Deadly and Merciful


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If you read the Merciful enchantment, it states it deal an extra 1d6 of damage, then it states all the damage dealt by the weapon is nonlethal. This is important, because it does not state it deals an extra 1d6 of nonlethal damage, but that all damage is nonlethal. This means that when the Deadly enchantment is added, it overrides the nonlethal aspect of the Merciful enchantment, but does not interfere with the extra 1d6 damage.

As you read it, yes. That's why I said in my campaign.

I can see it being read as "If DAMAGE = NONLEATHAL Then DAMAGE = DAMAGE + 1d6" Since Deadly sets DAMAGE = LETHAL then you don't get the 1d6.

Or it can be read like I read it, that Deadly doesn't affect the bonus damage from Merciful. There's precedent for that too. Energy weapon damage isn't increased on a crit, nor is sneak attack, and the later is the same type as the weapon/spell (a 20th level rogue doing sneak attack with ray of frost does 1d3+10d6 cold damage, but only the 1d3 is multiplied on a crit).

Short of an official ruling, it's going to be an IMC answer.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I have never seen weapon enchantments that "negate" each other.

I do not believe these do.

I can see the argument for not allowing the Deadly enchantment on otherwise lethal weapons, but do see them being unable to be in effect at the same time.

If you read the Merciful enchantment, it states it deal an extra 1d6 of damage, then it states all the damage dealt by the weapon is nonlethal. This is important, because it does not state it deals an extra 1d6 of nonlethal damage, but that all damage is nonlethal. This means that when the Deadly enchantment is added, it overrides the nonlethal aspect of the Merciful enchantment, but does not interfere with the extra 1d6 damage.

The deadly enchantment is for weapons that are ordinarily non-lethal, constantly non-lethal. The merciful enchantment is being applied to a weapon that is lethal in nature. You can't put both on a weapon because there is no base weapon that can be an eligible target for both at the same time. It is the base weapon that determines eligibility, not the monkeyshines that enchantments put on it.

You can put merciful on a longsword, but not deadly.

You can put deadly on a sap, but not merciful.

That's the rules mate. Your GM wants to change them, that's his lookout.

Grand Lodge

Why do criticals matter?

When you sneak attack with a Merciful weapon, it's all nonlethal.

When you sneak attack with a Deadly weapon, it's all lethal.

Also, Merciful can indeed be added to nonlethal weapons.
Nothing in RAW indicates otherwise.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Anarchic Axiomatic weapons are totally legit.

Not as many people can use them though.

I disagree. What alignment would your 'totally legit' weapon be?

While items/creatures may detect as multiple, conflicting alignments.. they can't actually be both...

As to your original question:

I would rule (if I were the DM) that activating one of the abilities would deactivate the other.

-James

Grand Lodge

You may disagree, but without RAW evidence, you would be houseruling.

Anarchic Axiomatic weapons are simply uncommon, as there are less people who can use them.

Denying these enchantment combinations would be a houserule.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Why do criticals matter?

When you sneak attack with a Merciful weapon, it's all nonlethal.

When you sneak attack with a Deadly weapon, it's all lethal.

Also, Merciful can indeed be added to nonlethal weapons.
Nothing in RAW indicates otherwise.

Criticals are an example of additional 'typed' damage dice not doubling even though they are the same type as the original damage. I was showing there are examples of an effct (critical hits, Deadly) not affecting additional dice.

Meciful implies that it has to be on a lethal damaging weapon (unless you argue supressing a merciful sap makes the damage lethal)

Grand Lodge

I think you are confusing the Deadly enchantment with the Deadly weapon feature.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You may disagree, but without RAW evidence, you would be houseruling.

Anarchic Axiomatic weapons are simply uncommon, as there are less people who can use them.

Denying these enchantment combinations would be a houserule.

Actually NO it wouldn't... as a weapon can't be lawful chaotic!

Otherwise you are right that you could put both on the same weapon.. but a weapon can't be 'lawful chaotic' or 'evil good' in alignment.

Likewise if you made a holy weapon intelligent, it would have to have a good alignment.

