Well, now you've done lethal damage without adding in Power Attack (assuming 5a).
Lethal damage is eligible for Power Attack.
Do you have a rule citation that says you can do lethal damage that doesn't qualify for Power Attack?
Well, now you've done lethal damage without adding in Power Attack (assuming 5a).
Lethal damage is eligible for Power Attack.
Do you have a rule citation that says you can do lethal damage that doesn't qualify for Power Attack?
The nonlethal damage has already been rolled and calculated and modified and the target takes it before it is can be lethal damage. Why would Power Attack suddenly check again later? This isn't when we check conditions.
This argument you are making is the "Sap Problem."
Well, now you've done lethal damage without SUBTRACTING THE LETHAL DAMAGE PENALTY (assuming 5a).
Lethal damage is eligible for LETHAL DAMAGE PENALTY.
Do you have a rule citation that says you can do lethal damage that doesn't qualify for LETHAL DAMAGE PENALTY?
As we have discussed, the Sap Problem doesn't make sense as an argument because the attack roll has already completed. I am giving the same answer. The damage roll has already completed.
There is no sap problem. The attack roll is the attack roll. Once the attack roll is done, the attack roll is done.
We're talking about damage.
Do you understand that we're talking about damage, and not attack rolls? Because when you bring up attack rolls, it seems like you don't understand this.
The damage is determined by the attack, not the other way around.
There is no EXCESS NONLETHAL DAMAGE problem. The DAMAGE roll is the DAMAGE roll. Once the DAMAGE roll is done, the DAMAGE roll is done.
We're talking about EXCESS NONLETHAL DAMAGE.
Do you understand that we're talking about EXCESS NONLETHAL DAMAGE, and not DAMAGE rolls? Because when you bring up DAMAGE rolls, it seems like you don't understand this.
Except there is a problem. You are violating the rules of the Power Attack feat.
Except there is a problem. You are violating the rules of the DEALING LETHAL DAMAGE WITH A NONLETHAL WEAPON.
Nope, it is completely kosher with that rule.
The attack roll is over. You don't roll damage until the attack succeeds. If the damage could cause the attack to not succeed, then the damage wouldn't happen, which would remove the penalty, allowing the attack to succeed, which would cause the damage. Your application of the rule is a never ending logic loop. That tells us that it probably isn't correct.
There is no problem with the logic of how I am saying you are violating the rules of Power Attack. Power Attack says the bonus applies. You are not applying the bonus.
I agree with you thaX. Reasonableness and rationality should win out.
In this instance though, I actually think that RAW supports the concept that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. How the rules are organized, how nonlethal is tracked, how it interacts with lethal damage, how all weapons deal hit point damage, and a couple more, all support the idea that by RAW, nonlethal IS hit point damage. The best argument that GA can really muster is that nonlethal has it's own subheading, and all the rules for it are placed under that subheading instead of within the general rules for hit point damage. Nothing in the rules actually says that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage.
Never mind that the alternative requires us to answer completely new questions that force us to create procedures that have never existed before now, and requires us to ignore or invent new rules to cover rule violations that the interpretation that nonlethal is not hit point damage creates.
My argument that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage has nothing to do with headings for nonlethal damage. It is based on the fact that the description and use of the term "hit point damage" is exclusively used to refer to damage that reduces current hit points. Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce current hit points so it isn't hit point damage.
The best argument your side has come up with is that since the term hit point damage contains the words "hit point" and nonlethal damage is measured in hit points, we should ignore how the term hit point damage is actually defined and used and come up with a definition not based on the rules at all.
Except nonlethal damage can reduce hit points. So the basis of your argument is patently false. I don't ignore how we define hit point damage. And yet, you do when it is inconvenient for how the mechanics of your position don't work.
The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.In the interest of seeking common ground, I think the word to focus in the discussion at this point is "deal".
