Cleave and Nonlethal Damage?

[Loki_42]

Can you activate cleave using non-lethal damage? I know it's neither lowering it below zero hp or killing it, but the feat does say those are typically the way to do it. I think the operative words are dropping the enemy, but I was having an argument and wanted the playgrounds opinion.

[The Random NPC]

Yes, if you hit them, and they fall down, Cleave activates. The only reason trip doesn't work is because you don't technically hit them.
Edit: Also, I believe there is a feat (Knockdown?) that forces a Str check or fall prone. That one should activate Cleave as well.

[Cog]

The specific wording is, "you deal enough damage to make [the creature] drop." If you deal damage, and that damage directly leads to the creature dropping, then you can cleave. The problem with trip isn't that you're not hitting (after all, you are - what else would a touch attack be?), it's that you're not directly dealing damage. Nonlethal damage is, by its very name, damage.

Edit Re: Edit: Knock-Down would work; your trip attack is a condition of the damage dealt (you're not even given the choice of making the attack - it's an inherent component of your attacks, if you have the feat, and so you must make the attempt).

[The Random NPC]

You are probably correct, my recollection of Trip/Cleave interaction is a bit fuzzy.

[Coidzor]

Dropping them is illdefined, but can either mean they fall, or it means they're knocked out of the fight and are insensible, which is covered by the whole dying thing, or dead.

Personally, even if it was better defined, I'd allow it, since knocking people out is generally an uphill battle compared to murdering in the face all other things being equal.

[Loki_42]

Oh, wow, I almost forgot I made this thread. Thanks for the responses, I was pretty sure it would work, I just wanted to check before I was shot down. Thanks.

[Xtomjames]

In the case of cleave it's not meant to work with non-lethal damage. But because of the ambiguity of the wording it could mean what was intended (dropping = killing) and dropping as in making them fall prone. If we read it as the latter then if you can cause enough non-lethal damage to knock the person or creature unconscious then you could cleave and attack a new opponent.

[Diarmuid]

As a DM, I would rule that any Cleave attacks received after dealing Nonlethal would also have to be made as nonlethal. I know it doesnt say that anywhere, but the entire premise of the feat is that you're able to continue your swing through your current target into another.

[Greenish]

In the case of cleave it's not meant to work with non-lethal damage.How do you know what the designers intended?

[Loki_42]

As a DM, I would rule that any Cleave attacks received after dealing Nonlethal would also have to be made as nonlethal. I know it doesnt say that anywhere, but the entire premise of the feat is that you're able to continue your swing through your current target into another.

Yeah, and that works, I just have a character who was going to start out pretty non-violent, and I didn't want him to lose too many of his tricks before he starts killing.

[Doug Lampert]

How do you know what the designers intended?

I'd argue that intent is pretty clearly FOR it to work with non-lethal.

Why else would the wording not be based on reducing the creature to less than 0 HP? The "If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it)," condition is a more complicated wording than "If you reduce a creature from concious to less than 0 HP", and the ONLY difference is the interaction with other ways for HP damage to drop a creature, of which the ONLY such method in core is non-lethal damage.

Even clearer, the "typically" above is nonsensical unless there's at least one other way for damage to drop a creature. And again, the only such method in core is non-lethal damage. The wording is nonsensical unless non-lethal is also intended to work or they were anticipating non-core methods of damage dropping creatures at some future date.

[Fouredged Sword]

Is't thier an ability that allows you to bullrush with a damageing attack, and then dungeon crasher knocks them down when they hit a wall.

Now you did enough damage to "drop" them and then you cleave them to hit them back into the wall... Repete.

[Cog]

Is't thier an ability that allows you to bullrush with a damageing attack...
Knockback, Races of Stone. It's got moderate requirements.


...and then dungeon crasher knocks them down when they hit a wall.
Dungeoncrasher just does damage in that case. You're probably thinking of Shock Trooper's Domino Rush ability, which has slightly different conditions.


Now you did enough damage to "drop" them and then you cleave them to hit them back into the wall... Repete.
Assuming you're thinking of what I suggested, the damage isn't what's causing the dropping, so Cleave wouldn't trigger.

[candycorn]

"Typically by reducing it below 0 HP or killing it"

What is the common factor here? Being rendered incapacitated. The first could be negated, for example, if you hit someone with the Diehard feat (they don't drop).

There's solid ground for ruling that it works when you damage someone, and that damage causes them to fall, for any reason.

There's solid ground for ruling that it only works when damage incapacitates someone.

Both would mean nonlethal damage is capable of triggering it. So I'd say it's a safe bet that nonlethal knockout is possible to cleave on.

[Infernalbargain]

I don't think nonlethal would trigger it. Let us look at the rules for nonlethal:


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, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.

So when you fall unconscious due to nonlethal damage, it is not because your hitpoints are below 0. Thus nonlethal damage will not trigger cleave. Interesting note that taking damage while HP = nonlethal damage will not cause you to drop because you do not acquire the disabled condition, only the staggered condition.

[Cog]

So when you fall unconscious due to nonlethal damage, it is not because your hitpoints are below 0.
Nothing in the Cleave rules says you must drop only for having HP below 0.


