Merciful weapon ability

[IcyCool]

I am so sick of this attitude.

[Cowboy Accent]Best check that attitude at the door, son, before someone takes offense.[/Cowboy Accent]

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).

I'm not telling people what they can and can't discuss. I'm calling a cat a cat. I'm simply pointing out what the rules actually say, and alerting others on the board that what someone is posting as RAW, isn't. Feel free to point out where I was in error (about what the rules say). If not, kindly don't tell me what I can and can't post.

House rule is not a "bad word". Neither is it any less valid than the RAW (sometimes more valid even!) Why you treat it like that, I don't understand. Perhaps we need a new term to describe this sort of thing, because "one of several personal interpretations of a rule to make it make sense, all of which are valid" will just get tiring to type. A player can reasonably expect to go from one group to another (all of whom follow RAW with some House Rules) and have a grasp of the rules. But if they've come to understand someone's "Personal Interpretation" as RAW, they could be in for a surprise.

Do you see where I'm coming from? If not, I can try to explain further.

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.

I'm not insisting on RAW only discussions. I am saying that people should call a house rule a house rule, not RAW. And by doing that, I'm helping people understand what the rules actually say.

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

I told the OP what the RAW said, and then gave him my interpretation. I didn't pass my interpretation off as RAW.

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 .

You go ahead and point out where I am telling folks that they can only discuss RAW. Go on, give it a shot. I double dog dare you.

I don't 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".

Once again, point out where I told you that you couldn't post your interpretation here.

You've accused me of copping some sort of "attitude", you've accused me of telling people what they can and cannot discuss, and you've accused me of telling you that you can't post your interpretation. I'm calling you out. Show where I did these things. I'll be waiting for an apology when you get tired of looking.

But I won't hold my breath.

(I'm not looking for a flamewar here Caliban, but you've said some pretty strong things with no reason.)

 

[Caliban]

[Cowboy Accent]Best check that attitude at the door, son, before someone takes offense.[/Cowboy Accent]

And still with the talking down to people.

I'm not telling people what they can and can't discuss. I'm calling a cat a cat. I'm simply pointing out what the rules actually say, and alerting others on the board that what someone is posting as RAW, isn't. Feel free to point out where I was in error (about what the rules say). If not, kindly don't tell me what I can and can't post.

So you are still claiming that you are the best judge of what is RAW and what is not then?

Based on what you say, it's a House Rule if it doesn't match your view of that the RAW states.

So you are saying that your interpretation of what is RAW can't be wrong, even if it doesn't make sense.

House rule is not a "bad word". Neither is it any less valid than the RAW (sometimes more valid even!) Why you treat it like that, I don't understand.

In the context in which you used it in this thread, and others have used it, yes you are indeed implying that it's less valid than RAW, and has no place in this forum.

But if they've come to understand someone's "Personal Interpretation" as RAW, they could be in for a surprise.

The mistake you are making is in assuming that there is only one way to read the RAW.

I'm not insisting on RAW only discussions. I am saying that people should call a house rule a house rule, not RAW. And by doing that, I'm helping people understand what the rules actually say.

You are not the sole arbiter of what the rules say. How do you know your interpretation isn't the "House Rule"? Why is your judgement of what the rules say more valid than anyone elses?

You go ahead and point out where I am telling folks that they can only discuss RAW. Go on, give it a shot. I double dog dare you.

OK:

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.

You said it to Artoomis, not me, but I think it still stands.

And I stated that you aren't the most egregious abuser, and I said iearly on that I didn't mean to single you out as such (although I guess I went a little overboard toward the end).

Much of what I said wasn't incited directly by you, you were merely the straw that broke the camels back. And I happened to have time this evening to post a rant, which hasn't been the case for months.

You've accused me of copping some sort of "attitude"

Yup, and I've pointed it out above.

, you've accused me of telling people what they can and cannot discuss,

More accurately, you have been telling how they should and should not discuss things.

and you've accused me of telling you that you can't post your interpretation.

I apologize for that one. It should have been more of a general "you" than you in particular. I was caught up in the moment. But it is based on your comment to Artoomis that I quoted. You seem to be implying that only RAW discussions really belong here, which it untrue.

I'm calling you out. Show where I did these things. I'll be waiting for an apology when you get tired of looking.

See above.

But I won't hold my breath.

Ok.

(I'm not looking for a flamewar here Caliban, but you've said some pretty strong things with no reason.)

Half right. I said some pretty strong things.

I feel much better now though.

 

[frankthedm]

I say the flame cannot be rendered non lethal & the merciful shuts off any always lethal effects whenever the sword is swung.

I say the merciful enchantment & the vicious enchantment negate one another compleatly. If the sword is sentient, it goes insane soon after enchantment.

 

[Squire James]

I'd probably disallow the Merciful ability to combine with abilities that cause inconvenient rules problems. Merciful itself is not technically in the RAW anyway... nothing in the splatbooks is.