-James

Grand Lodge

Anarchic Axiomatic weapons have no alignment in of themselves.
They are objects.
They simply count as either Chaotic, or Lawful, for the purposes of damage reduction, and deal extra damage to some creatures.

If you still believe this to be wrong, please provide evidence of RAW noting it.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I have never seen weapon enchantments that "negate" each other.

I do not believe these do.

I can see the argument for not allowing the Deadly enchantment on otherwise lethal weapons, but do see them being unable to be in effect at the same time.

If you read the Merciful enchantment, it states it deal an extra 1d6 of damage, then it states all the damage dealt by the weapon is nonlethal. This is important, because it does not state it deals an extra 1d6 of nonlethal damage, but that all damage is nonlethal. This means that when the Deadly enchantment is added, it overrides the nonlethal aspect of the Merciful enchantment, but does not interfere with the extra 1d6 damage.

I can't believe this thread has gone on as long as it has. It's painfully obvious that the Merciful and Deadly enchantments were NOT meant to be used together. Ever. They make no sense together. DROP IT.

This is the kind of theorycrafting that makes players who aren't optimizers HATE playing with those who are (not to mention the poor DM). Just stop. It's ridiculous.

Grand Lodge

Actually, let's move the Axiomatic/Anarchic Holy/Unholy debate to a different thread.

Let's stay Merciful/Deadly here.

Sovereign Court

So what are you looking for answer-wise. Unless someone from Paizo itself actually answers then it's all speculation on whether it is allowed or not.

If you are looking for a personal preference of people then I think you've been answered. Basically, it's your campaign/character, do wheat you want.

And yes, I would allow the anarchic/axiomatic weapon to exist. It's really the same as putting 2 bane weapon properties on something. Would I allow it in my personal game? Prolly not, but I think it would have a better chance of being allowed then a holy/unholy weapon.

Grand Lodge

@cartmanbeck: No need for that. You are welcome to your opinions, but personal attacks are uncalled for.
Be sure to scroll to the bottom of your screen and read the most important rule.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

blackbloodtroll wrote:

@cartmanbeck: No need for that. You are welcome to your opinions, but personal attacks are uncalled for.

Be sure to scroll to the bottom of your screen and read the most important rule.

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a request for some sanity. That's all.

Grand Lodge

I was hoping for rules quotes to understand all the detail relevant to how these enchantments interact.

I got some good opinions, and a number of what seemed like personal attacks.

Seriously, if I actually offended someone, I am quite sorry.
Not my intent.

Grand Lodge

cartmanbeck wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

@cartmanbeck: No need for that. You are welcome to your opinions, but personal attacks are uncalled for.

Be sure to scroll to the bottom of your screen and read the most important rule.
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a request for some sanity. That's all.

Sanity is overrated.

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Actually, an Axiomatic, Anarchic, Holy, Unholy weapon is completely legit.

So is Frost and Flaming.

Also, if order of activation is key, then if Merciful is activated first, then Deadly, why would the 1d6 go away? There is no indication that by becoming lethal, the extra damage goes away.

If you were paying attention, I said "in a game I was running" at that part. And I said nothing about frost and flaming because nothing in the description of frost or flaming says "all damage this weapon deals is considered cold/fire" or "this weapon is considered...um...I don't know since elemental damage doesn't work this way...for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction."

And, if order of activation is key (which you'll note is only one of two interpretations as I see it), the d6 goes away because the two abilities cannot operate concurrently. If you activate merciful first, and then activate deadly, the merciful effect cannot operate (as all damage the weapon deals cannot be both lethal and non-lethal). It has less to do with the damage becoming lethal and more to do with conflicting powers.


If you make a vicious merciful weapon, is the damage inflicted upon the wielder non-lethal?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Anarchic Axiomatic weapons have no alignment in of themselves.

They are objects.
They simply count as either Chaotic, or Lawful, for the purposes of damage reduction, and deal extra damage to some creatures.

If you still believe this to be wrong, please provide evidence of RAW noting it.

"PFSRD.com" wrote:


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.

The weapon is Chaotic. Period. If it is an intelligent item it is of chaotic alignment, etc.

-James


Sekret_One wrote:
If you make a vicious merciful weapon, is the damage inflicted upon the wielder non-lethal?