Thus nonlethal damage will not trigger cleave. Interesting note that taking damage while HP = nonlethal damage will not cause you to drop because you do not acquire the disabled condition, only the staggered condition.
Right there in the rules you quoted: sufficient nonlethal damage leaves you unconscious, not staggered. I'm not familiar with many people who remain on their feet when they lose consciousness.

[Infernalbargain]

Nothing in the Cleave rules says you must drop only for having HP below 0.

So cleave triggers off of trip? The only unambiguous part of cleave is the 0 HP trigger.


Right there in the rules you quoted: sufficient nonlethal damage leaves you unconscious, not staggered. I'm not familiar with many people who remain on their feet when they lose consciousness.

Reread what I said slowly. I was specifically pointing out the differences in the rules between HP = 0 and HP = non-lethal damage.

[MeeposFire]

In the case of cleave it's not meant to work with non-lethal damage. But because of the ambiguity of the wording it could mean what was intended (dropping = killing) and dropping as in making them fall prone. If we read it as the latter then if you can cause enough non-lethal damage to knock the person or creature unconscious then you could cleave and attack a new opponent.

I think the wording implies that it does work in terms of intent. If they wanted only damage to work with it why say what it says? Why not just say when you kill a creature or the like? That would certainly be easier than using a non-defined term.

[Godskook]

...Points about wording...

The problem with your logic is that the wording you propose as 'simpler' produces a case that's blatantly not suppose to work: Characters with the Die Hard feat, who are still standing at <0 HP.


----------------

I'd rule it as working, but I can see both arguments.

[Infernalbargain]

The problem with your logic is that the wording you propose as 'simpler' produces a case that's blatantly not suppose to work: Characters with the Die Hard feat, who are still standing at <0 HP.


----------------

I'd rule it as working, but I can see both arguments.

Unless you trip them :)

[Cog]

So cleave triggers off of trip?
No, for the reason I pointed out earlier in this thread.


The only unambiguous part of cleave is the 0 HP trigger.
This is simply wrong. The feat itself describes another way to count as dropping a creature: outright death, such as would result from the Massive Damage rules.


Reread what I said slowly. I was specifically pointing out the differences in the rules between HP = 0 and HP = non-lethal damage.
I did misread it. Your original statement is still incorrect, just not incorrect in the way I originally thought. Taking additional damage while your nonlethal damage already equals your current HP will not merely leave you staggered; it makes you unconscious.

[Knaight]

I'd argue that intent is pretty clearly FOR it to work with non-lethal.

Why else would the wording not be based on reducing the creature to less than 0 HP? The "If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it)," condition is a more complicated wording than "If you reduce a creature from concious to less than 0 HP", and the ONLY difference is the interaction with other ways for HP damage to drop a creature, of which the ONLY such method in core is non-lethal damage.
Massive Damage can kill without reducing to less than 0 HP. Non-lethal damage is not the only other method, and stuff like Regeneration explains the use of drop instead of kill. There is no reason to assume that non-lethal was a method intended to work, and RAI is very murky in this case as a result. That said, allowing it to work is completely reasonable.

[candycorn]

The issue is, "Drop" isn't a game term, and the methods for causing someone to qualify aren't fully defined.

The common factor, however, is that typically both listed effects render someone unaware of their surroundings, and unable to act.

Being reduced to below zero HP, and having nonlethal damage in excess of current HP imposes the same status effect; therefore, I'd think the argument for it working is a strong one.

[Coidzor]

There is no reason to assume that non-lethal was a method intended to work, and RAI is very murky in this case as a result. That said, allowing it to work is completely reasonable.

Considering that drop is not defined and people usually drop to the floor insensate if they fall unconscious, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no possible reason to assume that, especially if it's completely reasonable to play it like that.

[Godskook]

Unless you trip them :)

That has nothing to do with what I just said, which was highly contingent on the post I was responding to. "Tripping them" is completely off topic to our(his and mine) tangent.

(For reference, that tangent went:
Doug: Use alternate wording such that "HP <0"
Me: Creates problem with a feat
)

[Knaight]

Considering that drop is not defined and people usually drop to the floor insensate if they fall unconscious, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no possible reason to assume that, especially if it's completely reasonable to play it like that.

Its murky for the reasons outlined above, and unless you can talk to the designers, what RAI is can only be known with any certainty for extremely obvious cases. As for what is reasonable to play, designer intent has nothing to do with it.

[Tr011]

Could you kill an enemy by dealing non-lethal damage only (but a large amount)?

[Cog]

Could you kill an enemy by dealing non-lethal damage only (but a large amount)?
Not directly. Nonlethal damage, by its nature, is... not lethal. You can leave somebody so far in the nonlethal "negatives" that they'll die of starvation or thirst before they regain consciousness, however.

[Telonius]

Not directly. Nonlethal damage, by its nature, is... not lethal. You can leave somebody so far in the nonlethal "negatives" that they'll die of starvation or thirst before they regain consciousness, however.

Knocking them out while flying would be another method. "It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."

[Coidzor]

Knocking them out while flying would be another method. "It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."

Heh. Killed a boss we weren't supposed to kill but capture that way in our age of worms game two sessions ago.

Granted, my shortbow crit was most of why he was capable of dying from the fall damage in the first place.