attack, Vital Strike as my character is enlarged with a Earth Breaker, would you agree on his ability to do so, or consent to the table's agreement that my character can do this? Or would you bring the game to a halt with this interpretation of Nonlethal being Bacon?

If I were the GM, then it wouldn't be allowed. If I were a player, then I would raise my objection for the GM to decide. I've already said in numerous posts that I consider it a valid interpretation, and I don't know why you would suggest I would bring play to a halt.

thaX wrote:
I am sure that you can find a way to see how it wouldn't be possible to use Nonlethal damage with anything but a basic swing of a weapon

This isn't part of our position. You claim to understand our position, but have yet to ever accruately represent it in one of your posts.

thaX wrote:
Dealing Nonlethal Damage is not something that excludes the character from using Power Attack, as it is not a touch attack and uses a weapon to deal Melee damage.

To be clear, you can use power attack just fine, but you won't receive the bonus.

thaX wrote:
Nonlethal damage will still get reduced by DR, acts the same way when hitting Ablative Barrier, and gets healed by Regeneration, unless Nonlethal was taken from Starvation, thirst or exhaustion, and so on

This is all true in our interpretation. Once again, you've shown you do not understand the position you're arguing against.

Butt_Luckily wrote:
thaX wrote:
Nonlethal damage will still get reduced by DR, acts the same way when hitting Ablative Barrier, and gets healed by Regeneration, unless Nonlethal was taken from Starvation, thirst or exhaustion, and so on
This is all true in our interpretation. Once again, you've shown you do not understand the position you're arguing against.
No, that's not all true, according to what Mallecks said earlier...
Mallecks wrote:
7/8 involve hit point damage. That doesn't require the 8th to also be about hit point damage. It, also, makes sense that most of the sections would be "about hit point damage" as the section summary explicitly says that hit point damage is the most common way of taking damage.
CRB wrote:
Damage Reduction: The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

So hit point damage is the common/normal way to take damage, therefore an attack dealing hit point damage is what counts as a "normal" attack.

Since nonlethal is not a "normal" attack then DR, according to Mallecks' justification for nonlethal not being hit point damage, doesn't stop nonlethal damage.

Also, Regeneration (Ex) specifically says "Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration."
Specific rule trumps general. Some Nonlethal is generally healed when you heal hit points. Regeneration specifically says it doesn't heal attack damage unless the damage was hit point damage.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Butt_Luckily wrote:
thaX wrote:
If one of you sit at a table, as a player or GM, and I have my character use Nonlethal Damage with Power Attack, Vital Strike as my character is enlarged with a Earth Breaker, would you agree on his ability to do so, or consent to the table's agreement that my character can do this? Or would you bring the game to a halt with this interpretation of Nonlethal being Bacon?
If I were the GM, then it wouldn't be allowed. If I were a player, then I would raise my objection for the GM to decide. I've already said in numerous posts that I consider it a valid interpretation, and I don't know why you would suggest I would bring play to a halt.
Because most other players would agree with me, and I would have to either leave the table or find a different character to play if I could not follow the edict of my character's God.
B Lucky wrote:

thaX wrote:
I am sure that you can find a way to see how it wouldn't be possible to use Nonlethal damage with anything but a basic swing of a weapon
This isn't part of our position. You claim to understand our position, but have yet to ever accruately represent it in one of your posts.
But that is what your position would do, make it so Nonlethal can not be used if the character is trying to use an ability or make use of a feat.
B Lucky wrote:

thaX wrote:
Dealing Nonlethal Damage is not something that excludes the character from using Power Attack, as it is not a touch attack and uses a weapon to deal Melee damage.
To be clear, you can use power attack just fine, but you won't receive the bonus.
If you don't get the damage bonus, you would not have the penalty to hit. If I take the penalty to hit, I will get the bonus to damage. All or nothing, and both Lethal and Nonlethal deal damage from a melee weapon. Not Bacon.
B Lucky wrote:

thaX wrote:
Nonlethal damage will still get reduced by DR, acts the same way when hitting Ablative Barrier, and gets healed by Regeneration, unless Nonlethal was taken from Starvation, thirst or exhaustion, and so on
This is all true in our interpretation. Once again, you've shown you do not understand the position you're arguing against.

This is the situations you created, not me.

Regarding the whole Damage Reduction tangent:

Special Attack wrote:
This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity

So, this is an actual use of normal attack, instead of one we have to try to make up.

Let's see what these are....

Aid Another, Charge, Combat Maneuvers, Feinting, Mounted Combat, Throwing Splash Weapons, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

So, as these are categorized as "Special Attacks" by the rules, are we suddenly going to start considering TWF or charges to bypass damage reduction?

At the very least, if we are going to be hyper-specific about language, can we refer to abilities that actually impact the discussion? (aka: text that uses the terms "hit point damage" or maybe "nonlethal damage".)

Damage Reduction does not use the term "Hit Point Damage", so I am confused why anyone would think it suddenly starts behaving differently. Please provide the actual text that is causing confusion. If it does not use the term "hit point damage" then it should work EXACTLY THE SAME in both interpretations.

thaX wrote:
If you don't get the damage bonus, you would not have the penalty to hit. If I take the penalty to hit, I will get the bonus to damage. All or nothing, and both Lethal and Nonlethal deal damage from a melee weapon. Not Bacon.

This is incorrect. You take the penalty on all melee attack rolls regardless of whether or not you get the bonus.

If you use Power Attack and then cast Shocking Grasp, you would take the -1 penalty on the touch attack and would not receive the +2 damage bonus.

Damage Reduction says: The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Damage says: Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Therefore hit point damage is the default when discussing 'damage' unless it says otherwise. Since you think nonlethal damage isn't ht point damage that would mean that, since a creature with DR only ignores some hit point damage, nonlethal damage isn't reduced.