Yep.


The "Out of Cheese Error" wasn't a slam on you, it was a reference to Hex from Discworld.

However, I am convinced that deadly and merciful on the same weapon is, if not against the rules, surely against all common sense and decency.

Grand Lodge

Well, if the Deadly enchantment causes the extra damage from Merciful to "disappear", then what happens if it is a Vicious weapon as well?
Does the extra nonlethal damage dealt to yourself go away?

What about the extra nonlethal from a Merciful Bane, or Holy weapon?

Does having the Deadly enchantment active as well make it all go away?

Maybe it just makes all the nonlethal damage lethal, as per description?


How can I be the only one that marked this as FAQ, this is legitimately interesting.


Glutton wrote:
How can I be the only one that marked this as FAQ, this is legitimately interesting.

I figured I didn't have to because it was already marked. :)


Deadly can be placed on a Non-lethal weapon, making the damage Lethal, and dealing whip damage to an armored foe.
Merciful can be placed on any weapon to deal and extra 1d6 damage, but all damage is non-lethal.

I'd say of you added both properties, it's a +2 bonus for 1d6 untyped damage that affects armored foes it isnt' super-cheese.

Or you only add merciful +1d6 to dealing Non-lethal damage, but you can use the deadly property to make Whips deal damage to Armored foes, or you just deal lethal by supressing Merciful.

The latter should receive less arguments from a GM especially if you give him cookies.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

@Blackblood. If you can put merciful on a sap, will suppressing the property make the sap do lethal damage?

Grand Lodge

Matthew Morris wrote:
@Blackblood. If you can put merciful on a sap, will suppressing the property make the sap do lethal damage?

No, just less damage.

Grand Lodge

Tacticslion wrote:
Glutton wrote:
How can I be the only one that marked this as FAQ, this is legitimately interesting.
I figured I didn't have to because it was already marked. :)

Everyone thinks that.

Just like the guy getting mugged, people think someone else will stop it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Glutton wrote:
How can I be the only one that marked this as FAQ, this is legitimately interesting.
I figured I didn't have to because it was already marked. :)

Everyone thinks that.

Just like the guy getting mugged, people think someone else will stop it.

First: hyperbole much? blackbloodtroll, while I generally agree with your stance that it seems RAW allowable, I'm going to ask you to calm down. You seem really touchy on this thread (though some comments upthread might have earned it). I may be misreading your post there (and I really apologize if I am), but your hyperbolic wording seems aggressive, which, combined with your other posts above, make you look less reasonable than I suspect you are actually being about this.

Second: guys who disagree with him (not all of you, just the ones using weird hyperbole yourselves), sheesh, calm down, limit the sarcasm (or if you're just using humor denote it as such), and chill. This isn't "stupid" it's someone noticing something that looks nifty to them and asking about it.

Anyway, what I mean is, that by the time I read this thread, it had already been marked for FAQ. Is there a "vote" system that requires more marks to get noticed by the Devs? If not, it seems strange to just tap "FAQ" multiple times. Regardless, I suppose I'll do so now.

I haven't had much to add to the conversation that's not already been said. Especially by Sekret_One. Upon reflection, though, I suppose, just to add a bit more...

* Merciful Vicious: Would a vicious merciful weapon deal additional non-lethal damage to the wielder and the target, or just the target? I believe it would only add to the target, but I'm not looking at the wording right now, and am slightly distracted, so I'm not sure.

* Mutli-Aligned Weapons: Regardless of any limitation on creatures' alignments^, items have no such restriction. There's even precedence in various fictional works of creatures needing to wield both good and evil simultaneously to overcome some great threat. I mean, I can lay more than one Magic Circle upon the same person (which, incidentally, would make them "read" as more than one alignment, due to the aligned nature of the spell), so there really isn't a problem with overlapping magical elements being of different or opposed alignments.
^ ... which, suddenly, I'm unsure of, as creatures who retain their "alignments" due to creature type can have opposing alignments by choice, but are still treated as having all of the alignments by magic, including magical weapons... which is what this is really all about.

