Merciful weapon ability

[Artoomis]

...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.

I see your point. There really is no truly satisfactory answer unless one rules that only certain other enchantments can be used in combination with Merciful.

That would actually make the most sense. Were getting into House Rules (perhaps) now, but it might be best to simply not allow any "problem" combinations in the first place. That's the way I would play it, personally.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think interpreting "all damage" with an implied "hit point" is the easiest and most consistent way of aproaching it. I don't have a problem with subdual elemental damage - we already have subdual cold and heat damage in the environment rules and sonic and electrical make plenty of sense as subdual. Acid is no worse than subdual peircing, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

As for subdual vorpal weapons, at some point you just have to say "why would such a weapon be created?" A instant kill non killing weapon is just silly, and I'm not going to worry about how it would mechanicly operate, because it won't be apearing in my game, ever.

 

[Artoomis]

...As for subdual vorpal weapons, at some point you just have to say "why would such a weapon be created?" A instant kill non killing weapon is just silly, and I'm not going to worry about how it would mechanicly operate, because it won't be apearing in my game, ever.

That's my best advice - do not allow combinations that should not work. What "should" and "should not" work is a personal opion for each DM and depends on how thinks about it.

The RAW was simply written poorly here.

 

[Caliban]

#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.

#3 is not a house rule, it's the most reasonable interpretation of the rules in question.

Insisting on RAW to the degree that you are actually makes the game less playable, and makes rules discussion pretty much useless for actually helping you run games.

The core rulebooks are not holy writ, handed down by divine providence. Designers make mistakes, or don't state things clearly. They are only human.

 

[IcyCool]

#3 is not a house rule, it's the most reasonable interpretation of the rules in question.

And it's still a house rule (one that I don't agree is the most sensible).

RAW isn't "the most reasonable interpretation of the rules in question", it's "Rules As Written". Some of those rules are pretty much unplayable as written. But that doesn't mean someone's sensible house rule is RAW. And it shouldn't be called such. Part of the help that folks get here is finding out what the rules actually say. You may think that's meaningless, and you are entitled to that opinion, but it certainly doesn't seem un-helpful to me.

The core rulebooks are not holy writ, handed down by divine providence. Designers make mistakes, or don't state things clearly. They are only human.

No one in this thread has said that they are "holy writ." Where are you getting that from?

 

[RedShirtNo5]

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.

Those are interesting house rules.


I think the designers never considered the issue. Mostly I agree with Kahuna Burger - since subdual energy damage already exists, option b should at least be possible. Also, isn't there a metamagic feat (Complete Divine?) that lets one convert spells to nonlethal damage? If that metamagic can work on fireball, why can't an equivalent effect work on a flaming sword?

In practice, I would just have the creator (PC or NPC) making such an item decide at creation whether the energy damage would be subject to the merciful quality or not.

-RedShirt

 

[Artoomis]

And it's still a house rule (one that I don't agree is the most sensible).

RAW isn't "the most reasonable interpretation of the rules in question", it's "Rules As Written". Some of those rules are pretty much unplayable as written. But that doesn't mean someone's sensible house rule is RAW. And it shouldn't be called such. Part of the help that folks get here is finding out what the rules actually say. You may think that's meaningless, and you are entitled to that opinion, but it certainly doesn't seem un-helpful to me....

Yes it is RAW. RAw means the rules as written. As written," all damage" could very well mean what I said it means, and therefore it's RAW.

I do agree that RAW does not always equal what is reasonable. In this case, though, "all damage" cannot really mean all damage of any type, it's got to have some limitation n order to work. Deciding how that limitation works per the RAW is what I've been doing. This is NOT a house rule, though you may not agree with my view of what the limitations should be.

 

[Caliban]

And it's still a house rule (one that I don't agree is the most sensible).

I am so sick of this attitude.

It's not a house rule, quite trying to marginalize viewpoints you don't agree with. It's a valid interpretation of the written rules, it's just not YOUR intepretation. You are not the authority on what is and is not "RAW" so quite trying to tell people what they can and cannot discuss in this forum (not to single you out, others do it too, and much more egregiously than you have).

And last I checked, this wasn't the "RAW forum". It is the "D&D Rules" forum, so I don't see where it restricts us to just "RAW". It also allows for intelligent, reasonable interpretations of the rules, hopefully after reasoned and/or spirited debate. The point is to help you play the game, not reduce the rules to soulless scribblings.

RAW isn't "the most reasonable interpretation of the rules in question", it's "Rules As Written". Some of those rules are pretty much unplayable as written.

Which is why insisting on RAW only discussions can make it harder to actually understand the rules. Debating and discussing the rules is supposed to help you play or run your game. This "RAW ONLY!1!1" crap interferes with actually understanding the rules, to the point where rules discussions become meaningless.

Even you admit that your "RAW" interpretation is stupid, but you still try to act like it's the only correct one.

No one in this thread has said that they are "holy writ." Where are you getting that from?

From the "YOU CAN ONLY DISCUSS RAW!1!1!!" attitude that certain people display in these forums. You don't do it as much as some people, but you are certainly doing it here .

I don't really care if you think my interpretation is RAW or Houserule. But don't tell me I can't post it here, and sure as hell don't tell me how I have to phrase my interpretations before you find them "acceptable".

Last I checked, these weren't your forums and you weren't a moderator.

 

[Alzrius]

I agree with Artoomis that the fire damage is still lethal damage. It seems to make the most sense that energy damage isn't affected by the merciful property.

 

[The Quijotic Moose]

Silly Ideas Interpreted

Just call the nonlethal fire damage a "heat stroke", and call the nonlethal vorpal weapon "something that aims for the throat, but at the last minute veers upwards and rotates, knocking you upside the head, putting you into a state of extraordinarily poor situational awareness".

They make sense to me.