If I had to judge for someone else who's more permissive (which is what everyone's apparently doing here), I'd say the Merciful ability converts damage that could be altered by critical hits to non-lethal damage. This means Sneak Attack dice, energy dice, holy dice, and so on are still lethal. In other words, anyone using these "extra dice" abilities are compromising their mercy a bit. It also means the Non-lethal Substitution feat in the Book of Exalted Deeds still has a reason to exist (since that feat covers most/all these extra dice issues).

Non-lethal "fire and cold" damage does exist, it just doesn't get used very often because few seem to actually apply weather rules. I know the books call it simply "non-lethal damage", and apparently ignores elemental resistances, but I guess that's part of the reason I don't apply weather rules myself!

 

[glass]

I'd probably disallow the Merciful ability to combine with abilities that cause inconvenient rules problems. Merciful itself is not technically in the RAW anyway... nothing in the splatbooks is.

Sure it is. It's not core, but it is still a Rule and it is still Written, even if it is optional.

IOW, if you are using the the Merciful quality in your game, then its description is RAW. If you aren't, then it is irrelevant.


glass.

 

[glass]

So you are saying that your interpretation of what is RAW can't be wrong, even if it doesn't make sense. In the context in which you used it in this thread, and others have used it, yes you are indeed implying that it's less valid than RAW, and has no place in this forum. The mistake you are making is in assuming that there is only one way to read the RAW.

Artoomis is perfectly within his rights to describe his interpretation of the RAW. IcyCool is perfectly within his rights to point out why he thinks that interpretation is flawed.

FWIW, I agree with IcyCool: I don't see how you can interpret 'all damage' as 'all damage except for any damage I don't think should be affected' and call it RAW. Artoomis is free to continue to post that it is, as long as he doesn't mind other pointing out why they think it isn't.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

...FWIW, I agree with IcyCool: I don't see how you can interpret 'all damage' as 'all damage except for any damage I don't think should be affected' and call it RAW. Artoomis is free to continue to post that it is, as long as he doesn't mind other pointing out why they think it isn't.


glass.

I disagree with that interpretation, and I may or may not have pointed out that there are very often multiple valid interpretations of the RAW.

So I'd say it's valid (just wrong ) to think that ALL DAMAGE, really means ALL - including ability damage, fire damage, etc., etc.

It's ALSO valid (and of course correct ) to think that ALL DAMAGE, really means all regular, physical damage from the weapon plus the 1d6 Merciful damage and does not include fire damage, sonic damage, ability damage, etc., etc.

Merciful itself is not technically in the RAW anyway... nothing in the splatbooks is.

1. RAW includes "splat books" - but they are not CORE.
2. "Merciful" is CORE - it's in the SRD & DMG (3.5)

To IcyCool: Chill out (get it? ) This forum serves several purposes, but its generally about D&D rules. When we discusss "RAW" we are talking about how we see the rules actually written, and that includes interpretations of those rules. A House Rule is one where one looks to the rules, decides how they work, and then varies from that. That is not what is being done here at all.

Also, we primarily have three types of discussions on this forum (I think), all valid:

1. Advice on character creation. etc., etc.
2. Trying to decipher what is the "offical" ruling is for some rule, or what the best "interpretation" of the rules is - that is, how the rule is really supposed to be played.
3. Discussion on what the rules say "as written," independent of what the Sage of other "offical" source may say. This is pretty much an intellectual exercise since number (2) above is more interesting to most folks on this forum, I think.

In this case, as written, "all damage" could mean several things - any one of those is "RAW" and valid (until there is an "official' ruling from WotC) and someone following any one of those is following a valid interpretation of the RAW and not implementing a House Rule.

No one here is the definitive authority on how to read the rules.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

How would views change if Complete Arcane were included in the RAW?

Check Nonlethal Substitution.

Benefit: Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with the chosen descriptor to deal nonlethal damage instead of normal energy damage. The nonlethal spell works normally in all respects except the type of damage dealt - for example, a nonlethal fireball has the same range and area, but since it deals nonlethal damage instead of energy damage, it will not damage objects or set fire to combustibles in the area.

From this, it seems that the answer would be a) - 1d8 + 1 + 2d6 untyped nonlethal. Specifically, the statement that "it deals nonlethal damage instead of energy damage" supports the idea that the nonlethal and energy descriptors are incompatible.

-RedShirt

Note: not a typo, sonic isn't in the list in CA

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Specifically, the statement that "it deals nonlethal damage instead of energy damage" supports the idea that the nonlethal and energy descriptors are incompatible.

Yeah, but this suggests just the opposite:

Living creatures within 5 feet of [brown mold] take 3d6 points of nonlethal cold damage.

And my reference is core.

 

[Artoomis]

How would views change if Complete Arcane were included in the RAW?

...

My view is twofold:

1. Decide which, if any, other damage besides regular damage and extra "Mericiful" damage would be changed to sudbual.

2. Allow "Merciful" only in combination with those other enchaments that mix well with it.

Thus, "Keen" would probably be allowed, "Vorpal" is probably not allowed, and "Flaiming" is questionable.

I think that's a really good way to handle it and is within the rules - only because "all damage" is seriously subject to interpretation.