Merciful weapon ability

[RigaMortus2]

What if you power attack with it? Is the weapon doing that extra damage, or is the character?

 

[Artoomis]

What if you power attack with it? Is the weapon doing that extra damage, or is the character?

Power Attack, etc, etc, merely increase the amount of physical damage the weapon does, so all get converted to non-lethal.

I should NOT have said base damage for the weapon, but rather base plus all adjustments for anything EXCEPT Flaming, Wounding, etc. plus the extra 1d6 from Merciful all get converted to non-lethal.

Sheesh.

 

[Sejs]

Heh, to be honest I kinda saw the Wounding thing looming on the horizon, on account of it dealing ability damage. Personally I wouldn't bother with trying to come up with some sort of new category for nonlethal ability damage or what have you. The only thing that the Merciful description is missing is the notation of 'hit point' in regards to damage.

Sword blow does (normally lethal) hit point damage; Merciful makes it nonlethal.

Fire, etc does (normally lethal) hit point damage; Merciful makes it nonlethal.

Vorpal lops off the target's head but deals no damage; Merciful doesn't affect it.

Wounding does ability damage, which despite having the word 'damage' in its operative title, does not have a lethal-versus-nonlethal correlation; Merciful doesn't affect it.

And so on.

That's my interpretation, anyway. No need to make house rules or new effect categories. Just a straightforward If/Then: (IF) the attack deals hit point damage (THEN) Merciful makes it nonlethal. As for dealing with the issue of nonlethal damage springing from an energy source, there's already precedent for it, such as lightning damage dealt to a troll.

 

[Caliban]

I've changed my mind.

A faming merciful longsword deals:

1d8 + 1d6 non-lethal damage.
1d6 lethal fire damage.

I do not think that the "all" damage it refers to is any and all damage done by the weapon no matter what other qualities the weapon may have, but, rather, base weapon damage plus the bonus 1d6 contained in the description of "Merciful."

In general, weapon magical property descriptions are stand-alone and must be carefully examined when using more than one together.

Since ther is really no such thing as non-lethal fire damage, I see no reason to create such a thing here. Doing so would really also force us to create a new category of "nonlethal" vorpal, for example. Good luck.

I agree with Artoomis. Fire damage is never non-lethal. (Some creatures with regeneration may convert it to non-lethal, but that is not the same thing.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

1. The flaming enchantment states that the weapon deals the fire damage.
2. Merciful states that all damage that the weapon does is non-lethal.

Now, does fire damage that has been turned into non-lethal damage still remain fire damage? I say yes.

The example with the Vicious enchantment is invalid, because the vicious enchantment specifically states that it is the energy, and not the weapon, that does the damage. So a Vicious, Merciful (can these two even be combined?) would do non-lethal weapon damage and 2d6 lethal damage from the enchantment (and 1d6 lethal damage to the wielder).

Yup.

Likewise with a Flaming Whip

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Yup.

Likewise with a Flaming Whip

-Hyp.

Nope. It's pretty clear that the best way to make all the rules work together is to assume that, in context, the Mericful enchantment is referring to the weapon damage (without other enchantments like flaming, etc.) plus it's own 1d6.

Otherwise you have to make flaming, et.al. be non-lethal which does not happen except for trolls, et. al. There's no need to assume that "all damage" meant "all damage, inluding all other possible enchaments" - for if you do, you also have to figure out how to make ability damage be non-lethal, which has no basis in the rules at all.

 

[IcyCool]

Nope. It's pretty clear that the best way to make all the rules work together is to assume that, in context, the Mericful enchantment is referring to the weapon damage (without other enchantments like flaming, etc.) plus it's own 1d6.

Otherwise you have to make flaming, et.al. be non-lethal which does not happen except for trolls, et. al. There's no need to assume that "all damage" meant "all damage, inluding all other possible enchaments" - for if you do, you also have to figure out how to make ability damage be non-lethal, which has no basis in the rules at all.

But you see, we aren't arguing house rules here, we're arguing RAW, which works as stated above.

We can argue intent, but that doesn't belong in the Rules forum.
We can argue ease of use, but that doesn't belong in here either.

Welcome to the Rules forum Artoomis, where we pedantically argue the RAW.