* Deadly Merciful (actually on-topic): I'd definitely allow them to stack on the same weapon, but the base weapon should probably be a non-lethal weapon, otherwise you're playing a semantics game with the word "normally", which is vague enough that RAW doesn't actually cover it. But really, if you're really, trying to get an extra +1d6 lethal damage to something for a +2 bonus (note: a +2 bonus that does not, itself, add to attack and damage, and limits your "space" on a given weapon for other neat things), than I say "go for it, if you really want, but meh, it doesn't do much". Because, really, you're doing yourself a disservice. A relative 10% (relative to a d20 roll) loss of hit chance to deal an average of 1 point more damage isn't that great a deal.

Grand Lodge

Sorry, the "cheese" statement grinds my gears.

Otherwise, I am calm. Text is a poor medium for expressing emotion.

The combination came to mind during a Hobgoblin whip wielding build of mine. Adding Merciful first, then Deadly later. Maybe Cruel.

A Merciful Deadly Amulet of Mighty Fists sounds cool too.


A Vicious Merciful amulet of mighty fists on an Unarmed fighter sounds better, seems to me they have dr/nonlethal


After further consideration, I suppose if a player really, really wanted to put both of these special abilities on a whip in a game I was GMing, then it could be acceptable if they had a good character concept-based reason for it. Such as if they wanted to use it primarily for non-lethal means but would like the option to deal lethal damage in emergency situations without changing weapons.

But if the idea was to simply have a whip that does lethal damage against armored foes and get an extra +1d6 lethal damage on top of it, I would suggest to that player that they just get a Deadly Shocking Whip instead, or some other elemental damage type, rather than trying to stack Merciful with Deadly, which I have conceptual problems with.

Also, I strongly disagree with any attempt to interpret the use of a lethal weapon with a Merciful ability as one that "normally" deals non-lethal damage to qualify for Deadly. I would disallow the creation of a Merciful Deadly Longbow, for example. (This would qualify as an example of "cheese" to me, since others mentioned it and a definition was desired.)

The main reason I think this is a no-man's-land of a question is because the enchantments are exactly opposed. One makes all of the weapon's damage non-lethal, while the other makes all of the weapon's damage lethal, and to me, those just cancel out. (This goes back to my earlier objection of how Cure Light Wounds and Inflict Light Wounds as spell requirements seem to be an obvious contradiction.)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
@Blackblood. If you can put merciful on a sap, will suppressing the property make the sap do lethal damage?
No, just less damage.

Except RAW, supressing the effect "Allows the weapon to do lethal damage." So if you're arguing RAW that the Deadly would change the Merciful's +1d6 to do lethal, doesn't that mean that RAW the supressed merciful sap would do lethal as well?


Matthew Morris wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
@Blackblood. If you can put merciful on a sap, will suppressing the property make the sap do lethal damage?
No, just less damage.
Except RAW, supressing the effect "Allows the weapon to do lethal damage." So if you're arguing RAW that the Deadly would change the Merciful's +1d6 to do lethal, doesn't that mean that RAW the supressed merciful sap would do lethal as well?

Actually, Matthew, I don't think that's what's being argued at all. The Merciful property suppresses all lethal damage, but without that, you can choose to deal lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon. At least I think.

EDIT: man, having a toddler really cramps my "look it up and make links" style! I've got to do more research on this, unless someone else wants to, but for now... away!

(ALSO, blackbloodtroll: I totally understand. I'm mentioning because, with text being really hard to get emotions across, combined with the internet tendency toward sarcasm, and some posts from multiple people here, it appeared that we were all being less civil than I think we were trying to be. In other words, I just wanted to make sure we were really communicating. :D)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Tacticslion wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
@Blackblood. If you can put merciful on a sap, will suppressing the property make the sap do lethal damage?
No, just less damage.
Except RAW, supressing the effect "Allows the weapon to do lethal damage." So if you're arguing RAW that the Deadly would change the Merciful's +1d6 to do lethal, doesn't that mean that RAW the supressed merciful sap would do lethal as well?

Actually, Matthew, I don't think that's what's being argued at all. The Merciful property suppresses all lethal damage, but without that, you can choose to deal lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon. At least I think.

EDIT: man, having a toddler really cramps my "look it up and make links" style! I've got to do more research on this, unless someone else wants to, but for now... away!

