Nonlethal damage and nonlethal immunity

[Dominigo]

I have been going through the book this last week, and I found something odd with nonlethal damage that I think I know how is supposed to work, but it looks like the wording might technically have it working differently. I didn't see any threads covering this after a quick search, so I am making a quick post for my own benefit.

This pertains to four specific things, that I will add below:

Nonlethal Attacks:

You can make a nonlethal attack in an effort to knock someone out instead of killing them (see Knocked Out and Dying on page 459). Weapons with the nonlethal trait (including fists) do this automatically. You take a –2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll when you make a nonlethal attack using a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait. You also take this penalty when making a lethal attack using a nonlethal weapon.

Nonlethal Trait:

Attacks with this weapon are nonlethal (page 453), and are used to knock creatures unconscious instead of kill them. You can use a nonlethal weapon to make a lethal attack with a –2 circumstance penalty.

Immunity to Nonlethal:

Another exception is immunity to nonlethal attacks. If you are immune to nonlethal attacks, you are immune to all damage from attacks with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a stone golem has immunity to nonlethal attacks. This means that no matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it—unless your fists don’t have the nonlethal trait, such as if you’re a monk.

Powerful Fist:

You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist changes to 1d6 instead of 1d4. Most people take a –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with nonlethal unarmed attacks, because they find it hard to use their fists with deadly force. You don’t take this penalty when making a lethal attack with your fist or any other unarmed attacks.

So basically the questions that I have is these:

Does taking the -2 penalty to make a lethal attack with a nonlethal weapon remove the nonlethal weapon trait?
• If so, does taking the -2 penalty to do a nonlethal attack with a lethal weapon add the weapon trait?
• Does the Powerful fist ability of the monk remove the nonlethal trait?

These all matters, of course, in reference to Immunity to Nonlethal Damage. The immunity states that it makes the creature immune to all damage from an attack that has the nonlethal trait, not from nonlethal attacks. The nonlethal trait doesn't actually make attacks with that particular weapon nonlethal, it simply reverses whether making lethal or nonlethal attacks applies the -2 penalty.

So for the example given in the Immunity to Nonlethal, the stone golem may technically be immune to the monk's punches since his unarmed strikes still technically have the nonlethal trait. Similarly, another character could do nonlethal attacks at a -2 penalty with a longsword at otherwise full effectiveness. Obviously, this is silly and not how I would run it, but I can't find anything that bridges this gap.

Based on the example given in the immunity section, the answer that I would assume and play at the table is that taking the -2 penalty does not add or remove the nonlethal trait, but the powerful fist feature does. This way, not just anyone can punch a golem and hurt it, as stated, but a character with an appropriate special ability could, such as a monk. In this case, I would rewrite powerful fist as such:

You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist changes to 1d6 instead of 1d4. When making an unarmed attack, the monk may choose to remove the nonlethal trait.

Has anyone found anything to clarify this better, or have a reason why it should work a different way?

[Castilliano]

Damage can't be lethal and nonlethal. So changing one into the other does just that: changes it. Powerful Fist does not remove the nonlethal trait until you choose to do lethal damage, and yes, wording like you suggested would've made it nice & clear that the nonlethal label goes away too.
Yet making the label go away therefore making the damage lethal mirrors making the damage lethal therefore making the label go away.

But does Paizo need to be nitpicky and phrase it both way?
No. We're all rational adults playing a game that relies on group communication. (Mostly...)

I think common sense makes it obvious. It's just silly to say it's A & not A at the same time. When it's lethal, it's not nonlethal, and vice-versa. The tags are secondary and to aid the game, not create wonky loopholes, especially ones that would destroy the effectiveness of a major component of a core class.

That said...
I don't know what to say if two damage sources stacked, like when combining to compare to resistances/weaknesses. Blade in one hand, sap in the other. Damage w/ some feats is applied at the same time, but what's that mean if the target falls? Are they dying or knocked out? What if the damage from either weapon alone was enough? There's obviously no order to apply them, as it's one pool of damage.
(As for immunity, I'd subtract out the sap's damage and avoid worrying about the lethality of the pool as a whole, though issues could arise with the interaction with other abilities.)

Cheers

[Dominigo]

I agree it is largely common sense, but the main reason I ask is because it could have a significant effect on non-monk characters in certain situations. For example, if a barbarian was disarmed while facing down a skeleton that was immune to nonlethal, can he take the -2 to deal damage with his fists or does he have to retrieve his axe if he wants to remain effective?

I am happy to run it in a way that makes sense at my table, and will happily change things I don't like. I was mostly just looking to see if there was anything that would actually give a clear, official answer to this, especially since it could have an impact on play if people have different opinions on how it should work in a specific situation. There's also the risk that future additions to the game could add problems.

[Castilliano]

I really don't understand your worry. Not that I don't understand it from a lawyer's perspective, but I can't understand why you would play with people who can't accept that when the Barbarian takes the -2, his nonlethal fists have become lethal so can hurt the skeletons fine.

It is obvious to the point I'd be surprised if Paizo bothers to FAQ it.