I feel that proponents of non-lethal =/= HP Damage, would say that a non-lethal attack, if successful, would never deal hit point damage. The special case listed, overflow non-lethal damage, can only occur at the point of dealing out the non-lethal damage. The lethal damage is not dealt. It is only a conversion of the already dealt non-lethal.
A rule pointing out some exclusion of lethal damage isn't necessary.
Irontruth appears to be arguing that because the end result of the entire attack action results in net damage, the attack deals lethal damage, and therefore is eligible for power attack. Yes, this interpretation creates the paradoxical situations mentioned previously, but I believe is purposely being presented in that way to highlight a perceived problem with non-lethal =/= HP Damage, and isn't being suggested for how anything "should" work.
However, I feel that this is an unfair representation of the suggestions being put forward by those arguing non-lethal =/= HP Damage, especially with the former explanation above.
It really isn't unfair. A rules interpretation must work in all situations in which it is required to explain the outcome. The point of addressing the paradoxical situations so far, is to highlight how the rules interpretation does not work.
If it does not work, how can it be right?
NL=/=HPD View:
Non-lethal damage never reduces hit points. Overflow non-lethal damage is treated as lethal damage. In this context, lethal-damage is reducing hit points, not non-lethal.
To make it clear, this is NOT what the rules say. The rules say you treat nonlethal damage as if it were lethal. It is actually still nonlethal damage, but the properties for it all change to lethal.
Let's use money as an example.
1) I exchange $5 to €6. I no longer have dollars, I now have euros. The type of money that I have has been converted.
2) I go to a store in Europe, I only have dollars in my wallet. The clerk agrees to accept them for the thing I want to buy. I never had euros, I only ever had dollars, but my dollars got treated as if they were euros.
It can be a subtle distinction, but it is an important one. You do not convert the nonlethal damage to lethal damage. There is no conversion process. You just treat your nonlethal damage as if it were lethal damage.
So, in this context, nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points, because it never changes into something else, but it does change properties and is treated "as if" it were something else.
DR/lethal isn't a thing that I'm aware of. Since people can't seem to agree on rules that actually do exist, it seems like a bad choice to introduce rules that don't exist, because we'll all just make up whatever we like about them in order to argue our position.
Except nonlethal damage can reduce hit points. So the basis of your argument is patently false. I don't ignore how we define hit point damage. And yet, you do when it is inconvenient for how the mechanics of your position don't work.
Please provide the evidence that nonlethal damage reduces hit points.
It really isn't unfair. A rules interpretation must work in all situations in which it is required to explain the outcome. The point of addressing the paradoxical situations so far, is to highlight how the rules interpretation does not work.
If it does not work, how can it be right?
The "situation" you are presenting as a counterargument is logically inconsistent and the same "situation" causes problems in other areas regardless of anyone's view point on whether or not nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
To make it clear, this is NOT what the rules say. The rules say you treat nonlethal damage as if it were lethal. It is actually still nonlethal damage, but the properties for it all change to lethal.
Let's use money as an example.
1) I exchange $5 to €6. I no longer have dollars, I now have euros. The type of money that I have has been converted.
2) I go to a store in Europe, I only have dollars in my wallet. The clerk agrees to accept them for the thing I want to buy. I never had euros, I only ever had dollars, but my dollars got treated as if they were euros.
It can be a subtle distinction, but it is an important one. You do not convert the nonlethal damage to lethal damage. There is no conversion process. You just treat your nonlethal damage as if it were lethal damage.
So, in this context, nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points, because it never changes into something else, but it does change properties and is treated "as if" it were something else.
DR/lethal isn't a thing that I'm aware of. Since people can't seem to agree on rules that actually do exist, it seems like a bad choice to introduce rules that don't exist, because we'll all just make up whatever we like about them in order to argue our position.
Here's a thing you said....
t really isn't unfair. A rules interpretation must work in all situations in which it is required to explain the outcome. The point of addressing the paradoxical situations so far, is to highlight how the rules interpretation does not work.
