"The weapon cannot do lethal and non-lethal damage at the same time"
no one argues with that, the user of the weapon has to choose if the weapon in the end is lethal or nonlethal, and the additional 1d6 damage also changes according to that choice
but instead this +3 modifier weapon you could also choose a +1d6 fire/cold/acid weapon for the same price, for a total of +3d6 damage
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.
Again, I disagree. Because you're oversimplifying it.
Merciful: deals extra damage, and all damage is non-lethal.
Deadly: all damage is lethal and allows you to damage creatures with natural armor.
If you cancel out the "all damage is non-lethal" and "all damage is lethal", you're left with an extra 1d6 damage that affects creatures with natural armor. That's not a negation of the entire enchantment.
As far as "Lefty" and "Righty": if you activate Lefty first, the weapon will swing left. If you activate Righty and the weapon will swing right. If you activate both, the weapon will swing to the left and to the right (probably in the order they were activated). () Unless specified, that wouldn't get you another attack, though.
This situation is more like:
"Lefty" - makes the weapon swing to the left and deals extra damage
"Righty" - makes the weapon swing to the right and allows you to affect creatures with natural armor
"Both" - deals extra damage and allows you to affect creatures with natural armor.
But again, that's kind of besides the point. The point is, that if you apply Merciful first, it adds damage and converts all damage to non-lethal. If you then subsequently apply Deadly, it converts all non-lethal to lethal. It's an order-of-operations question, not a "they cancel out" question. Again, in the "lefty and righty" scenario, by the logic we're using, if "righty" was activated last, that would be the one that took precedence, but any part of "lefty" (any "rider"-type effects) that is not rendered irrelevant continues to function (ala the extra damage dealt).
Seriously, I understand what you're saying. I've understood your argument for some time. But I'm not saying what should happen at your table. I'm saying what I understand by RAW.
I mean, this is basically your exact argument in the "length of a lie" thread: the RAW has a bug, but that's how it functions nonetheless. In this case, here's a bug, but that's how it functions. And it's not really worth saying "no" to, as, ultimately, it's an extra 1d6 damage for a +2 enchantment.
I don't see why not, that is exactly how it is supposed to work by all the rules.
"Because the ability that is adding the 1d6 makes the damage non-lethal. so the damage added is non-lethal."
And the other one makes it all lethal again, simple.
If fire/ice damage on same weapon don't cancel each other out then this shouldn't either. Heck, this actually makes more sense than the fire/ice one. It is magic in the end anyway.
|
This is not meant to sound mean, or be mean, but:
"I don't like it", is not a valid argument for RAW.
It's a great argument for houserules, but that is something different.
Accusations of being knowingly ignorant, or lacking common sense are also things to be avoided. They are needless, and inflammatory.
The argument has been, though, that you can get that 1d6 damage to turn into lethal damage even though the Merciful ability is active, because the Deadly ability is active.
My compromise above was to deal with having to allow THAT to work somehow. I don't like that compromise, and that was just an example of what I'd say with a gun to my head to let both of them work at the same time.
If you are treating it as only one on or off at a time, then I don't see a problem with this. You can activate Merciful and get the 1d6 and non-lethal, or you can activate the Deadly and get the whips, sap, etc. stuff and deadly. Not both at the same time though.
When reading the thread, it seemed it was about trying to get the 1d6 to work when Deadly was active too. That I just can't get behind.
... it... it is about getting the 1d6 to work!
Look.
Merciful: adds 1d6, converts all to non-lethal.
--> you can't even take a -4 penalty to deal lethal damage; it's all non-lethal!
Deadly: converts all damage to lethal, allows you to affect natural armor creatures
--> you can't even take a -4 penalty to deal non-lethal damage; it's all lethal!
