No, there is no confusion on my end. I FULLY understand how you are trying to say the rules work.
The problem is that there is no basis in the rules for your explanation.
This is why we don't need examples. We just need you to actually read the rules.
[Editing quick to add something]
YOUR CLAIM:
1. Attacker attacks, announces Power Attack.
2. Because the attack is nonlethal, it doesn't do hit point damage, so when damage is rolled, Power Attack doesn't apply.
3. Target takes damage, but nonlethal exceeds nonlethal limit and starts to take lethal damage, which is hit point damage.
4. Power Attack doesn't apply, because it was checked earlier.
Here's the problem... nothing in the rules says #4 is true.
All this stuff about Power Attack is not my claim. I am pointing out how YOUR claim is illegal within the rules.
My claim is that nonlethal is hit point damage, so Power Attack bonus applies to all nonlethal damage, overflow or not.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).The quote from the magic rules suggests otherwise.
In that case, by that reading, rules as written, that means that Evasion does nothing.
If you're going to pretend that "dealing damage" and "damage taken" are two different things then Evasion, as far as I can find, doesn't do anything.Example:
Fireball goes off, I make my reflex save and half the "damage taken" and then I check the rules for Evasion and see that it only applies when a spell deals half damage on a save.
So your logic would dictate that if I have Evasion and save against a fireball then I would still take half damage instead of none? Because the result of the save isn't that the spell deals half damage but instead I take half the damage?
See how flawed the argument that "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are two different things is?
No, there is no confusion on my end. I FULLY understand how you are trying to say the rules work.
The problem is that there is no basis in the rules for your explanation.
This is why we don't need examples. We just need you to actually read the rules.
[Editing quick to add something]
YOUR CLAIM:
1. Attacker attacks, announces Power Attack.
2. Because the attack is nonlethal, it doesn't do hit point damage, so when damage is rolled, Power Attack doesn't apply.
3. Target takes damage, but nonlethal exceeds nonlethal limit and starts to take lethal damage, which is hit point damage.
4. Power Attack doesn't apply, because it was checked earlier.Here's the problem... nothing in the rules says #4 is true.
All this stuff about Power Attack is not my claim. I am pointing out how YOUR claim is illegal within the rules.
My claim is that nonlethal is hit point damage, so Power Attack bonus applies to all nonlethal damage, overflow or not.
Based on what you have written here, there is no step 4. You only check the conditions once, when the damage is rolled.
1. Attacks, announces Power Attack
2. Because the attack is nonlethal, it doesn't do hit point damage, so when damage is rolled, Power Attack doesn't apply.
3. Target takes damage, excess nonlethal is treated as lethal.
No need to revisit Power Attack, it only happens on the damage roll. The damage roll has to happen before the target can take the damage.
Edit: If you feel that my process is incorrect, please describe your process for Power Attack, and we can go from there.
In that case, by that reading, rules as written, that means that Evasion does nothing.
If you're going to pretend that "dealing damage" and "damage taken" are two different things then Evasion, as far as I can find, doesn't do anything.
Example:
Fireball goes off, I make my reflex save and half the "damage taken" and then I check the rules for Evasion and see that it only applies when a spell deals half damage on a save.
So your logic would dictate that if I have Evasion and save against a fireball then I would still take half damage instead of none? Because the result of the save isn't that the spell deals half damage but instead I take half the damage?See how flawed the argument that "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are two different things is?
Reconcile this position with the minimum damage rule.
My attack deals 1 nonlethal RAW. Therefore, they must take 1 nonlethal damage? Because "dealing damage" = "damage taken"?
In the meantime, I will look at evasion deeper, but you are right, it doesn't appear to work RAW given my position that how much damage an effect deals is different than how much damage the target takes.
No, there is no confusion on my end. I FULLY understand how you are trying to say the rules work.
The problem is that there is no basis in the rules for your explanation.
This is why we don't need examples. We just need you to actually read the rules.
[Editing quick to add something]
YOUR CLAIM:
1. Attacker attacks, announces Power Attack.
2. Because the attack is nonlethal, it doesn't do hit point damage, so when damage is rolled, Power Attack doesn't apply.
3. Target takes damage, but nonlethal exceeds nonlethal limit and starts to take lethal damage, which is hit point damage.
4. Power Attack doesn't apply, because it was checked earlier.Here's the problem... nothing in the rules says #4 is true.
All this stuff about Power Attack is not my claim. I am pointing out how YOUR claim is illegal within the rules.
My claim is that nonlethal is hit point damage, so Power Attack bonus applies to all nonlethal damage, overflow or not.
Based on what you have written here, there is no step 4. You only check the conditions once, when the damage is rolled.
1. Attacks, announces Power Attack
2. Because the attack is nonlethal, it doesn't do hit point damage, so when damage is rolled, Power Attack doesn't apply.
3. Target takes damage, excess nonlethal is treated as lethal.No need to revisit Power Attack, it only happens on the damage roll. The damage roll has to happen before the target can take the damage.
Edit: If you feel that my process is incorrect, please describe your process for Power Attack, and we can go from there.
My process assumes that nonlethal is hit point damage.
Do you get this? Are you confused about what my stance is?
1. Nonlethal is hit point damage.
2. Power Attack applies to nonlethal damage.
That is my process. Let me know if you need this clarified.
The issue about Power Attack is not a difference between our processes, it is an issue about YOUR process and how it violates the rules. Power Attack applies to lethal damage, you are dealing lethal damage, but not applying Power Attack.
Where in the rules does it say that Power Attack doesn't apply to lethal damage?
My process assumes that nonlethal is hit point damage.
Do you get this? Are you confused about what my stance is?
1. Nonlethal is hit point damage.
2. Power Attack applies to nonlethal damage.That is my process. Let me know if you need this clarified.
The issue about Power Attack is not a difference between our processes, it is an issue about YOUR process and how it...
That isn't a process of how to use Power Attack, but as we can see, my stance is internally consistent with what you have posted.
1. Nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
2. Power Attack does not apply to nonlethal damage.
Please feel free to describe the process of how Power Attack is used (including when conditions are checked and when bonus damage is added) and we can try to clear up any confusion.
Reconcile this position with the minimum damage rule.
My attack deals 1 nonlethal RAW. Therefore, they must take 1 nonlethal damage? Because "dealing damage" = "damage taken"?
The fact that the sentence "Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage (see page 191)" is under the Combat chapter, not under the Spell chapter.
I don't see what you're asking me to reconcile.
Reconcile this position with the minimum damage rule.
My attack deals 1 nonlethal RAW. Therefore, they must take 1 nonlethal damage? Because "dealing damage" = "damage taken"?
The fact that the sentence "Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage (see page 191)" is under the Combat chapter, not under the Spell chapter.
I don't see what you're asking me to reconcile.
The point I am trying to make is that when something "does X damage" that is the effect of the action. A spell or an attack "does X damage," for example.
The claim being made is that "how much damage an attack does" is equivalent to "how much damage the target takes."
The rules state that if penalized below minimum damage, an attack deals 1 nonlethal damage. So, under any circumstances, the target will take 1 nonlethal damage.
I understand you didn't specifically make this claim, but that was what the original example was written to explore.
You asked me to reconcile something that I'm assuming you mean is an issue with dealing damage being the same as damage taken... I don't understand what you're asking of me.
You'll have to be more plain with what you're trying to get at so that I can answer your question and avoid you later claiming that I never addressed your concern.
Yes, when something does damage that is an effect of the action.
The rules illustrate that sometimes "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are to be interchangeable otherwise some thing don't work, RAW, even though they very obviously should.
If you're attacking with a weapon and your damage is penalized then yes, you do 1 nonlethal damage. (An easy example of this is that if you have a negative to damage due to low strength so your dagger is doing 1d4-2 and you roll a 2 you still do 1 nonlethal).
I don't get how power attack doesn't apply because non lethal isn't hit point damage and yet evasion does because now it is?
Warped Savant was responding to a scenario I posed to show that "how much damage an effect does" is different from "how much damage the target takes."
Evasion poses a problem with this RAW. This particular point doesn't really deal specifically with nonlethal damage, but Irontruth is saying that the target takes lethal damage, therefore the effect did lethal damage. He refuses to provide any type of example of how he thinks it should work, so I'm not exactly sure what he believes. Based on his comments, I think that he believes that "rolling damage" means apply all factors to the damage roll including resistances, DR, immunity, spell effects, etc.
For example:
A. Target has DR5/-
1. Creature attacks target and rolls 6 damage.
2. Target takes 1 damage.
Q1: How much damage did the attack do?
Q2: How much damage did the target take?
I believe that the answer to Q1 is 6 and Q2 is 1.
I think that Irontruth would answer that both are 1, because damage dealt = damage taken, but I'm not sure.
You asked me to reconcile something that I'm assuming you mean is an issue with dealing damage being the same as damage taken... I don't understand what you're asking of me.
You'll have to be more plain with what you're trying to get at so that I can answer your question and avoid you later claiming that I never addressed your concern.Yes, when something does damage that is an effect of the action.
The rules illustrate that sometimes "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are to be interchangeable otherwise some thing don't work, RAW, even though they very obviously should.
If you're attacking with a weapon and your damage is penalized then yes, you do 1 nonlethal damage. (An easy example of this is that if you have a negative to damage due to low strength so your dagger is doing 1d4-2 and you roll a 2 you still do 1 nonlethal).
If damage dealt = damage taken, and the rules say you "deal 1 nonlethal damage," then this damage cannot be prevent by abilities or effects.
Ah, okay... yeah. If you attack something and don't get through it's DR (let's say it has DR 5/- and you only have 4 damage coming at it) does it still take 1 nonlethal? That's what you mean, right?
Which is an interesting question because it brings up the discussion as to what counts as a penalty to damage. And if damage dealt = damage taken then that would imply that DR is a penalty to damage.
The write up for Damage Reduction says that the creature ignores the damage (from normal attacks) and also implies that all damage from the attack could be negated.
I don't have a strict RAW answer for you. Right now it appears that it's a contradiction in the rules. I'd have to go with what I believe is intended (and that's that if you don't bypass DR you don't do any damage, not even the 1 nonlethal minimum) but I don't know if there's something that would prove it either way.
That isn't a process of how to use Power Attack, but as we can see, my stance is internally consistent with what you have posted.1. Nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
2. Power Attack does not apply to nonlethal damage.Please feel free to describe the process of how Power Attack is used (including when conditions are checked and when bonus damage is added) and we can try to clear up any confusion.
You asked me the process for determining how it works, that is the process.
Except that your 1 isn't true. Nonlethal can do hit point damage. It doesn't always do hit point damage, but it can.
The "process" you presented is not a process of how to use power attack.
It was never decided to be used. an attack wasn't made. Damage wasn't rolled. and power attacks conditions and damage were never checked or added to anything.
Pretend you were walking a new player through it step by step and write a detailed process of how Power Attack works. This will get us both on the same page, and we can communicate more effectively.
On your second point, we have already discussed at length the excess nonlethal damage issue. I am willing to continue if you like, but I suspect it will be more of the same. I treat the excess nonlethal as lethal damage in all ways and this aspect of "treating as" isn't something done at the damage roll. You believe that treating excess nonlethal as lethal damage means having some qualities of both, and it happens at the time damage is rolled. Neither one has anything to back this up, so we can't really progress on this issue. I am happy to explain my position again I detail if you feel it will help.
Do you understand what my position is?
My position is that nonlethal damage is hit point damage.
When I talk about the Power Attack issue, I am not talking about MY position. I am talking about the problem in YOUR position.
Do you understand this point?
Because when you ask for clarifications on "Irontruth's position" on nonlethal damage and Power Attack, that is a completely different thing than what we're discussing most of the time.
When I describe my process, you seem to have a problem with it by checking the conditions after the effect happens.
So you either
1. You do not accurately understand my position
2. You believe that conditions are checked after the effect happens, which then retroactively change the effect.
Given that number 2 can lead to many logical inconsistencies, I have to assume you do not accurately understand my position.
