Nonleathal Damage

[Vegepygmy]

The point is that the nonlethal point makes the character just unconscious--not unconscious and dying as it should be (and is without the 1 point of nonlethal damage).

Not in D&D it doesn't.

As for the Conan RPG, I can't say, since I don't have a copy of the rules. But the sentence you quoted above ("It does not matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds the character's current hit points due to the nonlethal damage going up or his current hit points going down.") doesn't say you only fall unconscious; it just says that it doesn't matter how you get to nonlethal damage =/> current hp. If the general rule in Conan RPG is that you are unconscious and dying when your current hp are -1 to -9 (as it is in D&D), then it doesn't matter if you also have 1 or more points of nonlethal damage, you're still dying and unconscious.

But without the rules themselves to look at, I'm just guessing.

 

[Water Bob]

Not in D&D it doesn't.

As for the Conan RPG, I can't say, since I don't have a copy of the rules. But the sentence you quoted above ("It does not matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds the character's current hit points due to the nonlethal damage going up or his current hit points going down.") doesn't say you only fall unconscious; it just says that it doesn't matter how you get to nonlethal damage =/> current hp. If the general rule in Conan RPG is that you are unconscious and dying when your current hp are -1 to -9 (as it is in D&D), then it doesn't matter if you also have 1 or more points of nonlethal damage, you're still dying and unconscious.

But without the rules themselves to look at, I'm just guessing.

No sir. Check page 146 of your 3.5 PHB. It says the same as the Conan RPG.

If nonlethal damage exceeds hp, then you're only unconscious--not dying.

Thus, if you have 10 hp and 1 nonlethal point of damage, then you take 12 points of damage from a blow, you are at -2 hit points and only unconscious--not dying as you would be had you not had that 1 point of nonlethal damage.

This is a problem.





I think the way to fix the problem is to say that, at -1 hp or worse, the character is always unconcous and dying, even if the character has some nonlethal damage built up.

And maybe...this is what the authors of 3.5 meant all along--that the distinction is just not made in the nonleathal damage rules.

 

[Vegepygmy]

No sir. Check page 146 of your 3.5 PHB. It says the same as the Conan RPG.

If nonlethal damage exceeds hp, then you're only unconscious--not dying.

Nothing on page 146 of my 3.5 PHB says you aren't also dying if your current hit points drop to between -1 and -9 and your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points. If you think it does, please quote the exact language for me.

Thus, if you have 10 hp and 1 nonlethal point of damage, then you take 12 points of damage from a blow, you are at -2 hit points and only unconscious--not dying as you would be had you not had that 1 point of nonlethal damage.

Why not? Are your current hit points between -1 and -9? Yes, they are. So then, according to page 145 of my 3.5 PHB, you are dying:

"When your character's current hit points drop to between -1 and -9 inclusive, he's dying."

It doesn't say "...unless you've also taken nonlethal damage." (Or does it? Have I somehow overlooked it?)

This is a problem.

I'm not seeing it...

I think the way to fix the problem is to say that, at -1 hp or worse, the character is always unconcous and dying, even if the character has some nonlethal damage built up.

But...but...that's what the rule already is! Where does it say otherwise?

 

[Empirate]

To quote my own post may seem arrogant, but really...

For sanity's sake, one might also assume that the Dying condition supersedes the Unconscious condition. Kind of like Dying supersedes, I don't know, Nauseated, or Frightened, or whatnot. At least that's the way I understand the rules...

 

[Water Bob]

Nothing on page 146 of my 3.5 PHB says you aren't also dying if your current hit points drop to between -1 and -9 and your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points. If you think it does, please quote the exact language for me.

It says one of two things...and, it's not clear which it is saying, which I made clear in my last post.

It says either...

1. That you go unconscious when your hp is less than your nonlethal damage, and there is nothing said about dying. Thus -3 hp vs 1 nonlethal hp means unconscious and not dying.

Or, it the rules are saying...

2. That you go unconscious when your hp are less than your nonlethal damage, but if you go into negative hp, you're also dying as normal--as if you didn't have any nonlethal points.



The 3.5E rules are pretty clear in most of the book, so one would think that, on page 148, the dying part would be mentioned.

If you go strictly by what the rules say, then the answer is #1 above. If you add in the hp rule from another part of the book, then #2 is the answer.



I prefer #2, myself, and is how I will interpret the rule in my game. But, I'm not so sure that's what is intended in the the rule book.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Unconscious is included in the dying condition according to the 3.5e SRD:

Unconscious
Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Dying
A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has -1 to -9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious.

The definition of "dying" is having between -1 and -9 current hp, regardless of the amount of nonlethal damage.

That's about as clear cut a rule as any in the game! I really don't see the question on this one.

 

[TanisFrey]

I was off by a point...you are correct. You're supposed to understand what I mean, not what I say.

Still doesn't make sense, though.

Dude has 10 hp. Takes 1 non-lethal point = 10/1. Then, let's say he takes 13 points of real damage = -3/1.

And, he falls unconcious? I don't see it.

I think the rule should go by what type of damage is being inflicted, but keep the staggered part. Thus if a character has 10/1 hit points (10 hp and 1 non-lethal), then he is staggered if reduced to 1 hp. But, if real damage takes him to -3 hp, then it should be no different than if the character didn't have non-lethal damage. He's not knocked unconscious, but is dying.

OTOH, if the character continues to take non-lethal damage, he is knocked unconscious when non-lethal points are higher than his current HP total.

I think that would work better than the rule as written.

In your example you leave the victim at -3 real hit points. He is unconscious and dying. He will get a stabilization check every round and will bleed out in 7 rounds unless he is helped or makes the check. His nonlethal damage does not matter unless someone applies healing magic. In which cast he will heal an amount of nonlethal damage equal to the normal damage healed by spell in addition to the normal damage being healed.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The 3.5E rules are pretty clear in most of the book, so one would think that, on page 148, the dying part would be mentioned.

I think you mean page 146, but...why would they mention anything about dying in the rules for nonlethal damage? The rules for dying have already been set forth, and nothing in the nonlethal damage rules explicitly changes them, so...of course they still apply, just like every other rule in the game!

If you go strictly by what the rules say, then the answer is #1 above.

Wrong. The nonlethal damage rules say nothing about lethal damage and dying; you cannot conclude that because they don't mention a rule, they implicitly abrogate it!

If you add in the hp rule from another part of the book, then #2 is the answer.

Right! If you read the rules in context, as a whole, and don't forget what you just read on the preceding page, they actually make sense (as opposed to considering them in a vacuum, and encountering the "problem" you have described).

I prefer #2, myself, and is how I will interpret the rule in my game. But, I'm not so sure that's what is intended in the the rule book.

I don't share your uncertainty, but I'm glad we can agree what the better interpretation is!