 

[Artoomis]

But you see, we aren't arguing house rules here, we're arguing RAW, which works as stated above.

We can argue intent, but that doesn't belong in the Rules forum.
We can argue ease of use, but that doesn't belong in here either.

Welcome to the Rules forum Artoomis, where we pedantically argue the RAW.

Not THAT"S funny I've been arguing RAW for years now (since 2002). though I've kid of taken a break from the rules forum for a bit. I think most peaopl knwo that I really like to argue the rules - as written.


As written "all damage" could mean several things - that, of course, is the problem.

It could, as written, mean:

1. ALL damage, no matter what kind. Of course, this gets complicated quickly - how doesc Con damage become non-lethal, for example?

2. ALL damage, but not including ability damage or anything else that really does not work well, but including fire damage, et,. al. But now, that's not AS WRITTEN, is it, and really compicated and fiull of exceptions.

3. ALL damage, but only including the regular weapon damage plus Merciful 1d6 extra.

I think number 3 is the easiest way to interpret "All damage" IN CONTEXT and to avoid conflicting with other rules. It's RAW, as is number 1, though number 2 really is not.

 

[IcyCool]

As written "all damage" could mean several things - that, of course, is the problem.

Yep. I didn't say it made sense, I simply stated what the rules say.

It could, as written, mean:

1. ALL damage, no matter what kind. Of course, this gets complicated quickly - how doesc Con damage become non-lethal, for example?

And also, how do you adjudicate the damage type change? Is fire damage converted to non-lethal still considered fire damage for rules purposes? Or is it simply converted to untyped, non-lethal (the same with ability damage)?

2. ALL damage, but not including ability damage or anything else that really does not work well, but including fire damage, et,. al. But now, that's not AS WRITTEN, is it, and really compicated and fiull of exceptions.

*shrug* You could simply say ALL HITPOINT damage, and that would solve it. The only strangeness there is wrapping your head around the idea of non-lethal fire damage, even though it'll work just fine by the rules.

Of course, now we're entering house rules territory.

3. ALL damage, but only including the regular weapon damage plus Merciful 1d6 extra.

I think number 3 is the easiest way to interpret "All damage" IN CONTEXT and to avoid conflicting with other rules. It's RAW, as is number 1, though number 2 really is not.

#3 is not RAW. In fact, it is quite clearly not RAW, as I showed above. #1 is the only choice there that is RAW. It also is the only choice that makes little to no sense. But it is RAW.

It is important that when you give out your house rule to someone in the rules forum, you specify that it is a house rule, so that they don't get confused about what the rules actually say.

 

[Deset Gled]

As written "all damage" could mean several things - that, of course, is the problem.

It could, as written, mean:

1. ALL damage, no matter what kind. Of course, this gets complicated quickly - how doesc Con damage become non-lethal, for example?

2. ALL damage, but not including ability damage or anything else that really does not work well, but including fire damage, et,. al. But now, that's not AS WRITTEN, is it, and really compicated and fiull of exceptions.

3. ALL damage, but only including the regular weapon damage plus Merciful 1d6 extra.

I think number 3 is the easiest way to interpret "All damage" IN CONTEXT and to avoid conflicting with other rules. It's RAW, as is number 1, though number 2 really is not.

I agree that the use of the term "all damage" causes problems, and that your option #3 is certainly one way to deal with the issue. I don't think its any less complicated than the other options you mention, though.

I don't understand why subdual elemental damage is such a problem. The damage is hit point damage, which can either be lethal or nonlethal. Mechanically, it works just fine. Conceptually, you're already talking about a sword that can stab someone but not actually hurt them. Why is a fire doing the same thing so difficult? If we talk about sonic damage instead of fire damage, I think it actually makes more sense for the damage to be nonlethal than lethal.

Ability damage is interesting, but I don't think its that hard to deal with. Just keep track of the nonlethal ability damage and the target is staggered when the total nonlethal ability damage equals their total ability score (per the normal nonlethal damage rules).

Your option #3, on the other hand, forces us to keep track of what damage is considered "regular weapon damage", which seems just as complicated to me as your option #2. Elemental enhancement damage is not added, but strength bonus and power attack damage are. What about other magical enchancement bonuses, or the bonus damage on a Keen weapon scoring a critical? I don't think this makes things any simpler in the long run.