I would like for you to explain your process (including when damage is added and when conditions are checked) and then, depending on that process, I will either try to show that my position works with your process or that your process process is logically inconsistent and need adjusted.
However, I am confident that if you provide your process for Power Attack in good faith, and we make the following assumptions...
1. Nonlethal Damage is not Hit point damage.
2. Conditions for whether something happens or not must be checked before it happens (It appears you have a problem with, so I have included it as an assumption, I don't believe it needs to be.)
then we will see that your process of Power Attack works for my position, and thus is logically consistent. We shouldn't even have to deal with the excess nonlethal damage as an issue, but I won't know for sure until you describe your process for Power Attack.
When I describe my process, you seem to have a problem with it by checking the conditions after the effect happens.
So you either
1. You do not accurately understand my position
2. You believe that conditions are checked after the effect happens, which then retroactively change the effect.Given that number 2 can lead to many logical inconsistencies, I have to assume you do not accurately understand my position.
I would like for you to explain your process (including when damage is added and when conditions are checked) and then, depending on that process, I will either try to show that my position works with your process or that your process process is logically inconsistent and need adjusted.
However, I am confident that if you provide your process for Power Attack in good faith, and we make the following assumptions...
1. Nonlethal Damage is not Hit point damage.
2. Conditions for whether something happens or not must be checked before it happens (It appears you have a problem with, so I have included it as an assumption, I don't believe it needs to be.)then we will see that your process of Power Attack works for my position, and thus is logically consistent. We shouldn't even have to deal with the excess nonlethal damage as an issue, but I won't know for sure until you describe your process for Power Attack.
Mallecks,
My issue with your process is not the process itself. My issues is that your assumptions causes the process to violate the game rules.
I agree on:
1. declare attack
2. check modifiers (like spells, feats, etc)
3. roll attack
4. check if it hits
5. check modifiers and dice of damage
6. declare damage
7. target checks spells, feats, etc that modify incoming damage
8. reduce hit points
The basic process is not the issue, and has not been what I've been talking to you about. My problem is that your assumptions cause this process to be wrong. Fundamentally, this process isn't actually in the rule book. It's something you and I are creating based on how we interpret the rules, but it doesn't actually exist any where, and the rules don't say that you can't add more steps to the process.
So, if you try to use my process as evidence that you are right, I'm going to ask you for a rules citation. Honestly, I don't have a rules citation for my process either. So if you challenged me on it, I can't 100% tell you that it is correct. This is why I haven't been responding to this, because it doesn't matter. What I wrote above is not from the rule book. It isn't RAW.
I don't see anything in the rules where it says you don't go and check back with Power Attack to make sure whether it applies or not as step 7.a. Because I can't find one, and you can't find one, that means that if it is possible that Power Attack's status might change during the process, in order to adhere to the rules of Power Attack, we DO have to go back and check it. If we don't, then (under your assumptions) we are violating the rules of Power Attack.
OK, so the issue is in fact that you believe that conditions of whether or not something happens can be checked after the effect happens.
I am glad we cleared that up. I will try to provide examples of why a cause-effect relationship should be maintained and why effect-cause relationships should be avoided.
I don't want examples. I want a rules citation.
Examples are things you make up. If you want to make your own rules, go to the Homebrew section and talk about your rules there.
This section of the forums is about the Pathfinder rules that are published in the Pathfinder books. Please provide text from those books that backs you up.
This is why I don't engage you in your examples. Your examples are meaningless. Examples are to help people understand a thing. I understand what you are saying just fine. What I have been saying is that your examples are inventions, and not actually part of the rules.
Rules text to back up your claims. That is all that matters.
And again, I consider the issue of Power Attack being handled poorly as proof that your interpretation is false. Nothing in the rules says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow. Therefore, if you say that it doesn't, that means you are wrong.
Please provide rules text that says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow.
I don't want examples. I want a rules citation.
Examples are things you make up. If you want to make your own rules, go to the Homebrew section and talk about your rules there.
This section of the forums is about the Pathfinder rules that are published in the Pathfinder books. Please provide text from those books that backs you up.
This is why I don't engage you in your examples. Your examples are meaningless. Examples are to help people understand a thing. I understand what you are saying just fine. What I have been saying is that your examples are inventions, and not actually part of the rules.
Rules text to back up your claims. That is all that matters.
And again, I consider the issue of Power Attack being handled poorly as proof that your interpretation is false. Nothing in the rules says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow. Therefore, if you say that it doesn't, that means you are wrong.
Please provide rules text that says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow.
I think the concept of "checking for conditions after the effect happens" is general enough that using examples to show why this shouldn't work is acceptable.
If you feel differently, then we will have to agree to disagree. Neither one of us can prove our point with specific quotes from the rules. Nothing in the rules says the attacker treats the excess nonlethal damage retroactively for abilities that work off of hit point damage, either.
Again, if you are looking for a specific quote, it isn't going to happen, which is why you are asking for it. I'm not asking you for specific rules to prove I'm wrong, because they also don't exist. In general, I don't like to use the rules to tell me what I can't do, I look at the rules to tell me what I can do.
"Nothing in the rules says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow" doesn't mean you can do so just like..
"Nothing in the rules says my character doesn't start the game with an invisible pink unicorn" doesn't mean it happens.
I understand that you believe the excess overflow matters. Based on your process and responses I have to assume (because you didn't specifically include when bonus damage is added or when conditions are checked) this is because you check the conditions of the effect after it happens. This is a concept that isn't discussed in the rules, and I don't think it should be, because of certain expectations about how time and reality work in general. Causes happens before their effects. Even though this is a fantasy game, I assume that things that aren't touched upon in the rules are similar to reality.
The rules don't say very many things, but I certainly assume them. Do Humans have gut flora in Pathfinder? Do half-orcs? Do orcs? Is light a transverse wave? Is sound a longitudinal wave? The rules don't say they are, or to make it more relevant....