Lethal/hit point damage being the default is how we know what Cure Light Wounds heals. Heck, here's a post where you say that lethal damage is the default assumption. (Not having either Lethal Damage or Hit Point Damage be the default when the books say 'damage' opens up all sorts of problems.)

But hey, if you don't want to talk about that, let's take a look at other things you still haven't addressed, Mallecks:

-You say that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage

-you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others (Nonlethal overriding the sentence: "All weapons deal hit point damage." makes sense to you but it overriding the sentence that directly follows it in the same paragraph that says: "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon." seems bonkers to you?)

-nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points

-some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal attack damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you (Shield Other would stop some damage from a lethal monk punch but not damage from a nonlethal punch from the same monk)

-Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal damage from attacks (but it can cure lethal and nonlethal environmental damage once the creature is out of whatever is causing it), but Fast Healing can cure both lethal and nonlethal damage from attacks or environmental hazards

-curing an affliction doesn't cure hit point damage nor ability score damage so does that mean that nonlethal damage from afflictions is cured when the affliction is cured?

See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?
What are your justifications for ignoring these things?

Well, if you're willing to just ignore things you don't like you don't need a justification.

Warped Savant wrote:

Damage Reduction says: The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Damage says: Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Therefore hit point damage is the default when discussing 'damage' unless it says otherwise. Since you think nonlethal damage isn't ht point damage that would mean that, since a creature with DR only ignores some hit point damage, nonlethal damage isn't reduced.

This issue is the same for both interpretations. However you feel this works in your interpretation works the same for mine, because the term "hit point damage isn't used.

I am seeing Damage and Damage Reduction. If you feel the default assumption is used here, that is an issue with the default assumption and/or damage reduction.

Warped Savant wrote:

Lethal/hit point damage being the default is how we know what Cure Light Wounds heals. Heck, here's a post where you say that lethal damage is the default assumption. (Not having either Lethal Damage or Hit Point Damage be the default when the books say 'damage' opens up all sorts of problems.)

This is incorrect. The default assumption is not required for CLW. The rules state that healing damage is to restore hit points. It is not explicitly stated, but contextually it seems that healing nonlethal means to remove nonlethal damage.

Warped Savant wrote:

But hey, if you don't want to talk about that, let's take a look at other things you still haven't addressed, Mallecks:

-You say that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage even though it's in a section where every header has something to do with hit point damage

This is a meaningless argument. There is no reason to assume that all subsections within a section all considered to be the same topic as a paragraph of the first subsection of the section.

It would be more convincing if the section was titled "Hit Point Damage." However, it isnt. It is Injury and Death, and as such, it is an appropriate place to have the nonlethal rules. (There are probably examples of rules that placed inappropriately, but I don't even have to make that argument, because it is appropriately placed.)

Warped Savant wrote:

-you have the nonlethal rules overriding some things but not others (Nonlethal overriding the sentence: "All weapons deal hit point damage." makes sense to you but it overriding the sentence that directly follows it in the same paragraph that says: "This damage is subtracted from the current hit points of any creature struck by the weapon." seems bonkers to you?)

This is incorrect. I would say that the rules that determine what type of damage an attack deals override the general "All weapons deal hit point damage."

You would probably say that the nonlethal damage rules override the "this damage reduces hit points. "

Warped Savant wrote:

-nonlethal damage is healed at a rate of hit points

Ability Damage and Ability Drain are both measured in ability points. We do not consided them to be the same catgeory.

It is possible for Ability Drain to be the result of a damage roll, making it damage that is measured in ability points that isn't ability damage.

Nonlethal Damage is measured in hit points. That doesn't mean it is hit point damage.

Warped Savant wrote:

-some spells (see: Shield Other) preventing lethal damage but not nonlethal attack damage even though it spells out other things it doesn't prevent seems right to you (Shield Other would stop some damage from a lethal monk punch but not damage from a nonlethal punch from the same monk)

Sometimes magic effects don't translate well to reality. I can provide you a description of how it *could* work, but the bottom line is going to be "it's magic."

Warped Savant wrote:

-Regeneration (Ex) says it only cures hit point damage therefore (by your rules) it can't get rid of nonlethal damage from attacks (but it can cure lethal and nonlethal environmental damage once the creature is out of whatever is causing it), but Fast Healing can cure both lethal and nonlethal damage from attacks or environmental hazards

I believe the only way that environmental damage can ever be healed is through natural recovery.

Warped Savant wrote:

-curing an affliction doesn't cure hit point damage nor ability score damage so does that mean that nonlethal damage from afflictions is cured when the affliction is cured?

Do you have any specific examples exist for this? Hypothetically, it could mean that, but I haven't felt the need to try to go fetch an explanation has i am unaware of this being a thing that happens.

Warped Savant wrote:

See how all these things point to nonlethal being hit point damage even though the book doesn't flat out state it?
What are your justifications for ignoring these things?

The book flat our states that hit point damage reduces hit points and that Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce hit points.

At least my definition is actually pulled from the text.

What exactly is your definition of hit point damage and where are you pulling it from? I have summarized the opposing position as "damage that is measured in hit points" but that isn't Irontruth's definition, although his definition wasn't based on rules text either.

Why is the only use of "hit point damage" in the Healing Nonlethal Damage rule being used to reference it as a separate concept? And also, why would Nonlethal Healing Spells be modified by that rule?

Why is hit point damage used as an effect in some cases if it is a category of damage? Are there examples of other effects dealing "category damage"? (Sassone Leaf Residue)

Nothing is ignored in my position.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:

thaX wrote:
If you don't get the damage bonus, you would not have the penalty to hit. If I take the penalty to hit, I will get the bonus to damage. All or nothing, and both Lethal and Nonlethal deal damage from a melee weapon. Not Bacon.

This is incorrect. You take the penalty on all melee attack rolls regardless of whether or not you get the bonus.

