Sapping Merciful Keen Rapier

[Shane LeRose]

A merciful weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, but 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).

Sapping
This special ability can be placed on only weapons that deal nonlethal damage. A sapping weapon deals an additional 2d6 points of nonlethal damage. When the wielder confirms a critical hit with the weapon, the target becomes fatigued for 5 rounds.

I think you all know what a keen rapier is.

Can I add sapping to a merciful weapon? Obviously when merciful is off so is sapping, but the question is can it be done? Does sapping only work with whips and, , , saps? Am I a sap for suggesting this?

I have a high level NPC in mind and this would be fantastic to use against the party. It also doubles as a nice reward. As DM I can just hand wave the whole thing, but these are the rules we've agreed upon so I'd rather keep everything legit IYKWIM.

Thanks ahead of time!

[Imbicatus]

Could you make a +1 sapping rapier? No. Therefore you can't make a +1 merciful sapping rapier. The weapon must meet the enchantment criteria without any other feats or abilities.

The sapping enchantment can only be put on a sap, whip, gauntlets, or amulet of mighty fists.

[Weirdo]

But a +1 Merciful Rapier does meet the criteria without any other abilities - it's not dependent on the wielder or anything outside itself to be eligible for Sapping.

However, if you ever turn off Merciful, Sapping would also become nonfunctional (just like if you added Deadly to a Sapping Whip).

[Kalindlara]

Imbicatus wrote:

Could you make a +1 sapping rapier? No. Therefore you can't make a +1 merciful sapping rapier. The weapon must meet the enchantment criteria without any other feats or abilities.

The sapping enchantment can only be put on a sap, whip, gauntlets, or amulet of mighty fists.

By your interpretation, you couldn't put it on the amulet either. Claws and bites aren't exactly nonlethal-compliant.

[Cavall]

I think it's not even a stretch to say that a weapon that does non lethal could add sapping.

And as you stated it could only do it so long as merciful is on.

Lastly, though this is obvious, it would have to be made merciful before sapping.

A merciful weapon meets the requirements. You're good.

[Imbicatus]

Kalindlara wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Could you make a +1 sapping rapier? No. Therefore you can't make a +1 merciful sapping rapier. The weapon must meet the enchantment criteria without any other feats or abilities.

The sapping enchantment can only be put on a sap, whip, gauntlets, or amulet of mighty fists.

By your interpretation, you couldn't put it on the amulet either. Claws and bites aren't exactly nonlethal-compliant.

But unarmed strikes are, and the text of the amulet is "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks".

[Kalindlara]

I don't consider it an open-and-shut case either way. I'd say it's ambiguous enough that you can rule as you see fit.

I'd do it - as you say, it's a cool item and a great piece of loot.

[Imbicatus]

Cavall wrote:

I think it's not even a stretch to say that a weapon that does non lethal could add sapping.

And as you stated it could only do it so long as merciful is on.

Lastly, though this is obvious, it would have to be made merciful before sapping.

A merciful weapon meets the requirements. You're good.

By that interpretation, it can be put on any weapon as any weapon can do non-lethal with a -4 penalty to hit.

[Kalindlara]

Imbicatus wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Could you make a +1 sapping rapier? No. Therefore you can't make a +1 merciful sapping rapier. The weapon must meet the enchantment criteria without any other feats or abilities.

The sapping enchantment can only be put on a sap, whip, gauntlets, or amulet of mighty fists.

By your interpretation, you couldn't put it on the amulet either. Claws and bites aren't exactly nonlethal-compliant.

But unarmed strikes are, and the text of the amulet is "Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks".

Good point - it's been a while since I read the full text. My bad. ^_^

Good news for druids and animal companions, too. The ability doesn't say you need to deal nonlethal damage, so you can cut loose with claw/claw/bite and pile on the (mixed) damage.

And dragons. Oh, dragons...

[Kalindlara]

Imbicatus wrote:

Cavall wrote:

I think it's not even a stretch to say that a weapon that does non lethal could add sapping.

And as you stated it could only do it so long as merciful is on.

Lastly, though this is obvious, it would have to be made merciful before sapping.

A merciful weapon meets the requirements. You're good.