Nothing in the rules say an object can travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore, if you say that something can't, that means you are wrong.
So, because of the physical expectations of reality, I am assuming that, in general, there is a causal arrow of time where causes precedes their effects. I do not think this is a controversial idea.
Can you provide any other examples where conditions should be / are checked after their effects happen?
So, clearly, here we have a breakdown. I have certain physical expectations of reality (unless the GM says otherwise) and you do not. This is clearly outside any rules that can be quoted.
So, again, if we cannot discuss concepts using examples driven by the rules (like Warped Savant and I did) and are only using specific quotes from the rules, I'm afraid we've again hit a communication breakdown where we cannot proceed.
Edit: Ok, here we go again... I think we've got to the point where you will agree with my position.
Assumptions:
A. Nonlethal is not hit point damage
B. The universe has a causal Arrow of Time where causes precedes their effects.
Power Attack
1. Choose to use Power Attack
2. Make a non-lethal attack roll and succeed.
3. Roll damage.
3a. Check Power Attack conditions. The damage is nonlethal and doesn't qualify for Power Attack. [A]
3b. Do not add the Power Attack bonus.
3c. Calculate damage.
4. Damage is modified by spells/effects/abilities/etc. (DR, for example)
5. Target takes the damage, any excess nonlethal damage is "treated as" lethal damage.
5a. Normally nothing would be here, but just to make it clear, conditions are not checked for this lethal damage because the effect as already happened. [B]
Please let me know if you believe that this is still logically inconsistent, or if I still need to make adjustments. All thought, I will agree that in universes / planes where the Arrow of Time is not "moving toward the future" than this process does break down. I don't feel that this is necessary an issue, but we can explore it if you like.
Congratulations. You win. Well done. You’ve finally convinced me that the rules question forum is a toxic hellhole of wannabe designers who don’t understand the first damn thing about writing game rules.
Hooray. You must be so proud to have done this. Sheer genius at work. Kinda glad this didn’t happen before the size change and damage FAQ.
Now, put up or shut up: either you want an FAQ or you don’t. We already acknowledge your undoubted and godlike superiority to our ability to read the language of the rules. That is a given at this point. We all bow down to your staggering intellects. I’m sure even Jason Bulmahn is in awe. So here’s the question: what are you trying to achieve with this thread? You’re 100% correct and I can personally guarantee that everyone will only ever use the right interpretation of this for all future rulings, books, and adventures. What more do you want?
All hail the winners of the rules forum! Woohoooooooooo!
Congratulations. You win. Well done. You’ve finally convinced me that the rules question forum is a toxic hellhole of wannabe designers who don’t understand the first damn thing about writing game rules.
Hooray. You must be so proud to have done this. Sheer genius at work. Kinda glad this didn’t happen before the size change and damage FAQ.
Now, put up or shut up: either you want an FAQ or you don’t. We already acknowledge your undoubted and godlike superiority to our ability to read the language of the rules. That is a given at this point. We all bow down to your staggering intellects. I’m sure even Jason Bulmahn is in awe. So here’s the question: what are you trying to achieve with this thread? You’re 100% correct and I can personally guarantee that everyone will only ever use the right interpretation of this for all future rulings, books, and adventures. What more do you want?
All hail the winners of the rules forum! Woohoooooooooo!
I'm not exactly sure why you are being hostile. I'm not claiming that mine is the "correct and only way" only that it is logically consistent with the rules. Others have been saying that theirs is the "correct and only way." Everyone has been attacking my position, so we haven't really explored edge case examples of the "other position," though I imagine that it is also logically consistent. So, either way would be fine.
I will continue to discuss my position for as long as others are willing to engage in discussion, though I admit it did take a long time to figure out exactly what the difference between the two sides were regarding Power Attack, we did get there eventually.
"Nothing in the rules says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow" doesn't mean you can do so just like..
"Nothing in the rules says my character doesn't start the game with an invisible pink unicorn" doesn't mean it happens.
But the rules say that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage and since we all know that lethal damage is hit point damage that means that overflow nonlethal damage is (by your definition) doing hit point damage then yes, the rules say that power attack applies.
Your argument that damage dealt versus damage taken was proven false by the wording on Evasion compared to the wording about making a reflex save versus magic.
Since damage dealt and damage taken are the same thing, how do you justify that taking lethal damage from nonlethal overflow isn't the attacker dealing lethal damage?
Rules text to back up your claims. That is all that matters.
Please provide rules text that says Power Attack doesn't apply to nonlethal overflow.
Is RAI not often discussed on these forums?
I don't think we'll be able to find one. Do you have rules text that says power attack does apply to nonlethal overflow?
Yes. Nonlethal overflow is considered lethal damage. Lethal damage is legal for Power Attack. Both quotes have been pasted MULTIPLE times in this thread.
A certain amount of RAI is part of the process, but you cannot just invalidate or ignore complete sentences. If there is ambiguity within a sentence, or in how to sentences interact, yes we must use our ability to interpret them. But RAI doesn't mean you get to make up whatever you want in a rules discussion.
I think the concept of "checking for conditions after the effect happens" is general enough that using examples to show why this shouldn't work is acceptable.
If you feel differently, then we will have to agree to disagree. Neither one of us can prove our point with specific quotes from the rules. Nothing in the rules says the attacker treats the excess nonlethal damage retroactively for abilities that work off of hit point damage, either.
No, there is no agree to disagree here. Either you can show something that backs up a claim, or you can't.
I can quote (and have) the rules for Power Attack. I can quote (and have) the rules for nonlethal damage. I can quote (and have) the rules that explicitly show lethal damage is hit point damage.
Power Attack applies to hit point damage.
Lethal damage is hit point damage.
Nonlethal overflow is lethal damage.
These three rules tell us that nonlethal overflow gains the bonus damage from Power Attack.
I don't care about your opinion. Do you have a RULE that says this isn't true?
I haven't expressed an opinion in this post, I have shown RULES that apply to the question.