If it does not work, how can it be right?
Now please reconcile your above statement "Nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points" with the following rule...
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points.
Edit: Also...
The character taking the damage treats it as nonlethal at the time of taking it. When the character takes the nonlethal damage that would be excess damage, it is treated as lethal damage. Meaning it is NOT added to your nonlethal damage total. Because that isn't what you do with lethal damage.
The Attack chooses whether or not to use power attack before the attack roll. If the attack meets the conditions of Power Attack, they get +2 damage on the damage roll.
Merciful Weapons deal nonlethal damage when activated. Nonlethal damage are not hit point damage, therefore, the attacker does not get Power attack damage bonus.
What if the character didn't know he disarms his foe with full intent to strike him down with his own weapon only for it to be Merciful? Isn't this just like ablative barrier? I am choosing to do lethal but something out of my control forces it to be non-lethal?
As to your insistence that a sap would suddenly have a penalty to a already successful attack roll if converted to lethal damage then with Ablative barrier all attack rolls with weapons designed to do lethal damage would be retroactive since it is converting damage to non-lethal and you need a feat or ability to do that.
|
My argument that nonlethal damage isn't hit point damage has nothing to do with headings for nonlethal damage. It is based on the fact that the description and use of the term "hit point damage" is exclusively used to refer to damage that reduces current hit points. Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce current hit points so it isn't hit point damage.
So it has nothing to do with the rules, but is about how the feat uses them? Is that what your saying?
See, you have to tell me here, because it seems that your just making up a problem that never existed.
Non Lethal certainly does reduce Hit Points. It makes it so less are available for the target to keep standing on their feet and continue to be a participant in the combat. Is there something I am missing where that does not happen?
Except nonlethal damage can reduce hit points. So the basis of your argument is patently false. I don't ignore how we define hit point damage. And yet, you do when it is inconvenient for how the mechanics of your position don't work.Please provide the evidence that nonlethal damage reduces hit points.
It says it right in the rule book. Nonlethal overflow is treated like lethal damage. We already agree that lethal damage decreases hit points. So, if nonlethal CAN be treated like lethal damage, than it CAN reduce hit points. I'm not saying it ALWAYS does, but it can when it meets certain conditions.
It really baffles me how this is even a point of contention. It is explicitly in the rules that nonlethal damage can reduce hit points.
To make it clear, this is NOT what the rules say. The rules say you treat nonlethal damage as if it were lethal. It is actually still nonlethal damage, but the properties for it all change to lethal.
Let's use money as an example.
1) I exchange $5 to €6. I no longer have dollars, I now have euros. The type of money that I have has been converted.
2) I go to a store in Europe, I only have dollars in my wallet. The clerk agrees to accept them for the thing I want to buy. I never had euros, I only ever had dollars, but my dollars got treated as if they were euros.
It can be a subtle distinction, but it is an important one. You do not convert the nonlethal damage to lethal damage. There is no conversion process. You just treat your nonlethal damage as if it were lethal damage.
So, in this context, nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points, because it never changes into something else, but it does change properties and is treated "as if" it were something else.
DR/lethal isn't a thing that I'm aware of. Since people can't seem to agree on rules that actually do exist, it seems like a bad choice to introduce rules that don't exist, because we'll all just make up whatever we like about them in order to argue our position.
Here's a thing you said....
t really isn't unfair. A rules interpretation must work in all situations in which it is required to explain the outcome. The point of addressing the paradoxical situations so far, is to highlight how the rules interpretation does not work.
If it does not work, how can it be right?
Now please reconcile your above statement "Nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points" with the following rule...
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points.Edit: Also...
The character taking the damage treats it as nonlethal at the time of taking it. When the character takes the nonlethal damage that would be excess damage, it is...
Nonlethal damage doesn't reduce hit points.... except... under specific conditions. My argument is compliant with the whole text.