Oh, I know rationally it wouldn't. Just like rationally, putting merciful on a longsword doesn't suddenly qualify it for deadly. But if the argument is that enchanting the weapon with merciful qualifies it for deadly, then I'll take that absurdity to argue that the 'Rules as Written' say that supressing merciful on a non-lethal weapon allows the weapon to do lethal damage.


too much quoting!:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
@Blackblood. If you can put merciful on a sap, will suppressing the property make the sap do lethal damage?
No, just less damage.
Except RAW, supressing the effect "Allows the weapon to do lethal damage." So if you're arguing RAW that the Deadly would change the Merciful's +1d6 to do lethal, doesn't that mean that RAW the supressed merciful sap would do lethal as well?

Actually, Matthew, I don't think that's what's being argued at all. The Merciful property suppresses all lethal damage, but without that, you can choose to deal lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon. At least I think.

EDIT: man, having a toddler really cramps my "look it up and make links" style! I've got to do more research on this, unless someone else wants to, but for now... away!

Oh, I know rationally it wouldn't. Just like rationally, putting merciful on a longsword doesn't suddenly qualify it for deadly. But if the argument is that enchanting the weapon with merciful qualifies it for deadly, then I'll take that absurdity to argue that the 'Rules as Written' say that supressing merciful on a non-lethal weapon allows the weapon to do lethal damage.

Hokay, Matt, I personally think you're amazing, and I love your Superstar stuff, but I'm going to clash with you on this one, at least just a bit (getting the nerding out of the way first, 'cause I don't think I've nerded at you, yet).

Matthew Morris wrote:
But if the argument is that enchanting the weapon with merciful qualifies it for deadly, then I'll take that absurdity to argue that the 'Rules as Written' say that supressing merciful on a non-lethal weapon allows the weapon to do lethal damage.

But the Rules As Written do allow that exact thing.

Here's the problem: the Merciful property.

Specifically:

PFSRD wrote:
The weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and all damage it deals is nonlethal damage. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).

Bolded the important word.

Plus Nonlethal-Damage (linked to the combat section, because the weapons section of Nonlethal tells us to look at the combat section), specifically:

PFSRD wrote:

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage

You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage

You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Those two bolded parts above (bolded by me) are the relevant parts of this conversation. Suppressing the Merciful property allows a weapon to deal lethal damage. While the Merciful property is up, it doesn't work that way. This is a clear case of specific trumps general. General: weapons that deal non-lethal can be made lethal by taking a -4 penalty. Specific: weapons with merciful property deal more damage and all is nonlethal, unless it's suppressed. Ergo, a nonlethal weapon (with the Merciful property) can deal lethal damage when the Merciful property is suppressed, but cannot while it's active.

Thus the argument you're nitpicking is technically sound. Now, again, I'm not personally suggesting that a person should be able to apply Deadly to a Merciful weapon that's "normally" (vague-word!) lethal without the Merciful property, as that's stretching the definition of "normal" given the contexts, and is clearly not RAI. But I am saying that a GM has logical resources to back up their decision that this is a totally valid interpretation - at least more so than you're presenting it.

EDIT: tag correction
EDIT 2: more links for clarity


A weapon can be made Merciful, if that weapon is made Deadly it means it normally does lethal damage, it can also be decided to cause nonlethal damage instead

so as I see it, the effect can stack, and creates a nice "police/guard" weapon

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Oh I'm not rationally making the argument. Elsewhere blackbloodtroll was arguing that putting merciful on a weapon means it 'normally' does non-lethal and thus is eligible for deadly. I'm saying that reaching for that and claiming it's RAW is in the same spirit as arguing that merciful allowing a weapon to do lethal damage when it's suppressed means that a merciful sap can do lethal damage now when the property is suppressed.

I said a few posts ago how I see them interacting, and IMC, I was just demonstrating the rule twisting I'm seeing from blackbloodtroll on that point.