If you think that this is incorrect, please show me RULES that tell us to do differently.
|
Are we still beating this dead horse. Of course Power Attack applies to non-lethal hit point damage attacks. The "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." statement is in reference to non-damaging attacks, such as blinding, fear(some), stunning, and paralysis. Since there are two kinds of hit point damage, lethal and non-lethal (which is not "real" damage), it of course applies to non-lethal attacks.
Can you even make the type of attack or not? Can you make a power attack? Do you have "all melee attack rolls"? Yes. Yes you do. You have, let's say BAB +16. You decide to do a power attack.
Your first attack you deal 12 points of lethal damage. You have started a Power Attack. It applies to ALL MELEE ATTACKS. At +11, you make another melee attack, deciding THIS TIME to deal non-lethal damage. Is Power Attack still in effect? Yep. Is non-lethal damage still a MELEE DAMAGE roll? YEP. It applies to all MELEE ATTACKS and MELEE DAMAGE ROLLS until next round.
If it is not clear to you by now that it affects non-lethal, there is very little help for you.
NOW, let's say someone has DR 10/-. If we checked conditions, as you stated, after damage, and then went back to check if we could do the attack, they would do ZERO damage. As the 10 lethal damage was reduced and did NO HIT POINT DAMAGE. So they don't get the +2 for PA. See how inconsistent this thinking is? Checking the attack modifier at damage application stage just makes no sense.
But the rules say that nonlethal overflow is lethal damage and since we all know that lethal damage is hit point damage that means that overflow nonlethal damage is (by your definition) doing hit point damage then yes, the rules say that power attack applies.
I have since updated my position to include an assumption that there is a causal Arrow of Time in the universe in which the Power Attack is happening, where causes precede effects. This is so that conditions for whether something happens are not checked after the thing happens or not.
Given that assumption, the conditions for Power Attack must be checked before the damage roll and cannot be checked after the damage roll.
Power Attack provides +2 bonus to melee damage rolls, so it all has to happen on that step.
You have to roll the damage (include Power Attack bonus or not) before the target takes the damage, so the conditions have to be checked before this step.
Cause: Target took nonlethal damage
Effect: Excess nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.
You can't pass the cause without already checking the conditions and adding (or not) the bonus from Power Attack. You don't go backwards.
Do you feel that this is inaccurate? Can you provide any other examples where conditions are checked after something happens?
Your argument that damage dealt versus damage taken was proven false by the wording on Evasion compared to the wording about making a reflex save versus magic.Since damage dealt and damage taken are the same thing, how do you justify that taking lethal damage from nonlethal overflow isn't the attacker dealing lethal damage?
No, I said I would get back to you on it, not that I was convinced. The wording of Evasion is a big problem for a strict RAW reading.
Here is a thread I was just reading. I was weighing necro-ing the thread, creating a new topic, or PMing you, but I saw you brought it back up here, so might as well just continue.
The gist of the thread concerns what it means to "Deal damage" with a spell and how it applies to "Fractions of Heal and Harm."
This spell channels a portion of the next spell you cast into magic that heals you. The next instantaneous area damage spell of 3rd level or lower that you cast deals only 75% of its damage, but heals you of a number of hit points equal to the remaining 25% of the spell’s damage. For example, if you cast this spell and followed it with a fireball that would normally deal 40 hit points of damage, the fireball instead deals 30 hit points of damage and heals you of 10 hit points of damage. The spell affected by this spell must be cast before the end of your next turn. This spell has no effect on spells that do not deal damage or spells higher than 3rd level. This healing is treated as if you had been affected by a cure or inflict spell (whichever would heal you), and is treated as the same spell level as the area-affecting spell for the purpose of effects that relate to the spell level of cure or inflict spells.
The consensus from the other thread seemed to side with my interpretation of the "dealing damage." Spells deal damage equal to what the damage roll reads, not what the target takes. Evasion has unfortunate wording, but I am now convinced that my position is correct. An effect "deals damage" equal to the damage calculation and that number exists independently of the amount the target takes.
These three rules tell us that nonlethal overflow gains the bonus damage from Power Attack.
Please provide the rule(s) that state that Power Attack applies to the final damage the target takes and not the damage dice the bonus is being applied to.
Are we still beating this dead horse. Of course Power Attack applies to non-lethal hit point damage attacks. The "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." statement is in reference to non-damaging attacks, such as blinding, fear(some), stunning, and paralysis. Since there are two kinds of hit point damage, lethal and non-lethal (which is not "real" damage), it of course applies to non-lethal attacks.
Can you even make the type of attack or not? Can you make a power attack? Do you have "all melee attack rolls"? Yes. Yes you do. You have, let's say BAB +16. You decide to do a power attack.
Your first attack you deal 12 points of lethal damage. You have started a Power Attack. It applies to ALL MELEE ATTACKS. At +11, you make another melee attack, deciding THIS TIME to deal non-lethal damage. Is Power Attack still in effect? Yep. Is non-lethal damage still a MELEE DAMAGE roll? YEP. It applies to all MELEE ATTACKS and MELEE DAMAGE ROLLS until next round.If it is not clear to you by now that it affects non-lethal, there is very little help for you.
NOW, let's say someone has DR 10/-. If we checked conditions, as you stated, after damage, and then went back to check if we could do the attack, they would do ZERO damage. As the 10 lethal damage was reduced and did NO HIT POINT DAMAGE. So they don't get the +2 for PA. See how inconsistent this thinking is? Checking the attack modifier at damage application stage just makes no sense.
First off, let me say that the side you are arguing for is the side that claims we should check conditions after they happen, and that is why my side is logically inconsistent.
Secondly, I agree with everything you have said, if we assume that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. However, nonlethal damage doesn't damage hit points, so I don't agree with that definition.
If you assume that nonlethal damage is not hit point damage, Power Attack's bonus damage doesn't apply to the damage rolls, but otherwise everything is the same as you have said. (They take the penalty on the attack roll, they just don't get the damage.) Hopefully, this clarifies things for you. I know this issue has crossed multiple threads and hundreds of posts including each side presenting each others arguments to show logical problems with them, and may be confusing to follow. If you like, I can provide you with a detailed description of my current position to avoid any confusion.
|
|
Do you feel that this is inaccurate? Can you provide any other examples where conditions are checked after something happens?