...To make it clear, this is NOT what the rules say. The rules say you treat nonlethal damage as if it were lethal. It is actually still nonlethal damage, but the properties for it all change to lethal.
Let's use money as an example.
1) I exchange $5 to €6. I no longer have dollars, I now have euros. The type of money that I have has been converted.
2) I go to a store in Europe, I only have dollars in my wallet. The clerk agrees to accept them for the thing I want to buy. I never had euros, I only ever had dollars, but my dollars got treated as if they were euros.
It can be a subtle distinction, but it is an important one. You do not convert the nonlethal damage to lethal damage. There is no conversion process. You just treat your nonlethal damage as if it were lethal damage.
So, in this context, nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points, because it never changes into something else, but it does change properties and is treated "as if" it were something else.
DR/lethal isn't a thing that I'm aware of. Since people can't seem to agree on rules that actually do exist, it seems like a bad choice to introduce rules that don't exist, because we'll all just make up whatever we like about them in order to argue our position.
Here's a thing you said....
t really isn't unfair. A rules interpretation must work in all situations in which it is required to explain the outcome. The point of addressing the paradoxical situations so far, is to highlight how the rules interpretation does not work.
If it does not work, how can it be right?
Now please reconcile your above statement "Nonlethal damage IS reducing hit points" with the following rule...
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points.Edit: Also...
The character taking the damage treats it as nonlethal at the time of taking it. When the character takes the nonlethal damage that would be
Ok, so, you have some excess nonlethal damage coming in. You are going to treat it as lethal damage.
Do you write down in the "nonlethal damage tally" or do you subtract it from your hit points? Keep in mind, whatever you answer will apply to all lethal damage, since that is what you are treating it as.
I’m getting annoyed at this discussion, now.
It is obvious that the game design goal for the interaction of lethal and nonlethal damage had the requirements that when the total of both exceeds max hit points, the character falls unconscious; that nonlethal damage up to max hit points should not in itself kill a character; that excess nonlethal damage should do lethal damage.
There are three ways to handle the first requirement:
1) Subtract both lethal and nonlethal damage from the hit point total. This will require additional sums and calculations to track the point at which nonlethal damage exceeds max hit points.
2) Add up lethal damage and subtract nonlethal damage from max hit points. This has the benefit of the more common damage type be added up, not subtracted, but goes against a lot of conventions (think of a hit point bar - nobody racks up a damage bar).
3) Subtract lethal damage from max hit points, and add up nonlethal damage. Guess which option Pathfinder uses?
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me whether you think lethal and nonlethal damage are both hit point damage, or not. The current back and forth is devolving into pointless bickering and argument. The game design intent is obvious. At least start discussing whether the rules actually convey that intent appropriately rather than picking apart the other side’s exact wording.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled rules argument.
Ok, so, you have some excess nonlethal damage coming in. You are going to treat it as lethal damage.
Do you write down in the "nonlethal damage tally" or do you subtract it from your hit points? Keep in mind, whatever you answer will apply to all lethal damage, since that is what you are treating it as.
On my phone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone pointed out that the Universal Monster Rules for regeneration says "hit point damage"?
Regeneration (Ex)
A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature’s descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.
If Regeneration heals hit point damage but for some reason nonlethal damage isn't considered hit point damage than there's something REALLY wrong with this ability and it doesn't make any sense at all.
If this doesn't stop the argument I don't think anything will.
It won't big matter.
EX: So what yeah you can knock it out and it will still live just takes longer to get back up.
Has anyone pointed out that the Universal Monster Rules for regeneration says "hit point damage"?
Regeneration (Ex)
A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature’s regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally. The creature’s descriptive text describes the types of damage that cause the regeneration to cease functioning.
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Regenerating creatures can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts if they are brought together within 1 hour of severing. Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
Format: regeneration 5 (fire, acid); Location: hp.
If Regeneration heals hit point damage but for some reason nonlethal damage isn't considered hit point damage than there's something REALLY wrong with this ability and it doesn't make any sense at all.
