It is better to just get a +1 addition to your weapon or keen. They both influence DPR more from an optimisation PoV.
Constructs and undead are pretty common enemies.
Another disadvantage is if the enemy is getting in-combat healing, due to how healing non-lethal works.
If you enemy gets a heal on them they regain 1 non-lethal dmg for every point of lethal dmg.
So if your group inflicts a mix of lethal and non lethal and the enemy gets a heal say cure light wounds 1d8+3 for 7healing they reciver 7 lethal and 7 non lethal effectively healing 14.
It is still not better.
Well, they can get back up and hit you again.
Another drawback is: If you take an enemy alife you have to do something with them after combat.
Always defeating enemies with nonlethal and then killing them, when they are helpless would be a slow but sure way to become evil if I was a GM.
And if you don't kill them after the fight, what then?
if you go the enforcer/sap adept line with a sneak attack character, you can do quite alot of non-lethal damage, but all the above points are still true.
It's also extremely feat intensive (you need 5 feats or so to make it really work) and probably a barbarian or fighter still beats you in DPR. (didn't do the math, so no clue if they do)
Another "disadvantage" is that at the end of the fight the enemy is most likely just unconcious, and you have now to decide what to do. Slit his throat? Burden yourself with a prisoner? Let him lie there and hope he doesn't come back tomorrow to take revenge?
The best way to deal nonlethal if you want to use enforcer, in my opinion is the +1 nonlethal from the ARG orc weapon expertise (thug).
Side question
can natural weapons choose between doing lethal and non lethal without penalty ? or is that just unarmed ?
Alchemist Vivosectionist gets sneak attack progression and natural attacks might be a nice combo with sap adept for just such a purpose and you get other nice things like extracts to round out your character
Natural weapons deal lethal damage. Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage.
The only difference is that proficiency with unarmed strikes confers the ability to choose to deal lethal damage, instead.
As for whether or not merciful is worth it: the above posters are correct. Nonlethal damage heals off at the same rate as lethal damage. You're setting up your opponents for "double healing" when you deal nonlethal. You're also exempting yourself from being able to harm some types of monsters with your weapon property (constructs, undead, and a few rare creatures and classes, such as undead-bloodline sorcerers).
All in all, I think merciful weapons are very worthwhile for the cost of a +1 weapon. It is convenient to take enemies alive about as often as it is inconvenient to deal with nonlethal-immune enemies. Besides, at least as many enemies are immune to flaming weapons as merciful.
|
I'm surprised the maths doesn't stack up.
One additional point that I think needs to be made though is that merciful weapons work well with DR (unlike flaming, etc, weapons).
I actually like the fact that you don't kill outright with non-lethal damage. In a non-lethal situation, like a bar-rooom brawl, it means you can fight effectively without ending up in prison. In other cases, you can simply bash your opponent into deep unconsciousness (do 20x their level and they're out for 20 hours), and then if necessary come back and top them up.
From an alignment p.o.v. you could argue that a coup-de-gras is a mercy-killing, at least for non-intelligent creatures. For intelligent ones, once they come to without all their kit, they're unlikely to come running after you.
And in any case it's a bit odd to say that non-lethal damage is more evil than lethal.
Richard
... in any case it's a bit odd to say that non-lethal damage is more evil than lethal.
Richard
Non-lethal is not more evil. It is murdering the helpless afterward that most feel is more lethal. (Even though it is not really logical it is commonly held attitude.)
|
|
Most of these comments are true but relatively meaningless. In the corner cases where you run into a creature that is immune to non-lethal or that has enough in combat healing to be relevant then you just torn the merciful enchant off.
The big advantage to always doing non-lethal with the Merciful enchant is the extra 1D6 damage your weapon is now doing. Why? Because since it's untyped by the enchant it becomes the same type as what the weapon already does so it should ignore most immunities and helps the weapon bypasses DR.
be careful when bashing your opponents into deep unconsciousness, when an ennemy has double it's hitpoints in nonlethal damage, it dies nonetheless (don't worry I wasn't aware of that rule before too).
So Sap-Mastering some poor bugger in a bar fight will probably land you in jail nontheless.
Also explain to the authorities after you just took a barroom apart with the greatclub or warhammer, that it was not an "assault with a deadly weapon" but instead just the equivalent of a fistfight
be careful when bashing your opponents into deep unconsciousness, when an ennemy has double it's hitpoints in nonlethal damage, it dies nonetheless (don't worry I wasn't aware of that rule before too).