If you use Power Attack and then cast Shocking Grasp, you would take the -1 penalty on the touch attack and would not receive the +2 damage bonus.

How is a touch attack used with Power Attack when it specifically says that it can not use such attacks?

We, as players, know we can't cast a spell and try to use Power Attack with it. (unless your a Magus using Spellstrike) It is an energy attack that is not a part of a melee weapon attack that Power Attack is based upon.

We take the penalty to get the damage bonus. One would not be excluded form the other. If the GM rules that Power Attack can not be used in a given situation, then my penalty is gone also.

The character would know what limitations he has for his ability, and how it would interact. You are confused because you look at Nonlethal as Bacon, not damage, Hit Points, or any type of hindrance at all. Why bother writing it down at this point? In your mind, it does nothing, and can't be used for anything.

You keep saying that the rules are consistent with GA's interpretation, but have been going in circles with this explanation and not really answering the most important question.

If Nonlethal "damage" is not Hit Points, then what is it? Bacon? Tomato? Some sort of math exercised for Pathfinder players? A new type of puzzle? Glutton free?

Mallecks wrote:
Nothing is ignored in my position.
Core Rulebook page 191 wrote:

Nonlethal Damage

Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is
not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal
damage is healed quickly with rest.
Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal
nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being
exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take
nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much
you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal
damage number from your current hit points. It is not
equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see
below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.

You are ignoring this.

When it equals current HP, when it exceeds current HP. If this isn't Hit Points, it would not use Current HP as a standard to measure against for conditions that Nonlethal "Damage" would impart.

If it isn't HP, then it would not matter what the character HP is, max, current or lack thereof...

thaX wrote:
Mallecks wrote:

thaX wrote:
If you don't get the damage bonus, you would not have the penalty to hit. If I take the penalty to hit, I will get the bonus to damage. All or nothing, and both Lethal and Nonlethal deal damage from a melee weapon. Not Bacon.

This is incorrect. You take the penalty on all melee attack rolls regardless of whether or not you get the bonus.

If you use Power Attack and then cast Shocking Grasp, you would take the -1 penalty on the touch attack and would not receive the +2 damage bonus.

How is a touch attack used with Power Attack when it specifically says that it can not use such attacks?

We, as players, know we can't cast a spell and try to use Power Attack with it. (unless your a Magus using Spellstrike) It is an energy attack that is not a part of a melee weapon attack that Power Attack is based upon.

We take the penalty to get the damage bonus. One would not be excluded form the other. If the GM rules that Power Attack can not be used in a given situation, then my penalty is gone also.

The character would know what limitations he has for his ability, and how it would interact. You are confused because you look at Nonlethal as Bacon, not damage, Hit Points, or any type of hindrance at all. Why bother writing it down at this point? In your mind, it does nothing, and can't be used for anything.

This is incorrect. If you use Power Attack, you are getting the penalty on all melee attack rolls and only getting the bonus under the Power Attack conditions.

You said that if you get the penalty, you also get the bonus. I have provided a generic example where this is incorrect. Here's another one.

A monk uses a flurry of blows against Target. He gets two attacks. He uses Power Attack on the first attack and gets the penalty and the bonus. He replaces his second attack with a trip combat maneuver. His Trip combat maneuver suffers the Power Attack penalty and (obviously) doesn't get a bonus to damage, because it doesn't have one. The penalty isn't suddenly gone because the player gets no benefit.

thaX wrote:

You keep saying that the rules are consistent with GA's interpretation, but have been going in circles with this explanation and not really answering the most important question.

If Nonlethal "damage" is not Hit Points, then what is it? Bacon? Tomato? Some sort of math exercised for Pathfinder players? A new type of puzzle? Glutton free?

I'm sorry you don't understand this. However, it is clear that you are unable or unwilling to understand how something can be its own type of damage.

Ability Damage is its own type of damage.
Ability Drain is its own type of damage.
Precision Damage is its own type of damage.
Positive Energy is its own type of damage.
Negative Energy is its own type of damage.
Force Damage is its own type of damage.
Bleed Damage is its own type of damage.

and it is even possible for some effects to deal "untyped" damage.

Nothing really seeing a leap of logic here for Nonlethal to be its own type of damage. It certainly isn't defined as belonging to a different type of damage.

thaX wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Nothing is ignored in my position.
Core Rulebook page 191 wrote:

Nonlethal Damage

Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is
not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal
damage is healed quickly with rest.
Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal
nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being
exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take
nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much
you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal
damage number from your current hit points. It is not
equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see
below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.

You are ignoring this.

When it equals current HP, when it exceeds current HP. If this isn't Hit Points, it would not use Current HP as a standard to measure against for conditions that Nonlethal "Damage" would impart.

If it isn't HP, then it would not matter what the character HP is, max, current or lack thereof...

Nonlethal Damage (or lethal damage) is not "hit points." They are measured in hit points, but that doesn't make them hit points. Hit Points is the character statistic that isn't damage.

You have not provided a reason why something couldn't compare against HP and not be HP.

If X is greater than Y, then why would X be a type of Y? Here's an example...

If the cost of an apple is greater than 1 dollar, then it is expensive. This doesn't make the cost of an apple "money" or "dollars". The cost is an abstract concept that describes how much it would reduce my total amount of money. Now, lets say that I have in-store credit. My credit at the store is still measured in dollars. But guess what? It isn't money either. Dollars is just the unit that abstractly describes the amount of credit I have. Changes to my credit doesn't change how much "money" I have. It isn't "real" money.

Hopefully this makes sense, but you seem unable or unwilling to understand my position or even how certain abilities work, so I have a feeling you are just going to bring it back up.

