If loss of HP isn't damage, how does Vow of Peace work out?

[graeylin]

If losing hitpoints doesn't hinder a creature in any way, until they get to 0, how does that interact with a prohibition to deal no damage, like a Vow of Peace has?

Can I use weapons to reduce hitpoints on an opponent, and just be very careful to not reduce below 1? Up until that point, I am hindering them in no way, right? And damaging person certainly seems like it would be a hindrance, at least a slight hindrance.

Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.

[Strigon]

Umm... No.
Just no.

A pacifist doesn't go shooting guns at people just because they're wearing a bulletproof vest.
Besides, in combat (and I'm assuming you mean this to be helpful in combat), a lack of hit points is most certainly a hindrance.

[Jeraa]

To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them--if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner.

Deal any hit point damage, you break your vow. Unless it is nonlethal damage (which doesn't reduce a targets hit points in any way).

[Steveio]

Not being hindered doesn't mean not damaged. A banged-up car can run fine, but that doesn't mean it's not damaged.

[Mystral]

If losing hitpoints doesn't hinder a creature in any way, until they get to 0, how does that interact with a prohibition to deal no damage, like a Vow of Peace has?

Can I use weapons to reduce hitpoints on an opponent, and just be very careful to not reduce below 1? Up until that point, I am hindering them in no way, right? And damaging person certainly seems like it would be a hindrance, at least a slight hindrance.

Attacking someone with the aiming of doing hit point damage (as opposed to non-lethal damage) is attacking someone with deadly intent. Doing THAT breaks the vow, even if it is mathematically impossible for that level 10 fighter to die to your dagger poke.

[Eloel]

Attacking someone with the aiming of doing hit point damage (as opposed to non-lethal damage) is attacking someone with deadly intent. Doing THAT breaks the vow, even if it is mathematically impossible for that level 10 fighter to die to your dagger poke.

If you know you can't possible kill them with a particular application of your weapon/spell, how is that deadly intent? I agree it breaks the vow, but it's very possible you're not trying to kill them.

[Suzuha]

If you know you can't possible kill them with a particular application of your weapon/spell, how is that deadly intent? I agree it breaks the vow, but it's very possible you're not trying to kill them.

This feels like one of those 'fluff, not crunch' kind of things. I could try sticking a dagger into Brock Lesnar (try- TRY), but how can I be so sure that I don't nick something important leading to death? Is there a 'non-deadly' way I can stab someone? (alright, perhaps the extremities, but stabbing is pretty extreme to begin with is my point)

Crunch-wise, you are absolutely correct that something like that isn't really deadly to a beefy character, but I don't think 'intent' is a crunch thing to consider (at least, not in this situation/unless you're talking semantics on targeting).

This does put a funny image in my mind of someone going "I'M NOT... TRYING... TO KILL YOU!" while stabbing someone else over and over.

[TheIronGolem]

If you know you can't possible kill them with a particular application of your weapon/spell, how is that deadly intent? I agree it breaks the vow, but it's very possible you're not trying to kill them.

We already have nonlethal damage to represent attacks that aren't intended to cause lasting harm. An attack that, if successful, would deal hitpoint damage is by definition an attempt to cause that kind of harm.

[Suzuha]

We already have nonlethal damage to represent attacks that aren't intended to cause lasting harm. An attack that, if successful, would deal hitpoint damage is by definition an attempt to cause that kind of harm.

:p This was a better answer. [It's my fault for playing with roleplayers all the time.]

[Eloel]

Knowing someone is unaffected by Power Word: Disable is a very surefire way of knowing your Fireball (even maximized) with CL9 is not going to kill them. I don't see that as arguably lethal.

[Red Fel]

Knowing someone is unaffected by Power Word: Disable is a very surefire way of knowing your Fireball (even maximized) with CL9 is not going to kill them. I don't see that as arguably lethal.

Does it deal damage? Did you intend to cast it? Then you're deliberately doing harm.

The fact that it probably won't kill them is thoroughly irrelevant.

[Eloel]

The fact that it probably definitely won't kill them is thoroughly irrelevant.

For Vow of Peace or Nonviolence, agreed. I still don't see it as deadly intent.