Almost every other damage resolution step... do damage. Is it immune? yep. No damage. Good god. Do you hear yourself?
The only exceptions for PA are that "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." This does not mean you can't do melee attacks, and resolve melee damage (lethal or not) with PA added in. It means that if you do a melee attack which does not do melee damage (lethal or non-lethal) you don't add in the +2 damage. For instance (once again), you hit someone with a Drench spell cast as a melee touch spell through metamagic. You don't add 2 damage. They just get wet. Just like your argument. ALL WET.
Note, if they had spell combat, and a method (feat) to apply the metamagic without increasing the time of the casting, and cast Drench AFTER they did a melee attack with PA, the Drench spell would still suffer the -1 to attack. Re-read the sentence: ONLY the bonus damage is not applied, not the Power Attack Feat. You're still all wet.
Do you feel that this is inaccurate? Can you provide any other examples where conditions are checked after something happens?
Fair enough; that makes sense. I see why you don't think it matters if the overflow is lethal as power attack wouldn't apply based on the initial damage roll being nonlethal.
No, I said I would get back to you on it, not that I was convinced. The wording of Evasion is a big problem for a strict RAW reading.
Your argument that damage dealt versus damage taken was proven false by the wording on Evasion compared to the wording about making a reflex save versus magic.Since damage dealt and damage taken are the same thing, how do you justify that taking lethal damage from nonlethal overflow isn't the attacker dealing lethal damage?
Sorry, I mis-remembered. And the thread you linked to is a solid example of "damage dealt" not being equal to "damage taken".
I think all of this is enough proof that there is no solid thing in the rules that can decide this one way or another. Both sides can clearly keep coming up with different counters to probably anything the other side says (providing they're being honest and quoting the RAW).
Irontruth is very set in what he believes is correct, you seem to be as well. Rather than even trying to just agree to disagree is it possible that we can all just stop talking about this as even if something new was to be brought up it could almost guaranteed be shown to have flaws?
Almost every other damage resolution step... do damage. Is it immune? yep. No damage. Good god. Do you hear yourself?
The only exceptions for PA are that "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." This does not mean you can't do melee attacks, and resolve melee damage (lethal or not) with PA added in. It means that if you do a melee attack which does not do melee damage (lethal or non-lethal) you don't add in the +2 damage. For instance (once again), you hit someone with a Drench spell cast as a melee touch spell through metamagic. You don't add 2 damage. They just get wet. Just like your argument. ALL WET.
Note, if they had spell combat, and a method (feat) to apply the metamagic without increasing the time of the casting, and cast Drench AFTER they did a melee attack with PA, the Drench spell would still suffer the -1 to attack. Re-read the sentence: ONLY the bonus damage is not applied, not the Power Attack Feat. You're still all wet.
I agree with everything here (assuming nonlethal is hit point damage.)
The question you are responding to is dealing specifically with an effect that has conditions to whether or not it happens being checked after the effect happens.
Not a generic "check conditions" after each effect.
Assumptions:
A. Nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
1. Choose to use Power Attack (all melee attacks will be penalized for the rest of the round.)
2. Make a successful attack roll to deal nonlethal damage.
3. Roll damage. This roll is not eligible for Power Attack [A]
4. The damage is modified by spells/abilities/effects/etc. (DR, for example)
5. The target takes the damage, some of which may be excess nonlethal.
People are arguing that we should check for conditions on whether or not to apply the +2 on the melee damage roll (step 3) based on the information on what type of damage the target eventually takes (step 5.)
I am asking for another example like that. Are there any other circumstances where the conditions for what determines whether or not somethings happens is checked after it has already happened?
|
|
Assumptions:
A. Nonlethal damage is not hit point damage.
1. Choose to use Power Attack (all melee attacks will be penalized for the rest of the round.)
2. Make a successful attack roll to deal nonlethal damage.
3. Roll damage. This roll is not eligible for Power Attack [A]
4. The damage is modified by spells/abilities/effects/etc. (DR, for example)
5. The target takes the damage, some of which may be excess nonlethal.People are arguing that we should check for conditions on whether or not to apply the +2 on the melee damage roll (step 3) based on the information on what type of damage the target eventually takes (step 5.)
I am asking for another example like that. Are...
Assumption A is simply wrong. It is spelled out as not "real" damage. Which, in common usage means it is "just like real damage, but here's how we're going to handle it." This means that "lethal" and "non-lethal" are both Hit Point Damage. The basic assumption that "because it is not specifically called "hit point damage"" is incorrect because of the use of "real" in quotes. This is RAW. It is hit point damage which is handled separately from real hit point damage.
I don't know where one would possibly think they can assume "real" doesn't mean anything. It is like they say this entire entry doesn't matter because it doesn't use the words they want it to. It IS "real" hit point damage handled separately from real hit point damage. It is still hit point damage. Semantic arguments because of the author's word choice don't negate what was actually written. It could be clearer. But really doesn't need to be.
I'm not getting into the steps, as they are immaterial. You add PA to melee damage rolls. Per the Feat. It doesn't say "lethal melee damage rolls." The statement at the end about not applying to things that don't do hit point damage has already been explained: Drench. All wet. No extra damage. No melee damage roll was made. No extra damage. It's not rocket science and doesn't really take 300+ posts 3x over to figure out.
Assumption A is simply wrong. It is spelled out as not "real" damage. Which, in common usage means it is "just like real damage, but here's how we're going to handle it." This means that "lethal" and "non-lethal" are both Hit Point Damage. The basic assumption that "because it is not specifically called "hit point damage" is incorrect because of the use of "real" in quotes. This is RAW. It is hit point damage which is handled separately from real hit point damage.
I don't know where one would possibly think they can assume "real" doesn't mean anything. It is like they say this entire entry doesn't matter because it doesn't use the words they want it to. It IS "real" hit point damage handled separately from real hit point damage. It is still hit point damage. Semantic arguments because of the author's word choice don't negate what was actually written. It could be clearer. But really doesn't need to be.