To put this in math terms, EVEN IF you accept that the Deadly/Merciful nonlethal/lethal cancel each other out (which I don't), it would look like this:
Merciful: y-1
--> where y = "deals 1d6 extra damage" and -1 represents "it's all nonlethal"
Deadly: x+1
--> where x = "affects AC critters" and +1 represents "it's all lethal"
Deadly/Merciful: +1-1+y+x = y+x
--> That leaves you with "deals 1d6 extra damage" and "affects AC critters"
AT MINIMUM, this is what happens when these two interact by RAW.
I, however, treat it more like:
> Merciful: (y + z) * {1 or -1 [whichever makes it non-lethal]}
> Deadly: (x + z) * {1 or -1 [whichever makes it lethal]}; caveat, this function can only be placed on an item that is "normally" non-lethal
> Where z = the natural properties of the weapon in the first place.
For the sake of clarity, let's define the damage value of a non-lethal weapons as "-n", and that being "negative" as being "non-lethal" (as they both start with "n").
So, presuming a non-lethal weapon to start with (giving "n" a negative value), we would apply Merciful first.
(y*-1)+(-n*1)= -y-n
That means that "-y-n" would naturally lead to a negative (non-lethal) result. This is now our new base weapon value, so we'll title that "o". Now that we've got that out of the way, we apply Deadly (order of operations):
(x+o)*{1 or -1} = (x*1)+(o*-1)
Or, using basic algebra...
(x*1) + ([-y*-1]+[-n*-1]) = (x*1)+([y*1]+[n*1]) = (x)+(y+n) = n+x+y
In other words, we end up with a lethal-damage weapon (thus the "non-negative" value of "n") that retains the properties that are not dependent upon the non-lethal nature of the previous weapon (the "y").
The above equation is a gross simplification of actual math (and contains a few errors in presentation), but it functions to get it's point across: the order of operations matter.
That's the argument that I'm positing to allow blackbloodtroll to do this. But don't want it at your table? Don't let if fly! I know that if someone really wanted to spend a +2 bonus on a normally non-lethal weapon (which tend to deal lousy damage anyway) to get an extra +1d6 damage, I'd let it slide. That means nothing at your tables, however.
Chillaxe dudes.
Word up.
*fist-bump*
I'd never allow it.
This is the problem, your problem. You already decided how it should work as per your own opinion, as per your own houserule. You no longer discuss here the actual, current rules what the reason for the thread is.
You'd be lucky I didn't rule your weapon doesn't do ANY damage for trying to make such an impossible event occur.
Why would he be lucky? Are you his GM? Or a dev? Opinions given are important but this sounds out of place.
setzer9999: No. You're doing the exact same thing you fussed at Dorje Sylas for doing in the lie-length thread! Exact!
I understand what you're saying. I really, really do. Please understand that I get it. We are currently talking past each other, and you're venturing into the "in my campaign" ground, which is great and totally valid, but it's not what we're looking at here.
The merciful property does two things.
1) adds extra damage [it does this first]
2) converts all damage to non-lethal [it does this second]
The deadly property does three things.
1) it only applies to a weapon that is, at it's base, nonlethal [this is first]
2) changes the weapon damage to lethal [it does this second]
3) allows the non-lethal weapon to affect creatures with decent AC [this is third]
Parts "two" of merciful and deadly contradict each other... after a fashion. But just like +1 and -1 in math, they don't automatically cancel each other out... the order of operations and how they interact is what matters*.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue this further. I'll respond to specific points, sure, but at this point, we're just talking past one another saying the same things.
* Example:
(+1)+(-1) = 0 <-- this is how you're looking at it
(+1)x(-1) = -1 <-- this is how I'm looking at it
Same numbers, same nature, both interacting, two different results, both valid in different ways.
okay you don't care about RAW, we get it, but this thread is asking about the rules, which is RAW, unless it has an errata RAI right now doesn't matter, but even by RAI I don't see a problem here. Seems like many others neither.
Using a Candle of Invocation to gate in a Genie then wishing for 3 more Candle of Invocation's until the cows come home is an EXTREME abuse of RAI, this is merely an amusing intellectual debate.
