Merciful weapon ability

[Nim]

Merciful: The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage.

So. You're wielding a +1 flaming merciful longsword. When you strike an opponent, you deal:

a) 1d8 + 2d6 + 1 nonlethal untyped damage
b) 1d8 + 1d6 + 1 nonlethal untyped damage + 1d6 nonlethal fire damage
c) 1d8 + 1d6 + 1 nonlethal untyped damage + 1d6 lethal fire damage

I'm inclined towards b) - the flaming damage becomes nonlethal (because Merciful says 'all'), but it's still fire damage and subject to appropriate resistance (or to being increased against a Cold-subtype creature). But it occured to me to wonder if other folks felt differently

Now some trickier ones. Is damage from a spell cast out of a spell-storing weapon part of 'damage the weapon deals'? Would a +1 merciful vicious short sword do 4d6 +1 nonlethal to the enemy and 1d6 nonlethal to the wielder? What about a Merciful Wounding weapon? Ability damage doesn't have the concept of 'nonlethal', but it IS 'damage', and it WAS 'dealt by the weapon'.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

For what it's worth, I asked Wizards a similar question back in 3.0 days. Here's what it looked like:

A merciful weapon deals +1d6 damage, but "all damage it deals is subdual damage." A vicious weapon "creates a flash of disruptive energy that...deals +2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder."

Question: What happens when a weapon is both merciful and vicious?

It seems to me that there are a few possibilities (where "X" is the weapon's base damage):

1) The weapon deals X+3d6 subdual damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of subdual damage to the wielder.

2) The weapon deals X+3d6 subdual damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of lethal damage to the wielder. (Ouch!)

3) The weapon deals X+1d6 subdual damage to the opponent, plus 2d6 points of lethal damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of lethal damage to the wielder (because it's the "disruptive energy" dealing the damage, rather than the weapon itself).

4) Oops! A weapon cannot be both merciful and vicious. We should have explicitly mentioned this in Sword & Fist.

They said the correct answer was #3.

Based on that, I'd say the answer to your question is C: the fire energy is dealing the damage, rather than the weapon itself. As for the wounding question, there is no such thing as nonlethal ability damage, so I don't think the merciful quality would have any effect on it.

 

[Deset Gled]

For what it's worth, I asked Wizards a similar question back in 3.0 days. Here's what it looked like:

They said the correct answer was #3.

I don't think that using the Vicious enhancement is a good example to use in this case, because Viscious damage is specifically caused by the energy and not by the weapon. In the case of a flaming weapon, it is the weapon dealing the damage. I would say that the fire damage is nonlethal, since all damage the weapon deals in nonlethal. I have no problem with nonlethal fire damage. I'm less sure about how to rule on the Wounding damage.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't think that using the Vicious enhancement is a good example to use in this case, because Viscious damage is specifically caused by the energy and not by the weapon. In the case of a flaming weapon, it is the weapon dealing the damage. I would say that the fire damage is nonlethal, since all damage the weapon deals in nonlethal. I have no problem with nonlethal fire damage. I'm less sure about how to rule on the Wounding damage.

Actually, the example is indeed valid. Fire damage does not equal weapon damage, really.

Perhaps a Merciful CANNOT also do fire damage? An illegal combination?

Either that or it is pretty weird - "Ah, I been burned - ouch, ouch." Oh, look, it hurt, but no actual flame damage - weird, eh?

 

[IcyCool]

The answer is b. Although I could easily see A as well.

Here's why:

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).

 

[Sejs]

Either that or it is pretty weird - "Ah, I been burned - ouch, ouch." Oh, look, it hurt, but no actual flame damage - weird, eh?

Heh, about as weird as "Ah, I've been stabbed - ouch, ouch" oh look the long steel shank in my gut hurt but no actual stabbing damage.




Anyway, my personal take - all damage dealt by the weapon is non-lethal. Fire. Disruptive Energy. Retributive disruptive energy to the wielder. Everything. If the damage is tranmitted by the weapon striking in some form or another, Merciful makes it non-lethal.

Edit/Additional: And yes, you can combine Viscious and Merciful. Why couldn't you? You can have Flaming and Frost active on the same weapon at the same time too, after all.

 

[IcyCool]

Edit/Additional: And yes, you can combine Viscious and Merciful. Why couldn't you? You can have Flaming and Frost active on the same weapon at the same time too, after all.

I wasn't sure if there was something that specifically prohibited it. If not, my answer above still stands.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

 

[Sejs]

I wasn't sure if there was something that specifically prohibited it. If not, my answer above still stands.

Mm, fair enough. No, there is nothing listed that prohibits the combination of Viscious and Merciful. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing listed that outlaws the combination of any set of weapon qualities.

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."

What about things such as Strength modifier, weapon specialization, power attack, inspire courage, etc? Or would those be covered under the aegis of base weapon damage?

Doing so would really also force us to create a new category of "nonlethal" vorpal, for example. Good luck.

Not necessarily. Merciful converts the damage done to non-lethal damage. Vorpal, on the other hand, does no damage in and of itself, it just lops off your head. This is usually fatal of course, but if it happens to a creature that doesn't need its head (a golem, say), then even though the head is removed no additional points of damage are inflicted. Vorpal doesn't deal in damage so Merciful wouldn't affect its operation.

 

[Artoomis]

... What about things such as Strength modifier, weapon specialization, power attack, inspire courage, etc? Or would those be covered under the aegis of base weapon damage?

Precisely so.

Not necessarily. Merciful converts the damage done to non-lethal damage. Vorpal, on the other hand, does no damage in and of itself, it just lops off your head. This is usually fatal of course, but if it happens to a creature that doesn't need its head (a golem, say), then even though the head is removed no additional points of damage are inflicted. Vorpal doesn't deal in damage so Merciful wouldn't affect its operation.

This stretches things pretty far. What about wounding?

"A wounding weapon deals 1 point of Constitution damage from blood loss when it hits a creature"

Blood loss is most certainly a form of damage, but if it was non-lethal than how could it cause constituion loss? Furthermore, a Con of 0 kills you, but how can Con damage be non-lethal? At least , how without making up a new rule that does not exist.

I'm sure there are other examples of how this does not work.

So I think Merciful does NOT apply to other magical enhacements such as flaming, etc.

If you say it only does not apply to Con Damage, then you've made a distiction that the weapon property itself does not make.

My way seems the easiest and most straightforward to handle this.