I'm not getting into the steps, as they are immaterial. You add PA to melee damage rolls. Per the Feat. It doesn't say "lethal melee damage rolls." The statement at the end about not applying to things that don't do hit point damage has already been explained: Drench. All wet. No extra damage. No melee damage roll was made. No extra damage. It's not rocket science and doesn't really take 300+ posts 3x over to figure out.
Sure, you can disagree with the assumption. I disagree with your assumption that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. It is never defined as or referred to as hit point damage, and in at least one case used as a separate concept. This has already been hashed over and parties have agreed to disagree. (I'm not sure if Irontruth agrees to disagree on this particular issue, but I believe everyone else has.) There isn't anything definitive in the rules to go one way or the other.
|
|
Sure, you can disagree with the assumption. I disagree with your assumption that nonlethal damage is hit point damage. It is never defined as or referred to as hit point damage, and in at least one case used as a separate concept. This has already been hashed over and parties have agreed to disagree. (I'm not sure if Irontruth agrees to disagree on this particular issue, but I believe everyone else has.) There isn't anything definitive in the rules to go one way or the other.
The use of the word real, in quotes. Denotes that it is "real" damage.
From weapons CRB p 140: "All weapons deal hit point damage" - A sap and whip are weapons. They ONLY do non-lethal damage. They do non-lethal hit point damage.
Case closed. The assumption that non-lethal is not hit point damage is WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
I could continue to chew up and spit out the wrong assumption over and over with core rules alone, but those making the wrong assumptions are often never convinced against their will. I've pointed out that the statement at the end of PA is about EFFECTS (of spells) that don't have weapon damage rolls. I've explained what "real" means. I've shown that all weapons do hit point damage, yet some do non-lethal hit point damage. I've shown that we don't "go back" to damage resolution stage when we try to determine if PA applies, and then have to see if we even hit. Silliness. I mean, what more does one need before they get rid of the false notion that non-lethal is somehow not hit point damage?
These three rules tell us that nonlethal overflow gains the bonus damage from Power Attack.Please provide the rule(s) that state that Power Attack applies to the final damage the target takes and not the damage dice the bonus is being applied to.
What is "final damage"?
In other words, if you're going to ask me this question, I want to know what rule you're basing this on. Its hard for me to know what rule I'm "answering" if I don't know what rule is being referenced.
The use of the word real, in quotes. Denotes that it is "real" damage.
From weapons CRB p 140: "All weapons deal hit point damage" - A sap and whip are weapons. They ONLY do non-lethal damage. They do non-lethal hit point damage.
Case closed. The assumption that non-lethal is not hit point damage is WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
I could continue to chew up and spit out the wrong assumption over and over with core rules alone, but those making the wrong assumptions are often never convinced against their will.
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 "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.
1. The rules specifically state that it is NOT "real" damage.
2. "All weapons deal hit point damage" is a generic rule. There is a specific rule that handles nonlethal damage.
3. Saps and whips do not only do nonlethal damage. They do not suffer the penalty for making an attack for nonlethal damage. Any weapon can do lethal or nonlethal damage.
4. The term "nonlethal hit point damage" does not exist anywhere in Pathfinder material that has been discussed. Can you provide an example?
What is "final damage"?
In other words, if you're going to ask me this question, I want to know what rule you're basing this on. Its hard for me to know what rule I'm "answering" if I don't know what rule is being referenced.
Please provide the rule(s) that state that Power Attack applies to the damage taken and not the damage dice the bonus is being applied to.
What is the difference between damage dealt and damage taken?
Do you have a rule citation for that?
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 attack deals damage. If some of that damage is lethal, the damage meets all requirements for Power Attack. Power Attack gets added to the total. Also note, it doesn't say that you can't go back and recalculate. So if a rule happens to cause that, then that specific rule would cause it to happen.
There is no "arrow of time" unless you can find a rule for it.
Power Attack does apply to the damage roll. And if that damage roll will cause hit point damage, you add Power Attack to it.
Do you have a rule that says otherwise?
|
|
1. The rules specifically state that it is NOT "real" damage.2. "All weapons deal hit point damage" is a generic rule. There is a specific rule that handles nonlethal damage.
3. Saps and whips do not only do nonlethal damage. They do not suffer the penalty for making an attack for nonlethal damage. Any weapon can do lethal or nonlethal damage.
4. The term "nonlethal hit point damage" does not exist anywhere in Pathfinder material that has been discussed. Can you provide an example?
1. yeh, and I explained why it was in quotes. The difference between not real damage and not "real" damage = not real damage - means it is not hit point damage. not "real" damage - means it is hit point damage, just treated differently.
2. And nowhere in the specific rule does it change the type of damage from the general rule. It is still hit point damage, because it never specifies it is NOT hit point damage.
3. You are right, any weapon can do non-lethal damage. And all weapons do hit point damage. Thus non-lethal damage from all weapons is hit point damage.
result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal
damage (see page 191).
4. Nope, I don't need to. Because nowhere does it state it does something different from normal weapon damage, which is hit point damage. With the exception that it is applied in a different way.
The fact that most of the book says "lethal damage" and "non-lethal damage" right next to each other and never mentions hit point damage in those areas is what we call a "context clue" that it is the same type of damage. Gauntlet, Bolas, Whip, Sap... etc... they don't say "lethal hit point damage." They say "lethal damage" and "non-lethal damage." This implies they are both the "same."
Let's examine NONLETHAL DAMAGE. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest. So, doesn't say it is not hit point damage there... Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. -Hmmm... still doesn't say it is NOT HIT POINT DAMAGE. Even "It is not “real” damage." Doesn't state it is not, as a general rule, hit point damage. It is therefore never explicitly stated as NOT being HIT POINT DAMAGE. Ergo, the general rule that "all weapons deal hit point damage" still applies. The general rule is never overwritten anywhere in the Nonlethal section. Thanks for playing. The assumption that "because it is not defined in the nonlethal section and is therefore not hit point damage" is over-ridden by the general description, specifically stated, in weapons which is never over-written in the nonlethal section and thus still applies. Nonlethal damage from weapons is hit point damage. The general rule is never snuffed out. Sorry. Just a wrong assumption and bad interpretation of RAW.