It's not a paradox. I've shown how you can take two things that are opposites (-1 and +1) and not have them net nothing (they can yield 0 or -1, depending on what you do with them).
You're insisting, "It's addition!"
We're saying, "It's multiplication!"
Same elements, different procedure, different results. Not an abuse of RAI.
Also, what Glutton said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you're talking about a sap or whip with a +3 equivalent enhancement that deals an extra d6 lethal damage. Big whup.
Merciful is adding non-lethal damage which Deadly then changes to Lethal.
It's a very expensive, sup-par enchantment combination, which makes perfect sense considering what all that magic is going into doing.
it does make sense, even if it sounds silly, a vorpal merciful weapon would cause just slightly more nonlethal damage than a non-merciful lethal vorpal weapon, just enough to deal enough non-lethal damage to make it deadly, if you ride on words then let's point out there is no "-nonlethal" damage and that is made up, all damage can be lethal, and by rules non-lethal damage can also kill
in the end a merciful vorpal blade may be exactly what it is called, a merciful weapon that either makes you lose consciousness or kill you outright without much pain
Now I want a monkey made of cheese.
But really, the people saying that the two working together is fine, make sense to me.
And I'd argue that "multiplying" them is as much a house ruling. Why do you think stacking the abilities is multiplying? Stacking is adding. You add an effect that makes all damage only non-lethal to an effect that makes the damage lethal. What part of that is multiplication?
The part where two things can interact and come up with something holding traits of only one of them.
You are also assuming you can assign "-1" to one of them and "1" to the other. That is an assumption, not a fact. You are arbitrarily assigning numbers to effects that play out as numbers that support your theory.
No, it's not an "assumption v. fact". You're entire argument has been "these two things are opposites, when they add together they negate". That is the crux of choosing -1 and +1: two opposite things that, when added together, negate (-1+1=0). This is your argument.
So, I assign both as a 1. They are both a single effect. They don't get different values the way we are describing them here.
But they do have different values. They have, in fact, according to your own arguments earlier, opposite values: lethal and non-lethal.
1 = an effect
2 = two effects1+1=2
The 2 effects however, can't coexist in the same event. Therefore, this math problem doesn't do an adequate job of defining what just happened. In fact, you can't make an equation that does, because what just happened isn't physically possible, so it can't be modeled with math. That's the problem.
Currently, setzer9999, you are simply throwing numbers together and say "It doesn't work like that!" The reason your "1+1=2" has no bearing here, is that you're using it entirely incorrectly.
Your argument is thus.
One thing has a value/effect. Another thing has the opposite value effect. Add them together and they negate.
You can represent this as +1 and -1 (because -1+1=0), or +2 and -2 (because -2+2=0), or +3 and -3 (because -3+3=0), or any other equivalent positive/negative value. It doesn't matter. Your point is that the two things are opposites and they should negate.
I have shown that you can cause opposite things to interact and generate an outcome that favors one of them over the other, where they don't negate.
I'm not upset by it working. I just don't see how it can work.
Lethal damage and non-lethal damage are not a binary set. You can't assign "-1" to one and "1" to the other, and call it a day. There is at least one other option: no damage.
Lethal damage and non-lethal damage are only at odds here because you can't deal lethal and non-lethal as the TOTALITY of the damage in the same strike. If you were dealing PART lethal, and PART non-lethal, I wouldn't have the same issue. It's the all or nothing, and it can't be both at the same time, that I have a problem with. The problem is that the weapon is trying to deal non-lethal damage entirely, and lethal damage entirely, at the same time.
The order of operations is simultaneous because weapon effects go off at the moment a hit is confirmed. If you want to house rule that the effect happens at the moment you activate, then that solves the problem... but that's a house rule too.
"No damage" doesn't make sense at all. It has no bearing here. You're indicating that one effect that allows you to deal damage, and another effect that allows you to deal damage generate a lack of damage. This makes less sense than anything you've cited as not making sense.