Mallecks wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:

Damage Reduction says: The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Damage says: Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Therefore hit point damage is the default when discussing 'damage' unless it says otherwise. Since you think nonlethal damage isn't ht point damage that would mean that, since a creature with DR only ignores some hit point damage, nonlethal damage isn't reduced.

This issue is the same for both interpretations. However you feel this works in your interpretation works the same for mine, because the term "hit point damage isn't used.

I am seeing Damage and Damage Reduction. If you feel the default assumption is used here, that is an issue with the default assumption and/or damage reduction.

Warped Savant wrote:

Lethal/hit point damage being the default is how we know what Cure Light Wounds heals. Heck, here's a post where you say that lethal damage is the default assumption. (Not having either Lethal Damage or Hit Point Damage be the default when the books say 'damage' opens up all sorts of problems.)

This is incorrect. The default assumption is not required for CLW. The rules state that healing damage is to restore hit points. It is not explicitly stated, but contextually it seems that healing nonlethal means to remove nonlethal damage.

What in the books tell us when to use the default assumption and when not to? Surely, if there's times when you do and times when you don't it's listed in the rulebook somewhere...

I'll get to everything else when I have time.

HOW DOES THIS THREAD I SAW CREATED BUT NEVER LOOKED AT HAVE SO MANY POSTS???????

Mallecks wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:

Damage Reduction says: The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Damage says: Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Therefore hit point damage is the default when discussing 'damage' unless it says otherwise. Since you think nonlethal damage isn't ht point damage that would mean that, since a creature with DR only ignores some hit point damage, nonlethal damage isn't reduced.

This issue is the same for both interpretations. However you feel this works in your interpretation works the same for mine, because the term "hit point damage isn't used.

I am seeing Damage and Damage Reduction. If you feel the default assumption is used here, that is an issue with the default assumption and/or damage reduction.

Oh, and I feel like I should address this sooner rather than later...

Damage: If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

The first line tells you that a weapon causes damage. DR stops damage. That's why DR stops both lethal and nonlethal damage in my interpretation.

You're argument to show that a sap can deal damage is that you can take a -4 to do lethal and therefore that statement remains true. "Damage reduces a target's current hit points" and since nonlethal doesn't do that (according to you, because there's no nuance in neither the hit point system nor how hit points can be damaged) as well as the fact that nonlethal isn't "real" damage (as you've pointed out the book says) then that means that, according to your own arguments, DR doesn't prevent nonlethal damage.
If you hadn't been using these two things to argue against us so strongly I'd totally be fine with you saying that I'm wrong and that's not how you read what damage is. But if you try to say that nonlethal suddenly counts as "real" damage to you I think I'd feel compelled to go through this thread of horribly circular arguments again and pull up the times you used 'nonlethal isn't real damage, it says so in the book' and have you try to justify those points again.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
thelivingmonkey wrote:
HOW DOES THIS THREAD I SAW CREATED BUT NEVER LOOKED AT HAVE SO MANY POSTS???????

Because the same 5ish people keep arguing in circles. Thats the short version.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mallecks wrote:

Ability Damage is its own type of damage.

Ability Drain is its own type of damage.
Precision Damage is its own type of damage.
Positive Energy is its own type of damage.
Negative Energy is its own type of damage.
Force Damage is its own type of damage.
Bleed Damage is its own type of damage.

Ability damage and drain go against one or more of the character's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) ((Do you use Com?))

Precision Damage is a type of damage that has it's own particulars and effects HP directly. This is additional damage that can be used with Nonlethal as long as a character is not taking a penalty to deal Nonlethal Damage. (Such as using a Sap or the Blugeoneer feet) It typically is sneak attack damage that a rogue deals in certain situations.

Positive and Negative damage are a type of energy attacks and typically are either touch attacks or area effects.

Force damage is a type of energy attack and typically are touch attacks, if not automatic hits from Magic Missiles.

Bleed Damage is an ongoing effect that directly reduce HP.

All but the ability damage/drain reduce HP, yet can not be used with Power Attack. (Con damage/drain only reduces the max HP the character has and does not actually damage HP)

Why put these up as examples? Nonlethal Damage is still able to be used with a Melee weapon (and ranged weapons with Blugeoneer), and still effects HP as direct damage to the target. When using Nonlethal Damage in this way, why would it exclude any other ability that one could use with Lethal damage?

All I see you, B Lucky, and Galiant Armor saying is "because Nonlethal."

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh, and almost forgot...

Bacon!!

Warped Savant wrote:

What in the books tell us when to use the default assumption and when not to? Surely, if there's times when you do and times when you don't it's listed in the rulebook somewhere...

I'll get to everything else when I have time.

I am unaware of any text that explains when to use the default assumption. It is possible that the default assumption is only restricted to the Combat Chapter or the Damage Section. It is possible it is supposed to use literally every single time. This issue is not relevant to the topic, because no matter what decision you make, it will also work exactly the same for me, because Damage Reduction doesn't use the term "hit point damage" and the two suggested definitions for hit point damage do not reference damage reduction. It is also possible that each instance requires context, making it up for interpretation.

thelivingmonkey wrote:

HOW DOES THIS THREAD I SAW CREATED BUT NEVER LOOKED AT HAVE SO MANY POSTS???????

90% of this topic is a tangent where Irontruth is trying to say that my interpretation doesn't work with the way he uses Power Attack, and my trying to explain that the way he uses Power Attack doesn't work in either interpretation.

Warped Savant wrote:

Damage: If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

The first line tells you that a weapon causes damage. DR stops damage. That's why DR stops both lethal and nonlethal damage in my interpretation.

Ok, so, are we going to ignore "Damage reduces a target's current hit points"? If you are going to ignore that part, then it is also ignored in my interpretation and Damage Reduction stops both lethal and nonlethal damage. As you can see, because Damage Reduction doesn't use the term hit point damage, it was able to be immediately applied to my position with no change.

