Subdual Damage and Deathless Frenzy

[Hypersmurf]

If it is like saying that, then DR does not apply to nonlethal damage. DR, for instance, does not address nonlethal damage. Not explicitly. Since you are willing to accept nonlethal damage behaves differently than regular damage in the case of deathless frenzy, why not for DR?

DR addresses damage, and non-lethal damage is a form of damage.

Deathless Frenzy addresses the results of dropping to 0 hit points or lower. Non-lethal damage does not lower your hit point total.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can accept a position that states:

Deathless Frenzy permits a Frenzied Berserker to scorn death or unconsciousness resulting from a hit point total of 0, -1 to -9, or -10 or less. Death or unconsciousness resulting from anything else affects the Berserker as normal.

I think you are being a little too literal with your interpretation here.

It's obvious that Nonlethal damage is a type of hit point (and weapon) damage, the rules on it are merely written the way they are in order to simplify bookkeeping for players.

If Lethal > total hits, a PC is unconsious and dying.
If Lethal + Nonlethal > total hits and Lethal < total hits, a PC is unconscious but not dying.

It is also obvious that the designer of DF wasn't paying attention, otherwise, he would have realized how poorly written it is.

Personally, I think the intent of the designer was to stop any hit point damage, be it lethal or nonlethal. He just screwed the pooch.


Note: On page 36, the sample character has a sentence that states:

She isn't considered disabled if she has 0 hit points or incapacitated below -1 hit point.

If your literal interpretation were correct and she was Frenzying and got taken to -3 points on the attack, then she would be unconscious due to the Nonlethal damage of Frenzy. By definition.

But, this sentence states that she will not be incapacitated and unconscious is incapacitated.

Therefore, this sentence pretty much solidifies designer intent here and indicates that your literal interpretation which ignores the unconsciousness sentence of the ability is invalid.

The first sentence of abilities can often be considered "fluff text". But, two sentences pretty much indicate that unconsciousness is something that the FB is not supposed to have with DF.

Whether that applies to ability damage and other means of unconsciousness is debatable. Personally, the way the ability is written up, my take is that we are only discussing hit point damage and nonlethal damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, this sentence states that she will not be incapacitated and unconscious is incapacitated.

So would you argue that a Frenzied Berserker in negative hit points cannot be subject to, say, a Hold Person spell? Paralyzed is incapacitated too, but since he's below -1 hit points, he cannot be incapacitated?

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

So would you argue that a Frenzied Berserker in negative hit points cannot be subject to, say, a Hold Person spell? Paralyzed is incapacitated too, but since he's below -1 hit points, he cannot be incapacitated?

-Hyp.

No, and stop parading forth that ridiculous straw man.

 

[KarinsDad]

So would you argue that a Frenzied Berserker in negative hit points cannot be subject to, say, a Hold Person spell? Paralyzed is incapacitated too, but since he's below -1 hit points, he cannot be incapacitated?

I already stated my answer to that in the same post that you quoted:

Whether that applies to ability damage and other means of unconsciousness is debatable. Personally, the way the ability is written up, my take is that we are only discussing hit point damage and nonlethal damage.

Let me answer your question with a question:

Would you argue that a Frenzied Berserker in negative hit points who was ONLY subjected (i.e. by opponents) to hit point damage and no other type of damage should be allowed to go unconscious due to the nonlethal damage of Frenzy when you have one sentence that states that he scorns unconsciousness and another sentence that states that he isn't considered incapacitated when below -1 hit point?

If so, where is your rules support to counter these two sentences?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would you argue that a Frenzied Berserker in negative hit points who was ONLY subjected (i.e. by opponents) to hit point damage and no other type of damage should be allowed to go unconscious due to the nonlethal damage of Frenzy when you have one sentence that states that he scorns unconsciousness and another sentence that states that he isn't considered incapacitated when below -1 hit point?

I would say that he isn't considered incapacitated by virtue of having a hit point total below -1. But if that hit point total happens to be lower than the amount of non-lethal damage he has accrued, this is a separate issue to what the Frenzy protects against.

All characters fall unconscious when their hit point total falls below 0... except the Frenzied Berserker.

All characters fall unconscious when their non-lethal damage total exceeds their hit point total... whether that hit point total is negative or not. If the FrB has 5 hit points and 6 non-lethal damage, the 'hit point total below -1' clause isn't pertinent, but he's still in a condition which dictates unconsciousness... and nothing in the Deathless Frenzy description obviates that, with the possible exception of the first sentence. But if the first sentence applies, it must also apply to everything except death resulting from massive damage or spell effect.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

Simply because the first sentence applies does not mean it has to have the sweeping meaning you are assigning to it. In the end, nonlethal damage is just damage. It's just not "real" damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the end, nonlethal damage is just damage. It's just not "real" damage.

And that's why DR applies.

But Deathless Frenzy's effects aren't based off damage; they're based off hit point total. And non-lethal damage has no effect on hit point total. The fact that it's damage is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not it can lower your hit point total to 0 or lower, and it can't.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

And that's why DR applies.

But Deathless Frenzy's effects aren't based off damage; they're based off hit point total. And non-lethal damage has no effect on hit point total. The fact that it's damage is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not it can lower your hit point total to 0 or lower, and it can't.

I think a RAWs literal adjudication in this case is silly.

We know that DF has a known utility problem if one adjudicates via straight RAW. That problem is fixed if one allows it to ignore both lethal and nonlethal damage, just like DR stops both lethal and nonlethal damage. It is also obvious that the designer of DF just got sideswiped by this and did not even consider it (when one takes the unconsciousness and incapacitated sentences into account). When RAW has an obvious flaw like this, a DM should make a reasonable adjudication. Allowing DF to just ignore lethal damage is not reasonable. Allowing DF to stop all types of effects that cause unconsciousness is also not reasonable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Allowing DF to just ignore lethal damage is not reasonable.

While I agree, isn't that the point of the ability... and, indeed, the class?

-Hyp.