|
| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about uses of the Merciful ability and wondering how pervasive the clause 'all damage it deals is nonlethal damage' actually is. I'm specifically interested in its interaction with Vicious and whether a)it converts the bonus damage to nonlethal and b)whether Merciful will affect Vicious' backlash damage in turning it into nonlethal as well. Considering the clause says it affects all damage the weapon deals, that could be interpreted to include the backlash damage.
I've discussed it already with my local PFS group, as well as local PFS Venture Captains and Lieutenants and have received the consensus that I should open it up online to see if I can get a specific PFS interpretation on how it should work, so here I am. I'd be quite happy with it just affecting Vicious' bonus damage and still taking lethal backlash damage, as the least stretched interpretation of Merciful, which I've coined 'Killing with Kindness,' especially with the addition of building off of a chassis of either a Sap Master Rogue or a Magi with Merciful Spell. If it stretches further than that, I'm not going to be displeased, either, considering the cost of +3 weapon (+1 merciful vicious whatever) in PFS as-is. :) Just looking for further thought on it.
The word "all" seems to be the key here. If it says "all" then it's "all." This would mean that a merciful flaming longsword also only deals non-lethal damage. A merciful wounding sword would deal non-lethal damage and bleed.
|
First, this is more a general Pathfinder rule question, in my opinion, since it should act the same whether you are playing in PFS or PFRPG, house rules notwithstanding.
Second, it has always been my opinion that Merciful, when activated, turns ALL damage caused by the weapon into non-lethal. A bit odd, justifying non-lethal fire, cold, electrical, acid, sonic, etc., damage, but the enhancement says all damage, so, RAW, that means all damage.
|
As someone who was planning to use both these enchants on my AoMF I've looked over this particular issue a LOT and this is what I've come up with.
Merciful states:
The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage.
So any damage the WEAPON causes is converted to nonlethal damage including the extra D6 since it's untyped damage so it matches the weapons type.
Vicious states:
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.
In this case it's not the weapon that is causing the damage, it's the energy from the enchant. This damage is not coming from the weapon so it's not converted to non-lethal and both the target and the wielder take lethal damage.
Yeah, I was unhappy with this determination too.
|
As someone who was planning to use both these enchants on my AoMF I've looked over this particular issue a LOT and this is what I've come up with.
Merciful states:
The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage.So any damage the WEAPON causes is converted to nonlethal damage including the extra D6 since it's untyped damage so it matches the weapons type.
Vicious states:
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.In this case it's not the weapon that is causing the damage, it's the energy from the enchant. This damage is not coming from the weapon so it's not converted to non-lethal and both the target and the wielder take lethal damage.
Yeah, I was unhappy with this determination too.
My inner rule-lawyer spotted this distinction in the energy doing the vicious additional damage. Very specific wording; perhaps someone considered this combo in the beta-testing stage?
|
|
As someone who was planning to use both these enchants on my AoMF I've looked over this particular issue a LOT and this is what I've come up with.
Merciful states:
The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage.So any damage the WEAPON causes is converted to nonlethal damage including the extra D6 since it's untyped damage so it matches the weapons type.
Vicious states:
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.In this case it's not the weapon that is causing the damage, it's the energy from the enchant. This damage is not coming from the weapon so it's not converted to non-lethal and both the target and the wielder take lethal damage.
Yeah, I was unhappy with this determination too.
And, to be honest, I disagree with your reasoning.
Can you do the Vicious damage without hitting with the weapon? The damage is caused by hitting with the weapon, so, IMO, it is therefore caused by the weapon, and, therefore, will be covered by Merciful. YMMV, ETV.
One more vote for all damage, however strange that might be, is affected by merciful.
For me, regarding the word choice, there just isn't an alternative to "weapon" that wouldn't leave it even more ambiguous. "Attack", "strike", etc just are way too wide open.
Also, I think if it were restricted to the base weapon damage, it would say so. There are enough sub-notes in weapons, like bonus damage not multiplying on a crit, and so on, that I think this would be stated if it was the case.
|
|
One more vote for all damage, however strange that might be, is affected by merciful.
For me, regarding the word choice, there just isn't an alternative to "weapon" that wouldn't leave it even more ambiguous. "Attack", "strike", etc just are way too wide open.
Also, I think if it were restricted to the base weapon damage, it would say so. There are enough sub-notes in weapons, like bonus damage not multiplying on a crit, and so on, that I think this would be stated if it was the case.
That is an interpretation however I must point out one thing.
Every other weapon enchant in the book specifies that it is the weapon that does the extra damage.
Examples:
Thundering: A thundering weapon creates a cacophonous roar like thunder upon striking a successful critical hit. The sonic energy does not harm the wielder. A thundering weapon deals an extra 1d8 points of sonic damage on a successful critical hit.
Bane: A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit
All of these core enchants each specifies that it's the weapon doing the damage and everything is based on the weapon.
now look at Vicious again:
Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.
It's the only one in the list that states it's not the weapon doing the damage it's a third party that does it. The only interaction it has with the weapon at all is it only goes off when it strikes then it's totally separate.
I see this enchant as a more focused version of the Spell Storing enchant.
It functions exactly the same but is limited to a single spell effect that goes off all the time instead of a single use effect that only goes off once but can be changed.