[TheIronGolem]

Also, bear in mind that because hitpoints are an abstract game mechanic where a "hit" isn't necessarily a hit (nor a "miss" a miss), any confidence you can have that someone will survive a given attack is purely out-of-character information. In-character, you have no concept of what hit points are, much less any way to know how many your target has remaining (unless you're playing an OOTS-like game with no 4th wall, in which case the OP actually does have a leg to stand on).

[Eloel]

Also, bear in mind that because hitpoints are an abstract game mechanic where a "hit" isn't necessarily a hit (nor a "miss" a miss), any confidence you can have that someone will survive a given attack is purely out-of-character information. In-character, you have no concept of what hit points are, much less any way to know how many your target has remaining (unless you're playing an OOTS-like game with no 4th wall, in which case the OP actually does have a leg to stand on).

Honestly, that would be correct if the Power Word spells did not exist, but those smash the HP-wall pretty good.

[Telok]

I've always been amused by the arguments around hp being meat, blood, morale, luck, fatigue, and whatever. Does the fighter take a black dragon breath to the face and suddenly feel like a nap? Does falling off a cliff cause you to be less lucky and is that reflected in dice games? Do three ballista bolts through your chest make you depressed and less likely to want to continue fighting?

And of course since everything has hp does that mean that everything takes this morale, luck, and fatigue damage? Are zombies less lucky after you stab them? Is the clockwork horror becoming tired out after you zap it with force damage? Do gelatanious cubes become demoralized by being hit with a hammer? But then what do cure spells do? If hp are in any way fatigue then they should cure exhaustion. If hp are luck can you improve your performance in games of chance with them? Is the Heal spell really just a 5 million mg tab of Prozac?

Do monks punch people's luck out? Does being lit on fire make a paladin sad? Is a wizard hurt by being bitten by the tarrasque or does it just make him sleepy?

[graeylin]

I know the intent of the vow, but it just reads weird when I read the definition of Hitpoints.. even further when you add in massive damage rules.

No amount of hitpoint loss causes you to be hindered in ANY way. Unless you lose 50 at one time, TO ONE THING. If you lose 500 to 11 different things, no biggie. You aren't hindered.





The Vow requires you do no HARM.

If I am not even hindering you in any way, what harm am I doing? Certainly, not pain (pain hinders). Certainly not soreness, bruises, aches or fatigue... Oh, wait. I can do that. But not lethal bruises. Just non lethal ones. So, causing pain seems to be okay?

The vow requires that I can do no REAL DAMAGE. Any hitpoint loss down to 1 isn't a hindrance in any way. So, how real is it? A person with 1 hitpoint is just as healthy as they were with 100. Or, are they? They aren't hindered, so... what's the difference between a person with 1 hp, and the same person with 50 hitpoints?

They can walk as far, hold their breath as long, swim as well, climb as strong, run as far...

So, are those 49 hitpoints real? Is reducing them damage? If so, damage to what?



Taken further: Can a person with the vow heal someone? Can they remove a splinter, set a broken bone? Because both of those require causing pain to the patient. And, technically, they cause harm as well.

[Red Fel]

I know the intent of the vow, but it just reads weird when I read the definition of Hitpoints.

No, the Vow reads exactly as it always did. "You may not deal real damage, or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them -- if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner."

Nowhere does it talk about hindering. That's all you. Harm is explicitly defined, as quoted above - no dealing real damage or ability damage, no death effects, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death, etc. Any HP damage is, by definition, "real damage," and therefore precluded by the Vow.

Healing is not one of these explicit things. I don't even know how you're going there. You can totally heal pursuant to this Vow. "Pain" isn't a thing that exists in D&D, apart from a Symbol thereof. That said, the Vow does go to absurd degrees - note the extra text about drinking water through a strainer.

Yes. Even the writers realized how absurdly broken (in a bad way) this feat is.

[graeylin]

Yeah, I talk about hindering, because hitpoints are defined using that term. Loss of hitpoints causes no hindrance (until the last one). So, I can remove 99 hitpoints from your 100 hitpoint fighter, and cause ZERO hindrance. Not a thing. I don't slow you down, I don't make you fatigued, I don't... I am not sure what I do or don't do, actually, just that nothing I do from 100 to 1 causes you any hindrance.

I also can't do harm. Unless it's non lethal harm, which isn't harm, apparently. I CAN punch you in the face, repeatedly, it seems, which doesn't violate my vow of non-violence or peace. I can beat you with a truncheon, over the head and face and body, and that's not harm.