So Sap-Mastering some poor bugger in a bar fight will probably land you in jail nontheless.
The rule is actually:
If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.I had to go look that up after you mentioned it.
Side question
can natural weapons choose between doing lethal and non lethal without penalty ? or is that just unarmed ?
Alchemist Vivosectionist gets sneak attack progression and natural attacks might be a nice combo with sap adept for just such a purpose and you get other nice things like extracts to round out your character
If you are a follower of Sarenrae, you can take the blade of mercy trait and turn some of your natural attacks (those that deal slashing damage) into nonlethal.
At least I think that works.
|
The big advantage to always doing non-lethal with the Merciful enchant is the extra 1D6 damage your weapon is now doing. Why? Because since it's untyped by the enchant it becomes the same type as what the weapon already does so it should ignore most immunities and helps the weapon bypasses DR.
Yeah, but it's only 2.5 damage more, on average, than what you would get if you took another + instead of merciful. Also, you'll be hitting a little less often, and that + would also contribute to bypassing various types of reduction (Cold Iron/Silver at +3, Adamantine at +4, alignment at +5).
I wouldn't pass up a decent nonlethal weapon if I found one, but neither would I seek one out or build a character around the concept.
Also explain to the authorities after you just took a barroom apart with the greatclub or warhammer, that it was not an "assault with a deadly weapon" but instead just the equivalent of a fistfight
In a world where magic is real and merciful weapons have been heard of, I bet you could argue that it shouldn't be counted as assault with a lethal weapon.
Assault, sure, but the weapon is literally impossible to kill with.
Though for some reason I'm remembering some obscure 3.0 D&D rule where enough subdual damage actually can be lethal.
|
|
Just on the maths. I don't think it's straight forward in the general case, but on a "typical" case of needing an 11 to hit and doing 10 points of damage on average (round numbers).
Assume over 20 shots with a longbow you roll 1-20 in turn. Total damage is 9 x 10 (normal hits) + 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.5 (chance of confirming crit) = 105.
In this case, +1 to hit (10 x 10 + 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.55 = 116.5) and +1 to damage (9 x 11 + 1 x 3 x 11 x 0.5 = 115.5) yields almost the same benefit (11.5 or 10.5). So +3.5 damage per hit is going to be a lot better than +1 to hit +1 damage.
If you need a 16 to hit, this changes as follows:
Ordinary damage = 4 * 10 (normal) + 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.25 = 47.5
Extra +1 to hit = 5 * 10 + 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.3 = 59
Extra +1 damage = 4 * 11 + 1 x 3 x 11 * 0.25 = 52.25
So now +1 to hit is worth about + 2.3 damage, which is still less than the extra 2.5 that merciful gives you.
In the extreme case, I suppose, if you need a 20 to hit:
Ordinary damage = 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.05 = 1.5
Extra +1 to hit = 10 + 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.1 = 13
Extra +1 damage = 1 x 3 x 11 x 0.05 = 1.65
So the +1 to hit is 10x better.
Does that look right?
Richard
I currently play a paladin/gunslinger with +1 merciful DBL barrel pistols.
my motto with Merciful damage is this: all a man needs is a good asswhooping to see the error of his ways. if you are stupid enough to get back up and attack after I gave you a chance to change the merciful comes off. and the justice comes on and you die.
Yeah, but it's only 2.5 damage more, on average, than what you would get if you took another + instead of merciful. Also, you'll be hitting a little less often [..]
You can work around this by using Greater Magic Weapon (assuming someone in your party can cast it).
[..] and that + would also contribute to bypassing various types of reduction (Cold Iron/Silver at +3, Adamantine at +4, alignment at +5).
True, but you can work around some types of DR by using the appropriate material to begin with or by using the appropriate spell/item (e.g. silversheen, align weapon).
I have a PC with a merciful weapon and I think it's great. The only real hassle is turning the merciful property off when we're fighting undead.
|
|
Ah, it was the Deadly enchantment. It's in the ARG.
Here:
Deadly (weapon special ability): This special ability can
only be placed on weapons that normally deal nonlethal
damage, such as whips and saps. All damage a deadly
weapon deals is lethal damage. A whip (or similar weapon
that cannot damage creatures with armor or natural
armor bonuses) with this special ability deals damage even
to creatures with armor or natural armor. On command,
the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it.