Take a look at the text for Flaming again, Mathwei. It says that it's the fire, not the weapon which is housing the fire, that deals the extra damage. Same as the burst of energy.
Take a look at Anarchic (or the other aligned ones):
"Anarchic: An anarchic weapon is infused with the power of chaos. It makes the weapon chaotically aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of lawful alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level on any lawful creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded."
A strong case (from your logic) could be made that it's the chaos in an anarchic weapon, not the weapon itself, that is dealing the bonus damage.
I agree with the others on the logic that Merciful applies its condition last. Add up all the damage that would normally happen on a successful hit, convert it all to non-lethal and add 2d6 non-lethal.
|
|
Take a look at the text for Flaming again, Mathwei. It says that it's the fire, not the weapon which is housing the fire, that deals the extra damage. Same as the burst of energy.
Take a look at Anarchic (or the other aligned ones):
"Anarchic: An anarchic weapon is infused with the power of chaos. It makes the weapon chaotically aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of lawful alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level on any lawful creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded."A strong case (from your logic) could be made that it's the chaos in an anarchic weapon, not the weapon itself, that is dealing the bonus damage.
I agree with the others on the logic that Merciful applies its condition last. Add up all the damage that would normally happen on a successful hit, convert it all to non-lethal and add 2d6 non-lethal.
Maybe I'm missing your point here but for Anarchic it specifically states that it makes the weapon itself like this and IT (the weapon) does an additional 2D6 damage.
Flaming is the same way, it says the WEAPON is sheathed in fire and does extra damage.All of the nouns in both of those sentence refer to the weapon itself as the subject and that is causing the damage.
In the vicious description the noun is the energy flash and it is what does the extra damage.
Personally I'd prefer if it worked the way you are saying but the language seems to indicate the opposite.
What I'm saying is that the "it" in those sentences could very easily refer to the energy imbued in the weapon and not the weapon itself. "It makes the weapon" as a phrase cannot refer to the weapon, but only to the energy being imbued. It makes it reasonable to continue to read "it" in the following sentence to continue referring to the energy and not the weapon. The fire on the weapon deals the fire damage, the weapon just deals weapon damage. The chaos on the weapon deals the anarchic damage, the weapon just deals weapon damage.
I'm suggesting that "this energy" is not so much of a departure from the way all the other weapon abilities work.
|
|
My inner rule-lawyer spotted this distinction in the energy doing the vicious additional damage. Very specific wording; perhaps someone considered this combo in the beta-testing stage?
I'm doubtful of it being a result of the Paizo beta, considering its the same wording that exists in D&D 3.5 for those abilities. I suppose there could be a possibility in the internal testing that may have happened over at WotC that such occurred but I have no idea on that front.
It does seem the common consensus is that all damage caused by a Merciful weapon, regardless of source of that damage. There remains the other half of my question in regards to Vicious, if the backlash damage is at all affected by Merciful. I've had 3 possibilities given to me on that front.
a) Unaffected by Merciful
b) Merciful makes the backlash damage nonlethal
c) Merciful makes the backlash damage nonlethal AND increases it by 1d6, to 2d6 nonlethal backlash.
The last is...kinda outlandish in my book but has been pointed out as a possible interpretation, so I'm including it for completeness' sake. I personally lean towards option b, though I suspect the fairest interpretation is option a.
I honestly think that it's B. I had thought that there was some sort of clause in Vicious that makes the damage to the wielder unable to be mitigated in any way, but this text is not listed on the PRD, so I might have dreamed that up. Since that text doesn't exist, and since I believe that Merciful turns all damage non-lethal that has its source from a successful hit from a weapon, that the 1d6 to the wielder would be non-lethal.
As you are dealing only non-lethal damage to the opponent anyway, I don't see why you would end up dealing lethal damage to yourself. The damage to them and to you are both from the same ability.
All damage dealt by the weapon is non-lethal. This would include the vicious enchantment and the backlash damage. No matter what the weapon is enchanted with, it is still the weapon that deals it and thus it is non-lethal.
People are confusing "damage dealt by weapon" with the game term "weapon damage." These are separate things.
Weapon damage = damage done by the actual weapon type (1d8/1d10/2d6/etc. +Str).
Damage dealt by weapon = all damage (includes weapon damage, enchant based damage, sneak attack damage, etc)
t.l.d.r = All means All
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know this is over 3 years old, but it says it was answered in the FAQ, and I can’t find any mention of it there. Can anyone point to an official ruling?
1) Some were marked as answered even though they weren't. This cleared up the queue.
2) What about a Conductive weapon? Does the damage carried by the enchantment become non-lethal?
/cevah
Or what about Spellstrikes with a Merciful weapon?
Or what about Spellstrikes with a Merciful weapon?What about spellstrikes with a whip without Whip Mastery?
Sweet mother of Gozreh...
I'm really interested in the conductive ability coupled with merciful.
However, I do not believe that spellstrikes would modify their damage to being non-lethal just because you are using a non-lethal non-magical weapon there is nothing combining the damage in any way in that scenario.
I'm really interested in the conductive ability coupled with merciful.
However, I do not believe that spellstrikes would modify their damage to being non-lethal just because you are using a non-lethal non-magical weapon there is nothing combining the damage in any way in that scenario.
You are probably correct. But the clause of Merciful weapon has me curious