If this doesn't stop the argument I don't think anything will.
Whenever something heals hit point damage, it heals an equal amount of nonlethal. Regeneration heals hit point damage. Because of the nonlethal healing rules, it will heal an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
This rule is one of the examples where nonlethal damage is explicitly used in contrast to the term "hit point damage."
You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Specific trumps general. The nonlethal healing is a general rule, regeneration is specific.
Specific trumps general. The nonlethal healing is a general rule, regeneration is specific.
I'm not sure if I agree with this or not, it doesn't matter though. The two rules do not interact in such a way that one must "trump" the other.
1. [Something] happens.
2. When [something] happens, [something else] happens.
Specific trumps general. The nonlethal healing is a general rule, regeneration is specific.I'm not sure if I agree with this or not, it doesn't matter though. The two rules do not interact in such a way that one must "trump" the other.
1. [Something] happens.
2. When [something] happens, [something else] happens.
Then you're not reading Regeneration. It specifically says that things that aren't hit point damage aren't healed. Therefore it's overriding the general rule saying that you heal the same amount of nonlethal when you heal lethal damage.
We will have to disagree with the interaction of the rules in this case.
Nonlethal damage isn't even something that is "healed." When lethal damage is healed, you remove an equal amount of nonlethal damage. Colloquially, we can call this healing. However, healing is defined as restoring hit points. Nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points, so it is not possible to "heal" nonlethal damage.
Regeneration heals hit point damage. An equal amount of nonlethal is removed.
...Nonlethal damage isn't even something that is "healed." ... However, healing is defined as restoring hit points. Nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points, so it is not possible to "heal" nonlethal damage.
Really? You don't heal nonlethal according to the rules? It's simply removed?
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
That says that you heal nonlethal damage. Or are you choosing to ignore that and only pay attention to the second half?
Regeneration not healing nonlethal would make sense.
Seriously? Lethal damage being healed by Regeneration makes sense but healing nonlethal with regeneration seems bonkers to you?
But oddly enough, the Regenerate spell heals nonlethal...Well we're looking at the Regenerate spell let's take a look at some other spells while we're at it, shall we?
If nonlethal isn't hit point damage then Shield Other is able to stop deadly attacks but not ones that are nonlethal...
This spell wards the subject and creates a mystic connection between you and the subject so that some of its wounds are transferred to you. The subject gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus on saves. Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects, are not affected. If the subject suffers a reduction of hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with you because it is not hit point damage. When the spell ends, subsequent damage is no longer divided between the subject and you, but damage already split is not reassigned to the subject.
If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.
Unwilling Shield is very similar except that it actually says:
...You take only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by you is taken by the target. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, ability damage, level draining, and death effects are not affected. If you take a reduction in hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with the target because it is not hit point damage.
You would think it would list nonlethal damage if it somehow didn't count as hit point damage...
Shield Companion would also allow you to prevent a companion from taking lethal damage from a sword but if a drunk person walks up and punches it... too bad! It takes the nonlethal damage...
Specific trumps general. The nonlethal healing is a general rule, regeneration is specific.I'm not sure if I agree with this or not, it doesn't matter though. The two rules do not interact in such a way that one must "trump" the other.
1. [Something] happens.
2. When [something] happens, [something else] happens.
This is a core principle of how the game is designed and doesn't work otherwise.
For example, without the "specific trumps general" you have a paradox that the rapier both qualifies for Weapon Finesse, and yet does not qualify for Weapon Finesse. One-handed weapons cannot be used with Weapon Finesse. One rule says you cannot use it (general), and another says you can use it (specific).
So which supersedes, the specific or general?
And this is only the beginning. You're basically going to have to give a lot of thought to nearly everything in the game if you don't abide by this principle.
By the way, in the Weapons section of equipment, it also says that "All weapons deal hit point damage." Since a sap is included in "all weapons", that means a sap does hit point damage. Argument over.