As for healing... I am going with the "cause no harm" aspect. I am not sure if you've ever set a badly broken bone, but trust me... it causes a lot of pain, which I tend to think of as harm. Surgery, certainly, causes harm to the body (sometimes, a lot of trauma), but both are necessary to help the organism get better.

If I can do no harm, can I not set a broken bone? Is harm different than pain? Is damage different than "real damage"?

[Eloel]

Ironically, the spell that is explicitly called Harm doesn't reduce below 1 HP.

[TheIronGolem]

I've always been amused by the arguments around hp being meat, blood, morale, luck, fatigue, and whatever. Does the fighter take a black dragon breath to the face and suddenly feel like a nap? Does falling off a cliff cause you to be less lucky and is that reflected in dice games? Do three ballista bolts through your chest make you depressed and less likely to want to continue fighting?

And of course since everything has hp does that mean that everything takes this morale, luck, and fatigue damage? Are zombies less lucky after you stab them? Is the clockwork horror becoming tired out after you zap it with force damage? Do gelatanious cubes become demoralized by being hit with a hammer? But then what do cure spells do? If hp are in any way fatigue then they should cure exhaustion. If hp are luck can you improve your performance in games of chance with them? Is the Heal spell really just a 5 million mg tab of Prozac?

Do monks punch people's luck out? Does being lit on fire make a paladin sad? Is a wizard hurt by being bitten by the tarrasque or does it just make him sleepy?

Your questions are based on a premise that is already discarded by the idea you're arguing against.

The fighter didn't simply "take a black dragon breath to the face". He avoided or mitigated the physical damage from that breath attack. How he did it is up to the player.

Falling off a cliff didn't "make him less lucky", but he survived the fall because he was lucky - perhaps he landed on something relatively soft, or he remembered to go limp right before he hit the ground. Or maybe he was able to slow his fall by clutching at something along the cliffside, instead of plummeting straight down like a Disney villain. Or maybe he really is just so tough that it takes more than falling off a cliff to kill him. It's the player's call.

And no, he didn't get depressed because he took three ballista bolts to the chest. He didn't take three ballista bolts to the chest. He barely dodged them, deflected them with his shield, took the hits on his armor, or turned the hits into glancing shots, and the HP loss represents the strain that effort put on him. Then again, maybe he did take three ballista bolts to the chest but kept on fighting like Boromir's Last Stand. Once again, it's up to the player.

The abstraction of hit points means that the line between "hit" and "miss" is clear in game mechanics, but very blurry from the perspective of the characters in the game. My hitpoints and your hitpoints don't mean the same thing, and they don't need to, even though they both work the same way by the game rules.

And those healing spells? Sure, why can't they also be restoring morale or whatever? You frame the question as if it's too obviously ridiculous an idea to accept, but if we accept than you can magic away a dozen stab wounds, why can't that same magic also dull your pain, refresh you emotionally, etc?

As for even more abstract aspects like luck or karma, those don't need any kind of point-by-point justification; they're ephemeral, and their cycle of loss and restoration can simply be considered part of the gameplay's emergent narrative.

[graeylin]

So, am I reading you correctly, TheIronGolem....

hitpoint "loss" may or may not be damage at all?

I took three bolts from a ballista. That's 30 points in HP loss. But, since I am still alive, it's obvious they didn't actually strike me (damage me), so... I turned the first one on my shield, and the other I dodged, but twisted my ankle while doing so, and the third slammed into my platemail, and sent me stumbling...

But no damage? I lose 30 hp of "luck"?

[Suzuha]

So, am I reading you correctly, TheIronGolem....

hitpoint "loss" may or may not be damage at all?

I took three bolts from a ballista. That's 30 points in HP loss. But, since I am still alive, it's obvious they didn't actually strike me (damage me), so... I turned the first one on my shield, and the other I dodged, but twisted my ankle while doing so, and the third slammed into my platemail, and sent me stumbling...

But no damage? I lose 30 hp of "luck"?

Some people interpret it that way, yeah (I don't, but I don't like getting into specifics like that in the first place). I guess there's a reason why we use "hitpoints" and not "health".

[Red Fel]

Yeah, I talk about hindering, because hitpoints are defined using that term.