If you give me an answer that doesn't use "hit point damage" it is almost certainly going to be applicable to my position with no changes.

Warped Savant wrote:
You're argument to show that a sap can deal damage is that you can take a -4 to do lethal and therefore that statement remains true. "Damage reduces a target's current hit points" and since nonlethal doesn't do that (according to you, because there's no nuance in neither the hit point system nor how hit points can be damaged) as well as the fact that nonlethal isn't "real" damage (as you've pointed out the book says) then that means that, according to your own arguments, DR doesn't prevent nonlethal damage.

I'm confused, why does "Damage reduces a target's current hit points" suddenly matter for my position when it was ignored in yours? In any case, nonlethal damage is a type of damage, so a sap deals damage whether you are dealing lethal or nonlethal damage.

Warped Savant wrote:
If you hadn't been using these two things to argue against us so strongly I'd totally be fine with you saying that I'm wrong and that's not how you read what damage is. But if you try to say that nonlethal suddenly counts as "real" damage to you I think I'd feel compelled to go through this thread of horribly circular arguments again and pull up the times you used 'nonlethal isn't real damage, it says so in the book' and have you try to justify those points again.

You haven't shown that Damage reduction doesn't work against damage that isn't "real". Do you have any references that shows that damage reduction doesn't work against damage that isn't "real"?

thaX wrote:
Ability damage and drain go against one or more of the character's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) ((Do you use Com?))

Yes, but what type of damage is Ability Damage? And what type of damage is ability drain? They are each their own type of damage. (Just like nonlethal damage)

"thaX wrote:
Precision Damage is a type of damage that has it's own particulars and effects HP directly. This is additional damage that can be used with Nonlethal as long as a character is not taking a penalty to deal Nonlethal Damage. (Such as using a Sap or the Blugeoneer feet) It typically is sneak attack damage that a rogue deals in certain situations.

Precision Damage is a type of damage that can be assigned to any other type of damage. There can be precision ability damage, precision lethal damage, precision nonlethal damage, precision energy damage, etc.

The ability granting precision damage doesn't always require restrictions about the weapon dealing nonlethal damage. You are talking about sneak attack. Sneak Attack doesn't allow weapons that deal lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage, regardless of whether or not a character takes the -4 penalty to the attack roll. The only reason why the Bludgeoner feat works is because it's "Special" text explicitly defines it to work with a Rogue's sneak attack.

There are many types of abilities that provide precision damage, though a Sneak Attack is probably the most common, and precision damage is a special type of damage that has certain restrictions and interacts with other things in different ways. It is its own type of damage. (Just like nonlethal damage.)

thaX wrote:
Positive and Negative damage are a type of energy attacks and typically are either touch attacks or area effects.

This is incorrect. Positive Energy and Negative Energy are not energy attacks. Energy Damage is implicitly defined as a category of damage containing: Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, or Sonic damage.

Resist Energy wrote:
This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature's hit points. The value of the energy resistance granted increases to 20 points at 7th level and to a maximum of 30 points at 11th level. The spell protects the recipient's equipment as well.
James Jacobs wrote:

Positive energy and negative energy are not "energy types," despite the unfortunately confusing use of the word "energy" in their name.

There are 5 energy types in the game that cause damage: acid, cold, fire, electricity, and sonic. In many cases, sonic is left off since it's one that so few monsters are resistant or immune to.

The sorcerer's elemental bloodline arcana and spell feats cannot affect positive or negative energy at all.

so, no, Positive Energy and Negative Energy are not energy damage. They are their own type of damage. (Just like Nonlethal Damage)

thaX wrote:
Force damage is a type of energy attack and typically are touch attacks, if not automatic hits from Magic Missiles.

Force Damage is not energy damage. See above for what energy damage is. Force Damage isn't that. It is its own type of damage that has its own qualities. It is its own type of damage. (Just like nonlethal damage.)

thaX wrote:
Bleed Damage is an ongoing effect that directly reduce HP.

Bleed Damage is not always HP damage. It is possible to be nonlethal damage, ability damage, etc. Bleed Damage is its own special type of damage (just like nonlethal damage.)

thaX wrote:
All but the ability damage/drain reduce HP, yet can not be used with Power Attack. (Con damage/drain only reduces the max HP the character has and does not actually damage HP)

Incorrect. Power Attack applies to all melee damage rolls that are not touch attacks and deal hit point damage.

You can Power Attack with a Battle Poi and get +2 Fire Damage, for example. As long as you meet the conditions, you are going to get the bonus, no matter what type of damage the melee attack is doing.

thaX wrote:
Why put these up as examples? Nonlethal Damage is still able to be used with a Melee weapon (and ranged weapons with Blugeoneer), and still effects HP as direct damage to the target. When using Nonlethal Damage in this way, why would it exclude any other ability that one could use with Lethal damage?

1. I was listing types of damage that are their own types of damage. Just like I am claiming nonlethal damage to be. Clearly, this has gone over your head.

2. Bludgeoner does not provide characters with the ability to make nonlethal ranged attacks.

3. Nonlethal Damage does not effect HP. This is explicitly in the rules.

4. I am confused by your question. Are you asking why it doesn't work with Power Attack? The answer would be that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.

thaX wrote:
All I see you, B Lucky, and Galiant Armor saying is "because Nonlethal."

The answer isn't "because Nonlethal". The answer is "because not hit point damage" and that is the language used by Power attack.

It is appears that you do not understand what the "nonlethal damage is not hit point damage" position is, what damage types are, or how certain feats work. Hopefully, this post cleared some of it up, but I do not have confidence as you so far have seemed unable or unwilling to even understand my position.

Mallecks wrote:

I am unaware of any text that explains when to use the default assumption. It is possible that the default assumption is only restricted to the Combat Chapter or the Damage Section. It is possible it is supposed to use literally every single time. This issue is not relevant to the topic, because no matter what decision you make, it will also work exactly the same for me, because Damage Reduction doesn't use the term "hit point damage" and the two suggested definitions for hit point damage do not reference damage reduction. It is also possible that each instance requires context, making it up for interpretation.