By that interpretation, it can be put on any weapon as any weapon can do non-lethal with a -4 penalty to hit.

This is why I prefer to interpret rules and likely intent, not just read them.

I know, I know... interpretation has no place in the Rules Questions forum. ^_^

[Cavall]

Imbicatus wrote:

Cavall wrote:

I think it's not even a stretch to say that a weapon that does non lethal could add sapping.

And as you stated it could only do it so long as merciful is on.

Lastly, though this is obvious, it would have to be made merciful before sapping.

A merciful weapon meets the requirements. You're good.

By that interpretation, it can be put on any weapon as any weapon can do non-lethal with a -4 penalty to hit.

That's not how I would read that, no. But if you choose to read it like that, then there isn't an issue either way. It would still be allowed.

[Bart Humphries]

Imbicatus wrote:

By that interpretation, it can be put on any weapon as any weapon can do non-lethal with a -4 penalty to hit.

Yes, as long as you took the -4 penalty to hit, or had a feat that turned all damage into nonlethal damage, it could be put on any weapon. Of course, if someone else used the weapon who didn't have the feat, or if you didn't have a feat like that and didn't take the -4 penalty to hit, then the ability wouldn't trigger.

[Shane LeRose]

Bart Humphries wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

By that interpretation, it can be put on any weapon as any weapon can do non-lethal with a -4 penalty to hit.

Yes, as long as you took the -4 penalty to hit, or had a feat that turned all damage into nonlethal damage, it could be put on any weapon. Of course, if someone else used the weapon who didn't have the feat, or if you didn't have a feat like that and didn't take the -4 penalty to hit, then the ability wouldn't trigger.

I like this interpretation. It's clean and elegantly makes sense. I fear this is not how it would be ruled upon by Paizo.

I do believe that adding the merciful enchantment makes the weapon viable for sapping, but I don't believe you're able to apply sapping without the weapon having a specific quality (beyond taking a -4 to hit) that makes the weapon non-lethal.

Thank you all so much for your responses. I believe, at least to my satisfaction that this has been settled.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

The rapier is inherently a lethal weapon. Sapping can not be applied to it. Merciful does not change the weapon, it modifies the damage.

[the first Magrim]

Yeah this is totally counterintuitive. Technically you can put it on everything. Here's why:

This special ability can be placed on ONLY weapons that deal nonlethal damage.

First off this is probably bad grammar, it looks like they meant to say "weapons that ONLY deal nonlethal".

All weapons can deal nonlethal damage with a -4 to attack, a feat, or a weapon special ability therefore if you take it at the text every weapon can be enchanted with it. It also then would apply to every hit, as the way its worded.

Now, if it was worded the second way, it couldn't be enchanted to any weapon as weapons with the nonlethal subtype can do lethal damage with a -4 penalty to attack.

And here's why this is an absolute terrible wording, had they said "Can only be enchanted with weapons of the nonlethal special weapon ability" or "Only while dealing nonlethal damage with this weapon add 2d6 nonlethal to that damage". Would have given us some clarity. However there are gaping problems with the first and that is ...."what if I put it on my amulet of might strikes". Because they are an example of a nonlethal weapon and you only do lethal damage as an enhanced feat, likewise there's probably some other rogue abilities and other things that allow you to deal lethal damage with a weapon with the nonlethal special. Which would then allow you to do 2d6 of nonlethal regardless of the damage you were doing. Which in the absent of healing is basically getting a +1 bonus that does 2d6 dmg(this is a good combo with vicious btw lol).

Now we come to the absolute necessity to interpret because they obviously meant something by the words "This special ability can be placed on "only weapons that deal nonlethal damage"."

I feel like Paizo would clarify that they are talking about the special weapon ability and then leave the gaping hole for unarmed monk attacks.

I feel like a GM that doesn't like to give or skirt any sort of possible advantage to players could rule that it has to have the weapon special and it has to be dealing nonlethal damage.

I think the most balanced approach would be to be able to put it on any weapon that makes some sense, nonlethal special, merciful, feat specifying, or even just a character that prefers nonlethal damage with their weapon could get the enchantment but only functions while doing nonlethal damage.