I'm not sure how you you feel this invalidates his point, even if you disagree with the way he said it.
There are already rules that describe the conditions upon which you heal non-lethal damage. Time, rest, and whenever you heal lethal damage.
Regeneration heals hit-point (and therefore lethal)damage. If you want to argue why they made that distinction in the Regeneration ability, perhaps to answer the question of which damage would be regenerated. If a creature had lethal and non-lethal damage, which of the two is regenerated? If non-lethal is not hit-point damage, then the lethal is the damage that is regenerated,and the non-lethal is healed by rule of non-lethal damage (not regeneration).
If not, then which goes first? The lethal, because it's more dangerous to the creature (presumably)? The non-lethal, because it's easier to heal? Whichever is more advantageous at the time? (Says who?) The decision is up to the creature? (I will willfully heal my bruises, but not my chopped off arm.) I do not see any of these questions addressed in the Regeneration rules.
The universal monster rules for Regeneration specifically say "Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration". I don't see how that could be taken in such a way that it means that you heal nonlethal (if you were to honestly believe that nonlethal isn't hit point damage).
Yes, I know that there are rules that describe how you heal nonlethal damage, they've been quoted more than enough times. Regeneration overrides them. If you believe that nonlethal isn't hit point damage then Regeneration would have to include something about how it treats nonlethal instead of saying that it only heals hit point damage.As to which goes first: Since I believe that nonlethal counts as damage to your hit points, Regeneration would heal as much nonlethal as it does lethal, both at the same time, because that's what makes sense according to the rules.
|
|
GA, no, it does not makes sense. That is why your reading of this nuanced rules is not being accepted by most of us. Regen is healing a small amount of HP every round. Why would this not include Non Lethal?
I am not going be "because GA said so..." The quote is above these posts, and does not specifically exclude Regeneration or Fast Healing. Why is that?
And of course there's still the issue of dealing lethal damage with a weapon that doesn't qualify for Power Attack.
...Nonlethal damage isn't even something that is "healed." ... However, healing is defined as restoring hit points. Nonlethal damage does not reduce hit points, so it is not possible to "heal" nonlethal damage.Really? You don't heal nonlethal according to the rules? It's simply removed?
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.That says that you heal nonlethal damage. Or are you choosing to ignore that and only pay attention to the second half?
As per the official game term for "healing" it is not possible to heal nonlethal damage.
After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing.
Nonlethal damage does not damage hit points. Changing the amount of nonlethal damage a target has tracked has zero impact on their remaining HP.
If you allow healing spells/abilities/effects to directly heal nonlethal damage, there are not rules set in place to determine which is healed.
Target has 10 HP. 5 Lethal and 9 nonlethal. I heal them for 4 HP. What is healed? If "restoring hit points" can mean "removing nonlethal damage" then who and how is it determined what happens? The rules say that when you heal hit point damage, you heal an equal amount of nonlethal damage. If nonlethal is hit point damage, do you double dip for nonlethal? You can remove 4 and 4 or 8 nonlethal? What if you want to remove the nonlethal because the only enemy left is one that only deals nonlethal damage?
The use of the word "heal" is unfortunate in its use. It is clearly not the game term definition, as the game term definition of "heal" cannot directly interact with the nonlethal damage statistic.
I want to say that in this case, heal is used for its common definition, but I understand how that sounds, as it would be extremely convenient for my argument.
How do you reconcile that the first part of the nonlethal healing with the fact that healing is explicitly defined in such a way that it does not interact with nonlethal damage?
Seriously? Lethal damage being healed by Regeneration makes sense but healing nonlethal with regeneration seems bonkers to you?
But oddly enough, the Regenerate spell heals nonlethal...
Well we're looking at the Regenerate spell let's take a look at some other spells while we're at it, shall we?
If nonlethal isn't hit point damage then Shield Other is able to stop deadly attacks but not ones that are nonlethal...