Power Attack does apply to the damage roll. And if that damage roll will cause hit point damage, you add Power Attack to it.
Do you have a rule that says otherwise?
Please provide the rule that says that the bonus damage is applied to the damage it will cause instead of the result of the damage roll.
|
|
Please provide the rule that says that the bonus damage is applied to the damage it will cause instead of the result of the damage roll.Power Attack does apply to the damage roll. And if that damage roll will cause hit point damage, you add Power Attack to it.
Do you have a rule that says otherwise?
All weapons cause hit point damage. Power attack applies to melee damage rolls. You only calculate this once. Please show me a rule where it says you calculate damage over and over and over for specific conditionals that may or may not apply. That rule doesn't exist. Just like nothing in "nonlethal damage" says "nonlethal damage is not hit point damage." That statement also does not exist anywhere. Thus the general rule applies: all weapons do hit point damage. And you can add Power Attack to the melee damage rolls, even if nonlethal. Have a nice day.
Please provide the rule that says that the bonus damage is applied to the damage it will cause instead of the result of the damage roll.Power Attack does apply to the damage roll. And if that damage roll will cause hit point damage, you add Power Attack to it.
Do you have a rule that says otherwise?
Edit: Actually, I answered several of your questions, while you've dodged mine.
Tit for tat. Answer some of mine now.
All weapons cause hit point damage. Power attack applies to melee damage rolls. You only calculate this once. Please show me a rule where it says you calculate damage over and over and over for specific conditionals that may or may not apply. That rule doesn't exist. Just like nothing in "nonlethal damage" says "nonlethal damage is not hit point damage." That statement also does not exist anywhere. Thus the general rule applies: all weapons do hit point damage. And you can add Power Attack to the melee damage rolls, even if nonlethal. Have a nice day.Please provide the rule that says that the bonus damage is applied to the damage it will cause instead of the result of the damage roll.Power Attack does apply to the damage roll. And if that damage roll will cause hit point damage, you add Power Attack to it.
Do you have a rule that says otherwise?
1. Irontruth is the person advocating that conditions are checked multiple times. I believe that conditions are only checked once, at the time the bonus could be applied.
2. Nothing says "nonlethal damage is hit point damage." It is never referred to or defined as hit point damage. It doesn't damage hit points. I understand that you disagree with this interpretation, but it is logically consistent.
I'm telling you a natural consequence of your stance.
Feel free to provide a citation for your position. The text of Power Attack is clear, and to not do what it says is to violate that text. We are allowed to ignore that text if there is a rule that tells us we can do that.
Do you have a rule that tells us we can ignore the text of Power Attack?
I don't like the process of checking half-way through the application of damage, it seems clunky, and I don't find much evidence that that is how things should work. But right now, BY THE RULES TEXT, that is what happens if nonlethal damage is not hit point damage. I'm sorry that this is inconvenient for you, but it is a problem caused by trying to treat nonlethal as not hit point damage.
|
|
Nothing says "nonlethal damage is hit point damage." It is never referred to or defined as hit point damage. It doesn't damage hit points. I understand that you disagree with this interpretation, but it is logically consistent.
Yes. Actually there is.
Page 140 says "all weapons deal hit point damage."
Bolas, Whips, Saps, etc... deal nonlethal damage.
There is no specific rule that states they are A) not weapons, B) deal lethal damage under normal circumstances.
Therefore Page 140 applies to Bolas, Whips, Saps, etc... and these nonlethal weapons deal hit point damage.
So, yes, there is something that specifically states this. NONLETHAL WEAPONS (are still weapons) DEAL HIT POINT DAMAGE.
Page 140.
Until you show me something in the nonlethal section which SPECIFICALLY says "nonlethal weapons do not do hit point damage" the general rule on 140 is the correct (and only) interpretation of whether nonlethal weapons do hit point damage (RAW). Because NOWHERE ELSE does it say what you imply it means. But it certainly SAYS nonlethal weapons do hit point damage right on page 140.
How do we handle the nonlethal weapons' hit point damage? We go to page 191. But again, nowhere does anything in this section change the previous statement of fact that weapons (including nonlethal) do hit point damage.
I'm telling you a natural consequence of your stance.
Feel free to provide a citation for your position. The text of Power Attack is clear, and to not do what it says is to violate that text. We are allowed to ignore that text if there is a rule that tells us we can do that.
Do you have a rule that tells us we can ignore the text of Power Attack?
My stance does not cause conditions to be checked more than once or after the effect happens.
No lines of power attack are ignored.
I don't agree with your interpretation of how Power Attack and the excess nonlethal damage interact.
So, unless you can provide a rule that states that Power Attack adds damage to the bonus roll based on the damage the target takes, we are at an impasse.
Unless of course we can move on from only using rules text and start using rules to create examples that reflect the concept we are talking about.
In which case, I have already demonstrated through several examples why they [edit: damage dealt vs damage taken] should not be treated as equivalent. I am willing to revisit it if you are prepared to move past us asking each other for specific rules we both know don't exist.
Edit: maouse33, if a something refers to "hit point damage" is it referring to lethal damage or nonlethal damage?
I'm telling you a natural consequence of your stance.
Feel free to provide a citation for your position. The text of Power Attack is clear, and to not do what it says is to violate that text. We are allowed to ignore that text if there is a rule that tells us we can do that.
Do you have a rule that tells us we can ignore the text of Power Attack?
My stance does not cause conditions to be checked more than once or after the effect happens.
No lines of power attack are ignored.
I don't agree with your interpretation of how Power Attack and the excess nonlethal damage interact.
You're ignoring the fact that Power Attack applies to hit point damage.
Okay, lets try this. Why do you think nonlethal damage doesn't qualify for Power Attack? I know we've gone through this many times, but just tell me which rules led you to believe this, you don't need to quote.