Also, the order of operations is not simultaneous, because the effects are activated or deactivated at the wielder's option, and are then constant, not when the weapon hits. Activate one effect, and it's headed one way, activate the other effect, and it goes that one instead. Think of it like hitting switches in a puzzle game. The order could be quite important.
Heck, I even showed you how this would work with "Righty" and "Lefty".
So clearly, a Merciful Vorpal Longsword can only deal nonlethal damage, and so such a weapon isn't life-threatening. I guess if I roll a crit and sever someone's head, it will just be "healed quickly with rest" - strictly by RAW.
This is just silly. The vorpal sword doesn't kill because of hit point damage (which is the meaning of lethal/non-lethal damage). It kills because of decapitation. Any hit point damage will be nonlethal. Decapitation is more similar to a death effect (unless you're one of those creatures that doesn't have to worry about it). [ninja'd!]
Point it, "damage" has a certain meaning, as does "lethal" and "non-lethal".
So when both are active you wish to claim that the deadly somehow supersedes the merciful?
Why not the opposite? The merciful overrides the deadly?
And when we get to that point, why not one completely overriding the other by activation?
Again, can one with a merciful weapon elect to deal lethal with it? Or deadly deal non-lethal? What happens when one tries to do so?
Order of operations. As I've said. If the deadly was active first followed by the merciful, it would deal non-lethal, but retain the other traits. If the merciful was activated first followed by the deadly, it would deal lethal, but retain the other traits.
What happens is you enter an infinite loop where the damage is lethal, is non-lethal, is lethal, is non-lethal, is... not possible.
This... this is... setzer9999, you've genuinely created an actual strawman! I don't even like the word "strawman"!
I've clearly shown how you can cause two opposite effects to interact and not fall into this loop. You are being deliberately obtuse and dismissing arguments counter to your own as nonsense by using nonsense, and then claiming "see, since what I said was nonsense, this entire thread is nonsense".You are totally valid to rule that the lethal/non-lethal parts negate each other by RAW. That is totally legit. You're also totally valid to rule that the entirety of the enchantments negate each other... as a house rule. That's fine. Equally RAW, however, (and especially given the nature of the spells used as a base) is the view that the order of operations matter. I've shown how this functions. You dismissed it by saying "it doesn't work that way, it works this way, except the way I'm saying it works doesn't work, so clearly it can't ever work". That is false.
I admit that my way is an interpretation. So is yours. They are both RAW, however.
And LazarX, really: stop. Stop going into other threads and saying petty things at the OPs, just because you don't like whatever it is they've said. I've grown in respect for you recently, but please, just be more civil in general. You can disagree with someone without saying nasty things at or about them.
And I can totally see an awakened permanently animated large block of cheese previously carved to resemble a monkey. That would be pretty terrific. Off topic, but terrific.
blackbloodtroll, you've got your answer(s) until an actual FAQ can come up. I'd suggest leaving this thread, as it's unlikely to generate else anything usable for now.
EDITED for clarity and word choice.
I'm not going to reply to each individual thing you posted,
That's fine.
...because most of what you are saying is based on a flawed assumption.
Flawed reading and impression, perhaps. Not assumption.
I am not saying that lethal and non-lethal damage are opposites. In fact, I'm specifically saying that they are NOT direct opposites. I'm saying you can't call one -1 and the other 1 because the are not diametrically opposed.
Okay, let's look at an earlier post you made (one that I partially agreed with):
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.
This is arguing that they negate each other. That's Howie23's argument and what you backed him up with this post. The rest of the post is good, though. Bolding mine.
For clarity, here's Howie23's post:
What exactly occurs when a weapon has both the Merciful and Deadly enchantments?From the Magic Chapter on Combining Magical Effects:
"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:...."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."
******************************
Sounds like GM makes a ruling; I would use this as the basis for "they cancel if both are active." The alternative is that the game in session immediately falls into a black hole.