Grand Lodge

Let us say, that Deadly, cannot be applied to a Merciful weapon, that normally deals lethal damage.
Moving on.
The two seem to work fine together.
Let's say we look at the whip. I add the Merciful enchantment, because I like dealing the extra untyped nonlethal damage. I soon tire of being unable to damage foes with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher, so I add the Deadly enchantment.
Now, for total of +3, I can deal an extra 1d6 untyped damage, that can be either lethal, or nonlethal, and is unaffected by damage reduction.

This is what I believe, within RAW, happens when these two enchantments are combined.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I can deal an extra 1d6 untyped damage, that can be either lethal, or nonlethal

This is what I believe, within RAW, happens when these two enchantments are combined.

I think that the extra +1d6 MUST be non-lethal.

The deadly enhancement allows one to deal lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon without taking the -4 penalty to hit with it (amongst other features).

But merciful converts ALL damage to non-lethal regardless.

If one were to take a merciful sap with merciful turned on, simply taking a -4 to hit is not sufficient to deal lethal damage, correct?

-James

Grand Lodge

In the description of Merciful, it states that it adds 1d6 damage, then it states all damage is nonlethal.
It does not state that it deal an extra 1d6 nonlethal.
This is important, as the effect of adding 1d6 damage, and converting all of the damage to nonlethal, are separate parts of the same enchantment.

This is important to the Deadly enchantment as well. The ability to deal lethal damage, and the ability to allow weapons, such as whips, to damage armored foes is separate.


Howie23 already answered this question to satisfaction on the first page of the thread. Some magical effects that do opposite things cancel each other out. Since RAW doesn't say specifically how that works, which spells that refers to, or where such effects can cancel each other out (on the grid, in a weapon, on a target)... it is entirely up to your GM at that point to say if they do/don't cancel out.

If it cancels out, it just doesn't work. If it doesn't cancel out, then you have the extra damage and the ability to do lethal/merciful as described. This question shouldn't be about "how" it works. This question is asking "if" it works. Ask your GM.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

In the description of Merciful, it states that it adds 1d6 damage, then it states all damage is nonlethal.

It does not state that it deal an extra 1d6 nonlethal.
This is important, as the effect of adding 1d6 damage, and converting all of the damage to nonlethal, are separate parts of the same enchantment.

This is important to the Deadly enchantment as well. The ability to deal lethal damage, and the ability to allow weapons, such as whips, to damage armored foes is separate.

I agree, and considering that Bane or Flaming weapons would be cheaper the issue that the +1d6 can be either lethal or nonlethal becomes a non-issue

there is nothing, nowhere writing that the two magic effects would cancel each other out

Grand Lodge

The "cancel out" is not relevant here. There are no weapon enchantments that "cancel out" each other. This does not seem to be an exception to the rules.


Yep, was just wondering about how a flaming/iced sword would work

Grand Lodge

Flaming/Frost works just fine. So does an Anarchic/Axiomatic, as SKR pointed out in a separate thread.


OK, I think I see where the confusion is on canceling each other out... no, the spells don't "counter" or "suppress" each other. The weapon gets both enchantments, yes. The key is, "in the order they apply".

The effect from Merciful comes from cure light wounds, and the effect from Deadly comes from inflict light wounds. No, these spells don't actually dispel one another.

However, when both are active, and you successfully hit your opponent, they go off at the same time. The order in which they apply is simultaneous. A Merciful weapon only deals nonlethal damage. A Deadly weapon deals only lethal damage. They cancel out by the laws of anything even remotely close to logic. It has nothing to do with RAW even at this point... it's not possible that the weapon does both "only nonlethal" and "lethal" damage at the same time. Therefore, it's impossible, and you can only benefit from one of the enchantments at a time.

This, blackbloodtroll, is why people are calling it cheese. It's a loophole, and one that defies sense. Substitute the term "cheese" for "a loophole that defies sense" and maybe it will seem less offensive to you.

There is just no way, in my opinion, that this can work.


setzer9999 wrote:

OK, I think I see where the confusion is on canceling each other out... no, the spells don't "counter" or "suppress" each other. The weapon gets both enchantments, yes. The key is, "in the order they apply".

The effect from Merciful comes from cure light wounds, and the effect from Deadly comes from inflict light wounds. No, these spells don't actually dispel one another.