Ok, so, are we going to ignore "Damage reduces a target's current hit points"? If you are going to ignore that part, then it is also ignored in my interpretation and Damage Reduction stops both lethal and nonlethal damage. As you can see, because Damage Reduction doesn't use the term hit point damage, it was able to be immediately applied to my position with no change.

If you give me an answer that doesn't use "hit point damage" it is almost certainly going to be applicable to my position with no changes.

I'm confused, why does "Damage reduces a target's current hit points" suddenly matter for my position when it was ignored in yours? In any case, nonlethal damage is a type of damage, so a sap deals damage whether you are dealing lethal or nonlethal damage.

You haven't shown that Damage reduction doesn't work against damage that isn't "real". Do you have any references that shows that damage reduction doesn't work against damage that isn't "real"?

So you don't have a default assumption when it says "damage"? Wouldn't that mean that DR then stops ability damage? That sure doesn't seem right. Please explain why DR doesn't stop ability damage if you're not using an assumption in regards to DR only stopping certain types of damage.

It's not relevant to this topic? Okay, so that means we both agree that DR stops hit point damage (because we both know it doesn't stop ability damage) therefore it stops both lethal and nonlethal damage.
Yeah, no, what DR stops and how you get that conclusion is completely related to if nonlethal is hit point damage or not.

You're aware that damage doesn't necessarily reduce your hit points. That's good to see!

No, I'm not going to give you an answer that doesn't involve "hit point damage" because, as I just said, I understand the book to mean that nonlethal and lethal are both forms of hit point damage. You don't so I'll wait to see how yo infer what kind(s) of damage DR reduces.

"Damage reduces a target's current hit points" isn't ignored in my opinion, it is added to with the nonlethal damage. But since, in your opinion, the only way you can damage hit points is by reducing the targets hit points what's your justification for DR stopping something that (again, in your opinion) doesn't reduce the targets hit points? (Read: Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points so why would DR reduce nonlethal damage and nonlethal isn't reducing a targets hit points?)

Hopefully I've made this plain enough/said it in enough different ways that you're not confused by what I'm trying to get you to answer and that you can understand how this obviously matters to the topic.

Warped Savant wrote:
So you don't have a default assumption when it says "damage"? Wouldn't that mean that DR then stops ability damage? That sure doesn't seem right. Please explain why DR doesn't stop ability damage if you're not using an assumption in regards to DR only stopping certain types of damage.

1. Most/All instances of ability damage / drain bypass damage reduction. However, if there an effect met the requirements for damage reduction and dealt ability damage/drain, then it absolutely would be reduced by damage reduction.

Warped Savant wrote:

It's not relevant to this topic? Okay, so that means we both agree that DR stops hit point damage (because we both know it doesn't stop ability damage) therefore it stops both lethal and nonlethal damage.

Yeah, no, what DR stops and how you get that conclusion is completely related to if nonlethal is hit point damage or not.

2. I am unaware of any references to DR reducing hit point damage. DR reduces damage. If you feel this means damage that reduces hit points (default assumption) then it doesn't reduce nonlethal damage in your interpretation. If you feel this is the generic term "damage", then it would reduce any type of damage that meets the requirements for damage reduction.

3. I believe that DR would stop any ability damage that meets its requirements.

4. It stops both lethal and nonlethal damage that meets its requirements, as they are both forms of damage, not because they reduce hit points.

5. Please provide the specific text that DR interacts with "hit point damage." The term "damage" is used, and as stated above, this can either mean ALL damage or the default assumption (lethal only). Or, I suppose you could make try to make the case on some context-specific definition, but it seems to be the former.

Warped Savant wrote:

You're aware that damage doesn't necessarily reduce your hit points. That's good to see!

No, I'm not going to give you an answer that doesn't involve "hit point damage" because, as I just said, I understand the book to mean that nonlethal and lethal are both forms of hit point damage. You don't so I'll wait to see how yo infer what kind(s) of damage DR reduces.

6. I don't infer any kinds. I don't believe the default assumption is used here. All damage types can be reduced by damage reduction (if it meets the requirements.)

7. The answer you provided doesn't use the term "hit point damage", as such, it applies equally to my position, as I noted above. If you say that Damage is the default assumption, that means lethal damage (damage that reduces hit points.) It is not possible for the default assumption to refer to nonlethal damage as well. If the default assumption could mean lethal or nonlethal, then how do you know which type of damage is dealt by an attack? It could be either lethal or nonlethal.

Warped Savant wrote:
"Damage reduces a target's current hit points" isn't ignored in my opinion, it is added to with the nonlethal damage. But since, in your opinion, the only way you can damage hit points is by reducing the targets hit points what's your justification for DR stopping something that (again, in your opinion) doesn't reduce the targets hit points? (Read: Nonlethal doesn't reduce hit points so why would DR reduce nonlethal damage and nonlethal isn't reducing a targets hit points?)

8. It seems that you are making the claim that Damage Reduction does not reduce damage that doesn't reduce hit points. What text are you using to come to this conclusion? As far as I know, Damage Reduction reduces any damage that meets its requirements.

Warped Savant wrote:
Hopefully I've made this plain enough/said it in enough different ways that you're not confused by what I'm trying to get you to answer and that you can understand how this obviously matters to the topic.

9. I still do not see how it is relevant. It is tangentially related, as the default assumption of the term "damage" provided in the Damage subsection of the Combat Statistics section of the Combat chapter is set up as "Damage reduces a target's current hit points." This is a similar definition that my position would use for Hit Point Damage. However, the specific interaction between "Damage" and "Damage Reduction" is the same regardless of what the definition for "hit point damage" is. So, however you think "Damage" and "Damage Reduction" work together, will work the same for both positions.