On the plus side, it makes for an interesting plot element to find out the source of exactly what the dude who made the weapon was on. Or, what the story was behind its creation.
I obviously disagree with his conclusion. But it's his conclusion to make for his games. And I like the story ideas he notes.
Doing NO damage is the opposite of either of them. They are DIFFERENT not opposites. Modeling them as "canceling out" is incorrect. They do totally different things with a different paradigm entirely. They can't actually be added or subtracted from one another at all. Non-lethal damage is a completely different thing, a completely different effect, than lethal damage. Similar, but entirely a separate thing. Yet, both rely on being delivered as the quality of the attack IN TOTAL.
Okay, so let's look at that. What is the opposite of "dealing damage"? Healing damage. Neither of these heal damage (though the base spell necessary for one of them does), so lets say, based off of this new model you've presented, that they are not opposites, but, in fact, incompatible.
So, what you are arguing now (and you have argued this before, too), is that it doesn't work at all. Okay. That's an... interesting interpretation. You're arguing that the game should break and cease to be playable because, unless someone interprets it like you do, they're looking at it "wrong"? Is this what you're suggesting? Because that's not how I look at it.
You're insisting...
The damage types are not-compatible, but they both require and modify the same catalyst event: the damage from the attack. This is why none of this works. They aren't opposite bonuses/penalties that add or multiply together. They are fundamentally incompatible within any reality.
I'm going to try again, because I really see what you're saying, but you're not seeing what I'm saying.
Let's take your previous argument:
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?
<snipped silly>
This is just one of those situations where it simply cannot be the case. You either get to do lethal, or non-lethal damage.
No one is saying that it does deal lethal and non-lethal at the same time. You are literally arguing against something no one is saying.
What I'm saying is that one effect takes place first (Merciful, in this case, because we purposefully activate that one first) then a second, conflicting effect (Deadly) takes over and, because it was activated after, it now takes precedence. BUT, because Merciful has an effect that is not negated by Deadly, the effect that is not negated (the extra 1d6 damage) remains.
That's it. Conceptually, yeah, "Merciful" and "Deadly" are kind of opposites, but, again, I'm pointing out something legal, not how you need to run your own games.
EDIT: Also, worth noting I actually agree with those people who would say, "not in my campaign". Because it's their campaign to make the decision. In my campaign, it'd be fine. Also, I like Howie23's concepts - the story idea he put down earlier, as well as some of the other "enforcer" type ideas. In those situations, you're going to have to make a decision: eliminate the weapon combination entirely, or find a way to resolve the effects. The way we're suggestion successfully resolves the effects in a reasonably coherent manner and makes the weapon both conceptually sound and useful. That +2 bonus (+3 total weapon) grants: a +1 non-lethal weapon that deals 1d6 extra damage and the ability to affect those with armor bonuses greater than +1; it can either be made all lethal or all non-lethal. That's... pretty cool.
Also, I'd be hecka-interested in seeing a Merciful Vorpal weapon in play. Perhaps a sacred relic to some kind of god of gamblers? Like playing Russian Roulette. That would be a very interesting plot-hook indeed.
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.
Hey, look! Opposites! It's almost like you're saying they're opposite!
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.
Hey, look! Opposites! It's almost like you're saying they're opposite! Again!
Look, I totally understand if you've changed your mind, or feel that you were previously unclear (I do that all the time), but the distinct implication here is that they're opposites.
EDIT: word clarity and adding a spoilered note
So, the real only question this actually boils down to is this:
Does the damage type a weapon deals based on enchantment get applied on activation, or on weapon strike? Really, at it's core, that ends up being all the entire argument is about.
I agree entirely! And my interpretation of RAW is that it gets applied on activation. I can understand someone looking at it the other way, but for game purposes, for me, I see the other way.
That way, it functions together coherently and allows the game to continue! But, as always, it's up to (in generic, not specific terms) you and your campaign! :)
Done! :)