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.
Another exception is immunity to the nonlethal trait. If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks. No matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it. However, you can take a penalty to remove the nonlethal trait from your fist (page 282), and some abilities give you unarmed attacks without the nonlethal trait.
These rules used to only mention actual attacks, and now they are clarified to refer to all nonlethal effects. But when the rules provide an example, they just call it immunity to nonlethal attacks again. Is there any difference between "immunity to nonlethal" and "immunity to nonlethal attacks?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonlethal is a trait applied to damage. Not all damage comes from effects that have the Attack trait, such as the damage from Buffeting Winds.
So Buffeting Winds would be an example of a Nonlethal effect that is not a Nonlethal Attack.
Trip and Grapple are not - which is what I suspect that you are leading towards. Those are effects that do not normally do damage at all. And when they do, they are still doing lethal damage. So those wouldn't have the Nonlethal trait, and creatures immune to Nonlethal would not be immune to Trip and Grapple and such.
As far as the reverting of the wording in the example - "For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks." - that is an example. Not the rule. And likely needs errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Another exception is immunity to the nonlethal trait. If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks. No matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it. However, you can take a penalty to remove the nonlethal trait from your fist (page 282), and some abilities give you unarmed attacks without the nonlethal trait.These rules used to only mention actual attacks, and now they are clarified to refer to all nonlethal effects. But when the rules provide an example, they just call it immunity to nonlethal attacks again. Is there any difference between "immunity to nonlethal" and "immunity to nonlethal attacks?"
I think you're looking for tiny differences in wording to be more load-bearing than they really are, drawing that distinction.
I just checked the monsters in Monster Core. None just list "nonlethal" under Immunities. The term "nonlethal attacks" is always used. Even object immunities still lists "nonlethal attacks" instead of just "nonlethal."
So that's why I'm wondering if immunity to nonlethal attacks means immunity to all nonlethal effects or only things with the attack and nonlethal trait.
Probably because Monster Core was still mostly copied from Bestiary 1 - especially for things like the immunity list of the creatures.
Again this might be a case where errata could be needed. But as for the ruling at the table, I would still go with the actual rule.
If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has.
Not the example, and not an interpretation of how the immunity is presented on the creature stat block. Use the rule itself.
So in a scenario where the environment is susceptible to Fireball, I can use Nonlethal Spell to protect the environment from my Fireball?
That would be a pretty reasonable ruling. But the way that the rule about indiscriminate AoEs and their environmental effects is written, you really need to ask that question to your GM, not on this forum.