No. Hit points are not defined using that term. A general description of hit points - the text you quoted in the first post - uses that term. It does not, however, rely on it. You're fixating on the term "hindered," despite it not being relevant.

Let's review the quote, again. "No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower."

In other words, it says that the loss of hit points does not have an impact on your character until they drop to 0 or lower.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Vow of Peace, which says that if you deal any real damage - that is, hit point or ability damage, or anything with a reasonable possibility of killing - you violate the Vow. It says nothing about hindrance, because hindrance isn't a game term. You need to move away from hindrance. That's not a thing. It's not relevant.

I also can't do harm. Unless it's non lethal harm, which isn't harm, apparently. I CAN punch you in the face, repeatedly, it seems, which doesn't violate my vow of non-violence or peace. I can beat you with a truncheon, over the head and face and body, and that's not harm.

Provided you deal only nonlethal damage, that's correct.

As for healing... I am going with the "cause no harm" aspect. I am not sure if you've ever set a badly broken bone, but trust me... it causes a lot of pain, which I tend to think of as harm. Surgery, certainly, causes harm to the body (sometimes, a lot of trauma), but both are necessary to help the organism get better.

And "pain" is not a defined term. Again, it's not a thing. Unless you're dealing actual lethal damage, there's nothing to stop you from doing that. Again, you're fixating on a word - pain - that is not a game term. There are a handful of spells and abilities that use the word "pain" in their descriptive text. Spells like Symbol of Pain and powers like Inflict Pain use it to explain the source of a -4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks - something explicitly within your Vow. (Debuffs are okay. Actual damage is not.) Then there are powers like Share Pain, which do deal damage, but use the word in name only.

Pain is not a game term, and the Vow does not preclude you from causing it. The Vow precludes you from causing harm, which it then explicitly defines.

[graeylin]

I guess I would say that "having no impact on a character" is what's throwing me.. How is it real damage, if it has no impact? Because it subtracts hitpoints? Thus, all hitpoint damage is real damage?


Just so I understand, Red Fel....

I can beat a person to a bloody pulp with a truncheon, and that's okay with the vow. But not with a nunchuck. Because the truncheon doesn't do real damage. the other wooden stick does.

I can choke a person into unconsciousness, and it's not violence. I can slap them silly with my hands or fists, I can kick them too... all are okay, and acceptable to a vow of Non Violence/Peace. I can kick them if they are on the ground, but can I kick them so they fall to the ground? What if they take damage in the fall, which I caused? What if I trip them? Can I trip them?

If I nick them with a penknife and they lose a hitpoint, I lose my vows.

If I perform surgery on them to remove a ruptured organ, or a parasite, or an earwig, I lose my vows. Removing a splinter? Maybe, maybe not.

My ally has an arrow impaled in his shoulder. What can I do, that doesn't cause me to lose my vows? I can't push it through, I can't pull it out. I could heal it, I guess, with it in place.

[TheIronGolem]

So, am I reading you correctly, TheIronGolem....

hitpoint "loss" may or may not be damage at all?

I took three bolts from a ballista. That's 30 points in HP loss. But, since I am still alive, it's obvious they didn't actually strike me (damage me), so... I turned the first one on my shield, and the other I dodged, but twisted my ankle while doing so, and the third slammed into my platemail, and sent me stumbling...

But no damage? I lose 30 hp of "luck"?

That is one valid interpretation of many, yes. If it's your character, then it's up to you to decide what your lost hit points mean.

[Keltest]

I have generally interpreted your base HP as being physical damage done to you (still not to the point where youre seriously impeded, but close), while everything above that reflects your endurance and ability to mitigate damage. So a fighter with hundreds of HP can stay in combat for a while and work through the non-crippling pain, while a wizard is going to have a tough time keeping themselves on their feet through the same wound.

[Red Fel]

I guess I would say that "having no impact on a character" is what's throwing me.. How is it real damage, if it has no impact? Because it subtracts hitpoints? Thus, all hitpoint damage is real damage?

Yes. That which deals lethal hitpoint damage (as opposed to nonlethal) is "real damage" for purposes of Vow of Poverty, despite it having no mechanical impact on the target until and unless they reach 0 HP, because that's what the Vow says.

Just so I understand, Red Fel....

I can beat a person to a bloody pulp with a truncheon, and that's okay with the vow. But not with a nunchuck. Because the truncheon doesn't do real damage. the other wooden stick does.