If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.Shield Companion would also allow you to prevent a companion from taking lethal damage from a sword but if a drunk person walks up and punches it... too bad! It takes the nonlethal damage...
1. Regerenate spell does not heal nonlethal damage. The effect of the spell says it "eliminates all nonlethal damage the subject has taken." As seen above, this is not how healing works. Healing restores hit points.
2. Shield Other, Unwilling shield, and Shield Companion do not work on nonlethal damage, as it is not hit point damage. The list you have highlighted is not an exhaustive list, just a few examples.
The universal monster rules for Regeneration specifically say "Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration". I don't see how that could be taken in such a way that it means that you heal nonlethal (if you were to honestly believe that nonlethal isn't hit point damage).
Yes, I know that there are rules that describe how you heal nonlethal damage, they've been quoted more than enough times. Regeneration overrides them. If you believe that nonlethal isn't hit point damage then Regeneration would have to include something about how it treats nonlethal instead of saying that it only heals hit point damage.
As to which goes first: Since I believe that nonlethal counts as damage to your hit points, Regeneration would heal as much nonlethal as it does lethal, both at the same time, because that's what makes sense according to the rules.
3. Again, "healing" as defined by the game is not something that happens to nonlethal damage.
4. I am not opposed to regeneration not removing nonlethal damage. There is no logical requirement that a creature that can restore hitpoints and regrow limbs must be able to remove nonlethal damage. I only believe it does because of the nonlethal rule of healing. If we decide that it doesn't apply, I am OK with that. Just because a creature can regrow flesh and knit their bones back together quickly doesn't necessarily mean that they should be able to soothe the irritated skin from a chafed testicle.
5. As to which goes first: Why does it does it heal an equal amount of lethal and nonlethal? Why can't you heal double nonlethal? Or even divide it up as you want between lethal and nonlethal and then an equal amount to sum of that again for nonlethal?
On my phone.Ok, so, you have some excess nonlethal damage coming in. You are going to treat it as lethal damage.
Do you write down in the "nonlethal damage tally" or do you subtract it from your hit points? Keep in mind, whatever you answer will apply to all lethal damage, since that is what you are treating it as.
I originally thought you were posting from your phone. Have I backed you into a corner significantly enough that you will just continue to ignore this particular discussion along with the others you continue to ignore and/or misrepresent?
Specific trumps general. The nonlethal healing is a general rule, regeneration is specific.I'm not sure if I agree with this or not, it doesn't matter though. The two rules do not interact in such a way that one must "trump" the other.
1. [Something] happens.
2. When [something] happens, [something else] happens.
This is a core principle of how the game is designed and doesn't work otherwise.
For example, without the "specific trumps general" you have a paradox that the rapier both qualifies for Weapon Finesse, and yet does not qualify for Weapon Finesse. One-handed weapons cannot be used with Weapon Finesse. One rule says you cannot use it (general), and another says you can use it (specific).
So which supersedes, the specific or general?
And this is only the beginning. You're basically going to have to give a lot of thought to nearly everything in the game if you don't abide by this principle.
By the way, in the Weapons section of equipment, it also says that "All weapons deal hit point damage." Since a sap is included in "all weapons", that means a sap does hit point damage. Argument over.
1. I don't have any issues with specific trumps general. My comment "I'm not sure if I agree with this or not" was referring exactly which rule was the "specific" and which was the "general." I suppose the Regeneration ability is more specific, though I continue to disagree that the rules interact in the way that is suggested. And, even if I am convinced that they do interact in such a way, I am OK with regeneration not removing nonlethal damage.
2. All weapons do hit point damage. General rule. There are more specific rules that handle nonlethal damage. None of which, refer to it as hit point damage.
And of course there's still the issue of dealing lethal damage with a weapon that doesn't qualify for Power Attack.