10. Hypothetically, if there were an effect that met all the requirements of Damage Reduction and it dealt ability damage instead of lethal damage, would you reduce it with Damage Reduction? If no, what rules would you be using to trump the Damage Reduction rules?

Mallecks wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:
So you don't have a default assumption when it says "damage"? Wouldn't that mean that DR then stops ability damage? That sure doesn't seem right. Please explain why DR doesn't stop ability damage if you're not using an assumption in regards to DR only stopping certain types of damage.
1. Most/All instances of ability damage / drain bypass damage reduction. However, if there an effect met the requirements for damage reduction and dealt ability damage/drain, then it absolutely would be reduced by damage reduction.

Ah, okay, you saying that DR can reduce any type of damage that occurs from a normal attack makes everything else I asked not really matter.

Mine, for clarification, is that when the book refers to "damage" it means hit point damage unless otherwise stated. When it needs to be clarified for the type of hit point damage it means lethal unless otherwise stated.

I'm surprised that you think DR could stop ability damage (in some cases). A Shadow's melee attack is:
Melee incorporeal touch +4 (1d6 Strength damage)
so that means that, in your opinion, DR/- would stop that strength damage?

Warped Savant wrote:

Ah, okay, you saying that DR can reduce any type of damage that occurs from a normal attack makes everything else I asked not really matter.
Mine, for clarification, is that when the book refers to "damage" it means hit point damage unless otherwise stated. When it needs to be clarified for the type of hit point damage it means lethal unless otherwise stated.

I am unaware of any references to "Damage" meaning hit point damage. This is some type of extrapolation you have taken upon yourself to make. The default assumption is damage that "reduces a target's hit points." This explicitly excludes nonlethal damage, as it does not reduce a target's hit point.

Edit: Note -- This is referring to the default assumption of the term "damage". Hit Point Damage is, of course, a type of damage.

Warped Savant wrote:

I'm surprised that you think DR could stop ability damage (in some cases). A Shadow's melee attack is:

Melee incorporeal touch +4 (1d6 Strength damage)
so that means that, in your opinion, DR/- would stop that strength damage?

Damage Reduction does not work on touch attacks.

However, if the Shadow's melee attack met all the requirements for damage reduction, then it would be reduced.

Mallecks wrote:

I am unaware of any references to "Damage" meaning hit point damage. This is some type of extrapolation you have taken upon yourself to make. The default assumption is damage that "reduces a target's hit points." This explicitly excludes nonlethal damage, as it does not reduce a target's hit point.

Edit: Note -- This is referring to the default assumption of the term "damage". Hit Point Damage is, of course, a type of damage.

Warped Savant wrote:

I'm surprised that you think DR could stop ability damage (in some cases). A Shadow's melee attack is:

Melee incorporeal touch +4 (1d6 Strength damage)
so that means that, in your opinion, DR/- would stop that strength damage?

Damage Reduction does not work on touch attacks.

However, if the Shadow's melee attack met all the requirements for damage reduction, then it would be reduced.

Even after all this time you're unaware of "damage" being referenced as hit point damage?

Damage wrote:

If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Doesn't that tell you that the term "damage" means hit point damage? At least when it's talking about weapon damage unless it's stated otherwise? Sure, it doesn't say "hit point damage" but it has the same definition you use for hit point damage.

If the general term "damage" doesn't mean lethal damage how do we know what kind of damage a weapon does?

As for a Shadow's attack and DR... you're right, DR doesn't reduce damage from touch attacks.
I guess a better example would be a Magus using Spellstrike to deliver Chill Touch through their weapon. In your opinion, would DR stop some of the lethal attack damage as well as the 1 point of strength damage?
But okay, yeah.... you having DR reduce ability damage delivered via something that DR would prevent damage from makes the whole DR argument pointless.
Honestly, it never occurred to me that you would think DR would stop ability damage.

Warped Savant wrote:

Even after all this time you're unaware of "damage" being referenced as hit point damage?

Damage wrote:

If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.
Doesn't that tell you that the term "damage" means hit point damage? At least when it's talking about weapon damage unless it's stated otherwise? Sure, it doesn't say "hit point damage" but it has the same definition you use for hit point damage.

It is the same definition I use for hit point damage, sure. So, in my interpretation, it is synonymous. Normal damage, lethal damage, hit point damage, and (in the cases of default assumption) damage all mean the same thing.

In your interpretation, it is not the same definition, and as such mean different things. Damage (default assumption) must be the Hit Point Damage subtype of Lethal Damage. It is not possible for the default assumption to mean "nonlethal damage" in either interpretation.

In an effort to prevent any confusion, (that it would be hit point damage in my interpretation, but not yours) I made the distinction in this case.

Warped Savant wrote:

If the general term "damage" doesn't mean lethal damage how do we know what kind of damage a weapon does?

As for a Shadow's attack and DR... you're right, DR doesn't reduce damage from touch attacks.
I guess a better example would be a Magus using Spellstrike to deliver Chill Touch through their weapon. In your opinion, would DR stop some of the lethal attack damage as well as the 1 point of strength damage?
But okay, yeah.... you having DR reduce ability damage delivered via something that DR would prevent damage from makes the whole DR argument pointless.
Honestly, it never occurred to me that you would think DR would stop ability damage.

I'm not sure how Damage Reduction would interact with an effect that dealt different types of damage.

Let's say something has DR 5/- and, somehow, (maybe with Irontruth's homebrew method to determine what type of damage an effect deals) an effect deals 5 lethal and 5 nonlethal damage. What gets blocked? 5 lethal? 5 nonlethal? Could you divide it up? What if it was DR 10/-? Would it block both?

In any case....