Correct. You can deal nonlethal damage, but not lethal damage, within the constraints of the Vow.

I can choke a person into unconsciousness, and it's not violence. I can slap them silly with my hands or fists, I can kick them too... all are okay, and acceptable to a vow of Non Violence/Peace.

All technically correct.

I can kick them if they are on the ground, but can I kick them so they fall to the ground?

Generally, yes.

What if they take damage in the fall, which I caused?

That's a trip attempt.

What if I trip them? Can I trip them?

Do you deal damage on a trip attempt? (Hint: Not generally.) If not, then yes, you can. That's knocking them prone, incapacitating them nonlethally, which is within your Vow.

If I nick them with a penknife and they lose a hitpoint, I lose my vows.

Yes.

If I perform surgery on them to remove a ruptured organ, or a parasite, or an earwig, I lose my vows.

Not necessarily. If you cause lethal (that is, HP) damage to them while performing surgery, yes, you lose your Vow. However, in D&D, a Heal check does not generally cause any damage. Somewhat illogically, this means that you can perform surgery, even though it involves cutting the patient open, provided that they end up in the same condition or better than when you started. Because the act of slicing the patient open is part of the greater medical act, only the ultimate outcome of the medical act - the outcome measured by the die roll - is relevant, not the individual acts (which are not rolled) that make it up.

It's important to differentiate between those acts which have mechanical ramifications - such as a Heal check - and those which do not - such as the individual steps that make up the Heal check.

Removing a splinter? Maybe, maybe not.

Probably not, unless you're using a broadsword to do it.

My ally has an arrow impaled in his shoulder. What can I do, that doesn't cause me to lose my vows? I can't push it through, I can't pull it out. I could heal it, I guess, with it in place.

You can push or pull it out, provided that you do no additional HP damage when you do so. While in the real world, doing so might aggravate a wound, in D&D, that only happens when the mechanics say it happens. So unless the arrow's description says "If it gets lodged in the target, they take X damage removing it," removing it deals no additional damage, and is therefore within your Vow.

Again, differentiate between those things which make sense in a realistic narrative framework, and those things which are made explicit by the mechanics. The explicit mechanical prohibition is against causing lethal HP damage, ability damage, death effects, and the like. Anything that deals nonlethal damage, or has no mechanical ramification (such as pulling out an arrow that doesn't explicitly say it causes more damage), can be performed within the Vow, even though real-world logic would dictate otherwise.

It is worth noting, however, that Exalted feats have not only a mechanical component, but an RP one. Characters with Exalted feats are supposed to be more Good than Good; they are expected to behave in a manner that comports with both the letter and the spirit of the feat. While the RAW of the feat says that you can slap a victim silly with nonlethal damage, that you can knock people about with a truncheon to your heart's content, the RAI of the feat seems fairly clear that violence of that nature, although it deals no HP damage, is nonetheless in violation of the spirit of the Vow, albeit not the letter. Be aware that your DM may - and should - revoke your Vow's benefits for doing that sort of thing.

[graeylin]

I have generally interpreted your base HP as being physical damage done to you (still not to the point where youre seriously impeded, but close), while everything above that reflects your endurance and ability to mitigate damage. So a fighter with hundreds of HP can stay in combat for a while and work through the non-crippling pain, while a wizard is going to have a tough time keeping themselves on their feet through the same wound.

interesting.

one thing though, your endurance is the same at 1 hp as it is at any higher number, I believe. At least, endurance in the game sense (running, swimming, avoiding fatigue). You likely mean it differently than the feat.

But your view meshes well with TheIronGolem's view of HP's.

[goto124]

I figured out that nonlethal damage was invented exactly for this- allowing peaceful people to knock enemies into unconciousness, instead of having to stand back doing nothing during almost every battle and being a dead load to the team.

[Elderand]

interesting.

one thing though, your endurance is the same at 1 hp as it is at any higher number, I believe. At least, endurance in the game sense (running, swimming, avoiding fatigue). You likely mean it differently than the feat.

But your view meshes well with TheIronGolem's view of HP's.

Not entirely true, extrenuous activity (like a forced march) deal nonlethal damage and if your non lethal total exceed your normal hp total you loose consciousness.

So a lower HP pool does lower your endurance.