| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavall is correct in all respects.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I’m trying to accomplish does not matter to the rules. .
It does to me.
You're asking about an extreme edge case in the rules. There is no such thing as Rules as Written in such an edge case. I think that Cavall's answer is about as good as you're going to get. "Pick the order"is most certainly NOT RAW (its not at all a bad decision as to how to resolve the issue but the rules certainly don't actually say that).
So, the only answer that matters is "Ask your GM. Its their decision".
And if I was the GM the first question I'd ask is "what are you trying to accomplish?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavall is correct in all respects.How? It looks like to me that the extra damage from Merciful is still there even if Deadly changes the damage to lethal, because Merciful is still active. And he didn’t even address the Deadly clause about dealing damage to creatures with armor bonuses.
Doesn’t look correct at all.
Merciful was written with the baseline assumption that weapons deal lethal damage, and provides a way to switch on or off nonlethal damage. Deadly was written for a weapon that normally does nonlethal damage, and "permanently" switches it to lethal damage.
The correct interaction between them is that Deadly makes your whip a "normal" weapon always doing lethal damage (in the same way that any weapon without Merciful or a special quality always does lethal damage), but Merciful allows you to toggle nonlethal back on (because of the enchantment, not the inherent nonlethal quality that you got rid of with Deadly).
Since both abilities can be activated or suppressed on command it depends on what you have active, what the baseline weapon is and what order the abilities are activated in.
Examples:
Medium Dagger
Both abilities off: 1d4 lethal
Merciful only: 1d4+1d6 nonlethal
*Lethal only: 1d4 lethal
Merciful & then Lethal: 1d4+1d6 lethal
*Lethal & then Merciful: 1d4+1d6 nonlethal
*Since the weapon is no longer a valid target for the enchantment, it's reasonable to state that the enchantment simply does not activate. Meaning this combination is invalid.
Medium Whip
Both abilities off: 1d3 nonlethal
Merciful only: 1d3+1d6 nonlethal
Lethal only: 1d3 lethal
Merciful & then Lethal: 1d3+1d6 lethal
Lethal & then Merciful: 1d3+1d6 nonlethal
I think it's worth noting that activating a magic item with a command word is a standard action. So, switching between lethal and non-lethal will at minimum take a standard action. It's also effectively a +2 enchantment to add a d6 dmg and give you the option of making the weapon lethal vs nonlethal. Which costs the same as say Stalking which is both better and worse then this.
If both enchantments are active, the stronger language used in Merciful is going to win out.
"A merciful weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, but all damage it deals is nonlethal damage."
Deadly doesn't have any similar language. All it does is change the weapon from non-lethal to normal with a switch to suppress this ability.
As long as Merciful is active it will do an extra 1d6 and all of the damage will be non-lethal. The only way the weapon will do lethal damage is if you suppress merciful and have deadly active.
what version of deadly are you looking at?
All damage a deadly weapon deals is normal (lethal) damage.
That language seems equally strong to what you quoted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The crux of the argument is that it never had to be an argument in the first place, man. I dont respond to your questions to poke you into reaction. I respond because someone asked a question in the rules forum and I try to answer as best I can, even if it's not the answer you want.
Just ask a question and be willing to accept the answer, rather than ask for validation of something you've already set your mind on.
You don't need us for that. You never did.
this could really be the answer to every single one of your threads
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you post back its because you've already set your mind to the answer you want, and refuse to budge. This makes you by your own admission Depressed.
I've no want to depress you for getting this answer. Or feeling g like because you want it another way you're an idiot.
This is just the answer as it is. If you don't like it house rule it and move on without getting angry or depressed.
I suggest you stop talking. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to depression.
Real depression isn’t something you just get when things don’t go your way. It is something you live with 24/7. It isn’t something that can be shut off by just willing it away. It can be stalled with medication, but not cured. And guess whose life is so pathetic that he can’t afford a $4 co-pay on a refill for his antidepressents, because he lives on disability, for being on the autism spectrum? I, completely randomly, lost the desire to do anything at all when I was in that other thread, thought “I should take my antidepressants”, then remembered I can’t f$#+ing afford them right now, and that sapped all will from me to do anything at all. I barely was able to say why I wasn’t continuing.
And now you’ve reminded me how pathetic my life is. I’m arguing with some complete stranger over the internet about how they shouldn’t discuss mental health issues over the internet when they don’t know what they are talking about, and the crux of the argument is explaining how pathetic I am.
Well you may not have wanted to make me depressed, but you definitely did. I’m out.
That’s not fair. He’s trying to be as reasonable as possible without just playing into your games and responding with “your idea is as amazing as always, and I bow at the feet of your superior intelligence”.
Set up a Paypal and I will send you the $4 copay. As someone who deals with depression, I’ll freely acknowledge that your explanation of it is acceptable, and medication can make a big difference with it. An important thing to recognize is that MOST of your threads on this site are based off of trying to find unusual loopholes/power breaks in the rules. That’s fine, in and of itself. I enjoy doing the exact same thing. But accept that most of the ideas are in fact accounted for within the rules, and stop getting so stubborn and defensive when it’s clearly shown that some ideas don’t work. You’ll know you’re on to something if people start saying “well, RAW it works, but I’d never” etc. If someone says, “actually, you can’t use Inspiration more than once for a single check”, then links the rule, you need to be able to accept that your idea had a flaw (example given is based on one of my own misreads when I thought I had a brilliant idea and then discovered that it wasn’t legal).I’m a weird f$&$er. Straight up. No denying that. All sorts of mental health problems. But it also gives me a unique way of looking at things, and SOMETIMES that way pays off. I enjoy it when it works out, and recognize that it often won’t. You bring up unusual ideas, and if even 1 in 100 of them actually works within the rules, you still found something that millions of players have overlooked. Just be gracious about the 99 that don’t work.
|
|
Above all, if you're suffering from mental health problems which exacerbate during communication, just not posting and not exposing yourself to possible triggers might be a good idea.
Having ran games for a person with Asperger's for over 5 years and having advised an NGO which supports people with autism I have a moderate grasp on why does communication go south for such people. I actually might write a longer post on that, because it's a double digit of situations where I see communication go south despite the fact that neither side was (in their own perception) malicious or nasty to another.