I believe the FAQ for damage reduction vs spells dictates that the spell damage has to be B/P/S.

Damage Reduction: How does DR interact with magical effects that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage? wrote:

Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.

However, if a magical attack specifically mentions that it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, DR affects that damage normally, as if it were from a physical weapon. (Otherwise the magical attack might as well not have a damage type, as it would only interface with B/P/S damage in a very few corner cases, such as whether or not an ooze splits from that attack.)
For example, the ice storm spell deals 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage. If you cast ice storm at a group of zombies, the zombie's DR 5/slashing protects them against 5 points of the spell's bludgeoning damage. Their DR doesn't help them against the spell's cold damage because DR doesn't apply to energy attacks.

In this case, the damage type is Negative Energy. But is also isn't B/P/S, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'll have to look at it later. I don't expect to really find any RAW answers, but I would probably say that Negative Energy doesn't interact with Damage Reduction, so no, in this case, it also wouldn't prevent the ability damage.

Mallecks wrote:

In this case, the damage type is Negative Energy. But is also isn't B/P/S, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'll have to look at it later. I don't expect to really find any RAW answers, but I would probably say that Negative Energy doesn't interact with Damage Reduction, so no, in this case, it also wouldn't prevent the ability damage.

The FAQ points out that DR doesn't stop typeless damage from magical attacks. Since it would stop fire damage from a Fireball it makes sense that it would stop negative energy damage as that is a type of damage.

But the ability damage doesn't have a type... But okay, let's pretend that there's a way a Magus can deliver an attack through a weapon that deals a typed damage to an ability.... you believe that DR would prevent the ability damage. That's fair to say, right?

Here is an FAQ that discusses taking Weapon Specialization: Ray. It says you can take it but the bonus to the damage rolls is only added to hit point damage caused by a Ray attack and calls out that it doesn't increase ability score damage.
(Wording on Weapon Specialization: "Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.")
So with Weapon Specialization the FAQ shows that we need to translate "damage" into "hit point damage"

Why then wouldn't DR's "The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks" not be assumed to mean hit point damage?

(Since I believe nonlethal is a type of hit point damage but you do not applying the "hit point damage" assumption from Weapon Specialization to DR would mean that DR stops nonlethal damage in my opinion but not in yours.)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Types of damage...

Ok, good. These types of damage are defined in the book as to what they are, and how they are used. Positive and Negative "Energy" attacks are used in relation to one's lifeforce and wielded by magic and/or clerical powers. It works much like the normal energy types, as does Force damage. Neither of them are anything like Nonlethal Damage.

Precision damage is Additional damage done in given situations. Typically, you can't use Precision damage with Nonlethal unless using a Sap or otherwise able to effect Nonlethal as a Sap, as far as Rogue Sneak attack goes. Other abilities have some looser restrictions with Precision Damage, but it is still typically used with Lethal Damage.

Precision Damage is not, however, anything like Nonlethal Damage, as it is used to get additional damage to the damage roll, and the type of damage is dependent on what damage is being done to the target. (Whether it be Lethal or Nonlethal) As long as HP is targeted, you get the additional damage from Precision Damage.

Bleed Damage is not damage in of itself, it is a condition that does damage on the character's turn. Typical use of Bleed is a 1d* of Bleed, a number is rolled when it is affected, and the target takes that number of bleed on his turn until he either dies or is healed of the effect.

It is not like Nonlethal Damage at all.

Ability Damage/Drain directly affects one's Abilities Score, not HP, so it is as far removed from Nonlethal Damage as one can get.

Again, why use these examples? Are you trying to confuse the issue? Nonlethal Damage uses HP to effect it's outcome. You say that it doesn't. That is the issue here.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

DR does not stop Energy attacks, or Force Damage, or Positive/Negative Energy attacks.

It should stop Nonlethal, though, even if Mallecks thinks it should not.

Hardness, on the other hand, stops all damage from going through. (Cept maybe Nonlethal under GA's interpretation, you know, because BACON!!!)

thaX wrote:

DR does not stop Energy attacks, or Force Damage, or Positive/Negative Energy attacks.

It should stop Nonlethal, though, even if Mallecks thinks it should not.

Hardness, on the other hand, stops all damage from going through. (Cept maybe Nonlethal under GA's interpretation, you know, because BACON!!!)

Right! Sorry... I've been distracted lately. DR doesn't reduce damage from spells, that's what resistances are for.

But I'm curious to see what Mallecks and Butt_Luckily think of the FAQ showing that 'damage' means hit point damage. (Or, at the very least, in regards to Weapon Specialization.) Which means that it's likely when "damage" is said it means "hit point damage" unless otherwise stated (Eg: "ability damage" is not the same as "damage").
Because, if that's the case, either nonlethal damage is hit point damage or anything that refers to "damage" (like DR, feats, abilities, etc.) doesn't apply to nonlethal damage in Mallecks' and Butt_Luckily's reading. Which opens their interpretation up to all sorts of problems.

Here's another FAQ that says "When it comes to modifiers that affect weapon damage rolls, or simply “damage rolls” (such as the bonus on damage rolls from Point-Blank Shot, inspire courage, and smite evil), special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll, apply them on hit point damage only..."
So, according to that, only hit point damage gets the bonus from Inspire Courage.

After looking at these FAQ's is there anyone that's still going to argue that nonlethal isn't hit point damage?

Warped Savant...

The FAQs you have provided are extremely problematic. It is not explicitly clear that it would prove my position wrong. It is possible that explanation was provided without Nonlethal damage in mind or that the damage bonuses are not granted to nonlethal attacks.

However, I believe that nonlethal damage would be granted damage bonuses. Barring any additional information that could provide an alternative explanation, this convinces me that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.

Gallant Armor wrote:
Is nonlethal damage considered hit point damage for the purpose of feats, spells and other abilities that only work with effects that deal hit point damage?