Faint necromancy; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and
Armor, inflict light wounds; Price +1 bonus.
Well with non-lethal damage they are still alive. That can be a huge drawback.
Monks choose lethal or non-lethal on Unarmed Strikes as a class ability.
|
Just on the maths. I don't think it's straight forward in the general case, but on a "typical" case of needing an 11 to hit and doing 10 points of damage on average (round numbers).
Assume over 20 shots with a longbow you roll 1-20 in turn.
... MATH ...
If you need a 16 to hit, this changes as follows:
Ordinary damage = 4 * 10 (normal) + 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.25 = 47.5
... MATH ...
Ordinary damage = 1 x 3 x 10 x 0.05 = 1.5
... MATH ...
Does that look right?
Richard
No, I don't think these numbers are quite right. It doesn't affect your overall argument, a +1 to hit is better than a +1 damage except in cases where hitting is extremely easy. You have exaggerated the amount by which it is better though.
Your error seems to be in forgetting that the potential critical hit arrow still does normal damage if the crit fails to confirm. For example, in the case of need a 20 to hit the ordinary total damage (20 arrows rolling a 1-20 each) would be...
19(0) + 1[.95(10) + .05(30)] = 11 damage.
The 1.5 you calculated was the .05(30) part, the other 9.5 needed to get to my 11 value is the damage of the arrow if it fails to confirm. Another way to think of it is that if the arrow hits, it does 10 damage. If that 20 turns into a crit it gets two extra dice. This is another 20 damage, with a 1/20 chance of happening, so the damage goes up to 11 from 10.
With these corrections your new numbers would be...
Needing a 16 to hit.
Ordinary Damage: 55 hp
+1 to hit: 66 hp
+1 damage: 60.5 hp
So, +1 to hit is about 10% better.
Needing a 20 to hit.
Ordinary damage: 11 hp
+1 to hit: 22 hp
+1 damage: 12.1 hp
Here, +1 to hit is almost twice as good.
I didn't run the numbers for needing an 11 to hit, because I think this is enough math for everyone already.
|
|
You're absolutely right - I did forget that.
The interesting thing I think is at what point is it better to have merciful (+1d6 damage) rather than a straight +1.
On a 16 to hit:
Ordinary damage = 4 * 10 (normal) + 30 x 0.25 + 10 * .75 = 54.5
Extra +1/+1 = 5 * 11 + 33 x 0.3 + 11 * .7 = 72.6
Extra +3.5 damage = 4 * 13.5 + 40.5 x 0.25 + 13.5 * .75 = 74.25
- Merciful is better
On a 17 to hit:
Ordinary damage = 3 * 10 (normal) + 30 x 0.2 + 10 * .8 = 44
Extra +1/+1 = 4 * 11 + 33 x 0.25 + 11 * .75 = 60.5
Extra +3.5 damage = 3 * 13.5 + 40.5 x 0.2 + 13.5 * .8 = 59.4
- +1 is better
So the cross-over point seems to be at 17 to hit.
Does that look right?
Not a lot of difference in the end, is there!
Richard
|
I don't see anything wrong with using Non-lethal damage in a typical encounter. In all the AP's I've read or run there are few to no Clerics sitting back and healing their side as they take damage. And if the bad guy NPC has healing potions they are blowing a turn drinking that instead of damaging you.
Afterwards you have a prisoner to question. The advice about just killing them sounds like few in this thread are playing or even like playing Good aligned characters which is pretty typical IMX.
I can easily see any Paladin, Cleric (esp w/ healing domain), Monks, & Bards choosing merciful weapons.
--Technical Vrock Out
|
|
Richard,
Is the +1d6 from merciful multiplied on a critical hit? I was under the impression that, as a extra damage die, it would only be applied once on a critical hit.
If this is the case, then when you need a 16 to hit, the total damage would be 72.5 instead of 74.25. So, +1/+1 would be better at needing a 16 to hit as well.
If you needed a 16 or more to hit, then +1/+1 is better. Anything 15 and under, go with Merciful. This seems to suggest that merciful is better in most circumstances, especially if you are looking at a full BAB class, as you will seldom need to roll that high to hit with your first attack. I looked at iterative attacks and they don't have a large enough affect to bother calculating to too much detail I don't think.