I believe that Merciful applies to the weapon damage, but not the conducted ability.
Conductive changes the cost and the delivery method of the ability, but nothing else.
When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type, he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, who takes the effects of the weapon attack and the special ability.
While the target takes both the effects of the weapon attack and the special ability, the effects of the second do not become effects of the first. It is still the wielder's magical ability that is having an effect, the weapon is only a delivery conduit.
If a magus used Spellstrike through a Merciful weapon, wouldn't her spell have its regular effects ?
Now if the weapon itself was the source, such as if it was flaming or shocking, then those would be merciful as well.
Note also that Conductive applies the wielder's magical ability only to the struck opponent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the latter, then it stands to reason that other rider effects such as a Magus's Spellstrike or the result of the Conductive ability would equally be converted to non-lethal.
This is where I disagree. I think the SOURCE of the damage is the determining factor, not the path (through the weapon).
If you have merciful (active) on a weapon any damage it does, even rider damage, is non-lethal. While there is no clear statement regarding this there is plenty of precedent that rider effects have the same damage type etc as the main effect unless specifically stated otherwise.
Example: Sneak Attack Damage through a piercing weapon is piercing damage.
So Flaming Merciful does non-lethal fire damage. After all, there are Merciful Fireballs so why shouldn't merciful apply to the fire from a Merciful Flaming Sword?
As for Conductive, I would lean towards Conductive being a rider effect, and thus merciful applies to that effect.
If you have merciful (active) on a weapon any damage it does, even rider damage, is non-lethal. While there is no clear statement regarding this there is plenty of precedent that rider effects have the same damage type etc as the main effect unless specifically stated otherwise.
Example: Sneak Attack Damage through a piercing weapon is piercing damage.
So Flaming Merciful does non-lethal fire damage. After all, there are Merciful Fireballs so why shouldn't merciful apply to the fire from a Merciful Flaming Sword?
As for Conductive, I would lean towards Conductive being a rider effect, and thus merciful applies to that effect.
Plenty? Not only is that example a misnomer, but also lacks the inconsistencies the original texts possess. Sneak Attack actually has clauses which states you can't do non-lethal damage with a Sneak Attack unless the attack itself is normally lethal (and not adjusted via suffering the penalty). The Merciful Metamagic Feat and the Merciful Weapon Property also have different rules; even if they're identical in function, they're not the same, because they're applied and governed differently from each other.
Simply put, effects which improve upon the weapon's damage (such as Strength, enhancement bonus, class features like Weapon Training) would probably count as being non-lethal, but effects which are separate and independent from the weapon's damage (such as an alchemist's bomb, kineticist's blast, spell via spellstrike, and so on) would not, on the grounds that the Merciful weapon property applies to damage dealt through the attack made by the wielder (without rider effects), not through extraneous features which are applied by circumstance (which are rider effects).
|
If you have merciful (active) on a weapon any damage it does, even rider damage, is non-lethal. While there is no clear statement regarding this there is plenty of precedent that rider effects have the same damage type etc as the main effect unless specifically stated otherwise.
Example: Sneak Attack Damage through a piercing weapon is piercing damage.
So Flaming Merciful does non-lethal fire damage. After all, there are Merciful Fireballs so why shouldn't merciful apply to the fire from a Merciful Flaming Sword?
As for Conductive, I would lean towards Conductive being a rider effect, and thus merciful applies to that effect.
Gauss you are applying that wrong.
Some thing, like sneak attack, precision damage, strength bonus, enhancement bonuses, bane and so on add directly its damage to the weapon damage.Riders, like the effect of channeling, a magus spell strike, and so on don't add to that, they are separate sources of damage and stay lethal if they were originally lethal or non lethal if the were originally non lethal.
Energy damage dealt by the weapon that is not a rider, like flaming, can be interpreted both ways.
Read the abilities:
Merciful: 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).
and Conductive:
Conductive
...
A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric's domain granted power, sorcerer's bloodline power, oracle's mystery revelation, or wizard's arcane school power). When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type, he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.) For example, a paladin who strikes an undead opponent with her conductive greatsword can expend two uses of her lay on hands ability (a supernatural melee touch attack) to deal both greatsword damage and damage from one use of lay on hands. This weapon special ability can only be used once per round, and only works with magical abilities of the same type as the weapon (melee or ranged).
The target "suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability." They are separate items, not the same set of damage.
Merciful affect only the weapon damage, not the special ability.|
|
Does that mean that, with a +1 Merciful Greatsword, I deals 3d6+1 non-lethal damage plus 4 lethal damage from my Strength modifier and 1 lethal damage from my Weapon Specialization feat? Because the source of the Str damage is my Strength modifier, not the weapon. The source of the +1 is Weapon Specialization, not the weapon. If you're going to argue that only damage that is specifically sourced to the weapon, then those don't apply. But with a +1 Flaming Merciful Greatsword, the 1d6 Fire damage is from the weapon. Unless you're going to split hairs and say the 1d6 is from the Flaming Enhancement and it's just using the Greatsword as the "path" for the fire damage.If the latter, then it stands to reason that other rider effects such as a Magus's Spellstrike or the result of the Conductive ability would equally be converted to non-lethal.This is where I disagree. I think the SOURCE of the damage is the determining factor, not the path (through the weapon).
You are using a logical fallacy to argue.
Damage
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
You add the strength bonus to the damage, and the damage is determined by the weapon you use.
The source of the damage is the weapon, not your strength. Your strength, specialization, etc. add to the weapon damage and share its kind.