However, when both are active, and you successfully hit your opponent, they go off at the same time. The order in which they apply is simultaneous. A Merciful weapon only deals nonlethal damage. A Deadly weapon deals only lethal damage. They cancel out by the laws of anything even remotely close to logic. It has nothing to do with RAW even at this point... it's not possible that the weapon does both "only nonlethal" and "lethal" damage at the same time. Therefore, it's impossible, and you can only benefit from one of the enchantments at a time.

See, here is where I disagree. RAW, I'd say it works. Overlapping spell effects specify that they sometimes cancel each other out. But overlapping item effects (on the same item) do not. But even if they would, let's look at that section again.

PFSRD wrote:

Combining Magic Effects

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:

Stacking Effects

Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Okay, the general rules are down. Let's see what applies and doesn't here.

PFSRD wrote:

Different Bonus Types

The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.

Doesn't apply.

PFSRD wrote:

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

Doesn't apply.

PFSRD wrote:

Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Doesn't apply.

PFSRD wrote:

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant

Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

May apply. This is your argument.

PFSRD wrote:

Multiple Mental Control Effects

Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

Doesn't apply.

PFSRD wrote:

Spells with Opposite Effects

Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.

Totally applies. This is literally the exact thing that's going on here.

PFSRD wrote:

Instantaneous Effects

Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.

Doesn't apply.

Of the different listed effect, "Spells with Opposite Effects" (cure/inflict light wounds, in this case) is the closest RAW to application based off of your argument, closer, than, say, one spell effect rendering the other irrelevant, at least according to the base spells (which are being bandied about as the basis for this argument.

Given that, the rule...

Quote:
Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.

... is the best description for what's going on here. Cure/inflict doesn't "specify" in it's description, and neither does Deadly/Merciful in theirs.

In which case, it makes sense that it would stack, making all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply (i.e. the order that they're activated in). So if you activated the Merciful first, then the deadly, you'd get an extra 1d6 points of lethal damage.

Feel free not to rule it that way, though. I'd totally understand that. I'm just saying that the argument people keep making isn't as strong as they keep making it out to be.

setzer9999 wrote:

This, blackbloodtroll, is why people are calling it cheese. It's a loophole, and one that defies sense. Substitute the term "cheese" for "a loophole that defies sense" and maybe it will seem less offensive to you.

There is just no way, in my opinion, that this can work.

Actually, it doesn't "defy all sense". It is a difficult thing to parse, but it simply doesn't "defy all sense" by any means. That seems to be the part that's offensive.

Grand Lodge

Both enchantments add an effect other than converting lethal to nonlethal, or nonlethal to lethal. These effects should still apply.
These effects are: 1d6 extra damage, and allowing whips and such, to damage armored foes.
These effects should not "disappear".


You are supplying an extreme litany of RAW against my argument that it doesn't work because the terminology is at odds.

All of the quotes are good research, but the bottom line is that the effects themselves, not as magic, not describing spell mechanics, but the outcome itself... are at odds with on another.

The weapon cannot do lethal and non-lethal damage at the same time. I don't know how that is hard to understand... because it is simply not possible to do both. Rules or no rules, how can you say that you can do two totally incompatible things at the same exact time? Unless you are advocating that it tears a hole in reality and in one universe does lethal while in yet another does non-lethal. Even then, those universes are not in the same "time" so it's still not simultaneous. As far as we know, only quantum particles do things like this, not macroscopic objects like a weapon. I know this is a game, and not reality, but you still have to decide which thing, of the two options, are actually happening.

This is just one of those situations where it simply cannot be the case. You either get to do lethal, or non-lethal damage.

ok... one more time...

Merciful - Only non-lethal damage
Deadly - lethal damage
Merciful tries to modify the damage of the weapon to non-lethal.
Deadly tries to modify the damage of the weapon to deal lethal damage.
These don't happen in that order. They happen simultaneously. Thus, canceling each other out. Not by spell effect rules in the raw, but by the fact that they are just plain doing the opposite thing.

Let me put it another way. What if the enchantments were "Righty" and "Lefty".
Lefty - Makes the weapon swing to the left.
Righty - Makes the weapon swing to the right.
Both are active.
Nothing happens.

51 to 100 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Deadly and Merciful All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.