3. This isn't an issue, you just keep reintroducing the faulty logic of the "Sap Problem" where you want to modify something that has already happened. When we were making progress in the discussion, into actually breaking down exactly the mechanics of the event, you decided to evade the question. Please feel free to answer any of the several open questions I have posed to you and we can continue. The most recent one is quoted at the top of this post, but you may need to refresh yourself on the context.
GA, no, it does not makes sense. That is why your reading of this nuanced rules is not being accepted by most of us. Regen is healing a small amount of HP every round. Why would this not include Non Lethal?
I am not going be "because GA said so..." The quote is above these posts, and does not specifically exclude Regeneration or Fast Healing. Why is that?
When a spell or ability heals hit point damage, it removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Others are claiming that Regeneration will not heal hit point damage in our perspective, because "Regeneration does not heal damage from attack forms that do not deal hit point damage." [This is paraphrased]
I disagree with this purported interaction. However, even if I agree with it, there is no logical requirement that a creature with regeneration MUST heal nonlethal damage.
Then you're not reading Regeneration. It specifically says that things that aren't hit point damage aren't healed. Therefore it's overriding the general rule saying that you heal the same amount of nonlethal when you heal lethal damage.Specific trumps general. The nonlethal healing is a general rule, regeneration is specific.I'm not sure if I agree with this or not, it doesn't matter though. The two rules do not interact in such a way that one must "trump" the other.
1. [Something] happens.
2. When [something] happens, [something else] happens.
Regeneration not healing nonlethal would make sense. The ability calls out saving the creature from death, not from being knocked out.
We know from the rules that nonlethal damage accumulates endlessly and is never treated as lethal, so there is clearly a nonstandard relationship between the two effects.
Wait....So, say we have a creature with Regeneration, lets go with 6, and say 5 HP. Now we have to characters, one with a Str of 2, and one with a strength of 14. Both armed with daggers, now the creature has a very low AC so both are able to hit, lets call it always.
Now the high Str character wouldn't be able to harm it at all, He could slice and dice away all day and every hit would be regenerated immediately. Now the low Str character, in 5 round he'll have that creature staggered and in 6, unconscious. Despite being so weak that he can't even do damage to the creature, except
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
Given the conditions that you have provided and the assumption that regeneration does not remove nonlethal damage and assuming that neither fighter attempts to use any strategy in the fight, then sure, I guess this is accurate.
It is also possible that the high STR fighter just performs a nonlethal attack instead and OHKOs the other guy.
50 posts since my last visit. Still can't agree you are at an impasse?
I am trying to at least reach a point that we can say that we can agree to disagree. However, those arguing that nonlethal damage is hit point damage have tried to whittle the argument all the way down to things like... "What does it mean to deal damage?" So, there can't be much more this rabbit hole.... right??
Regeneration heals lethal damage. This triggers non-lethal damage to be healed all on its own, according to its own rules that don't have anything to do with regeneration. I would still feel this way even if Regeneration said "Regeneration only heals lethal damage".But this overrides the Specific over General rule. The general rule is that healing lethal heals non-lethal, but the specific is Regeneration which only heals lethal. This is assuming of course that you believe that non-lethal are not hit point damage. Non-lethal being hit point damage means this is irrelevant.
If we override the specific over general we come to all sorts of weird rules as has been pointed out above
I believe he is making the case that they do not interact in the way people are suggesting. That even if the ability said "Regeneration only heals lethal damage" it would still properly interact with the "Healing Nonlethal Damage" rule. Not because of he's ignoring specific over general, but because the abilities do not directly clash.
3. Again, "healing" as defined by the game is not something that happens to nonlethal damage.I'm just going to say this again for the umpteenth time....
It says it twice, "Healing Nonlethal Damage" and "heal nonlethal damage". So to say that it's not something that happens to nonlethal is just contrary to what is actually said in the rules.
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level. When a spell or ability cures hit point damage, it also removes an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Please describe how the game mechanic of "healing" applies to nonlethal damage.