Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Vampiric Touch weapon enchantment

Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

I have a bit of a conundrum. I'd like to put some sort of percentage of a weapon's damage as granting hp to the wielder, effectively healing the wielder of damage during combat. But I haven't the foggiest idea how to pull it off.

I thought about using Vampiric Touch, but that would add extra damage assuming the target failed the save, and it wouldn't require the attack to be successful, plus the spell only grants temporary hp (not healing).

Anybody got any ideas?

+5 hp to the wielder whenever the weapon critically hits. Just to keep it simple and consistent.

I dunno, that would give a disproportionate benefit to low level characters. I like the idea of a critical hit limiter. What about the same amount you'd get for healing naturally for a day, but only if you confirm a critical? Also, I had an idea that if you hit an undead/negative energy being with it, you'd LOSE hp rather than gain hp. Maybe to limited it still further, it wouldn't do any EXTRA damage, it'd just change the damage dealt from the weapon.

The real problem would be setting a price, or a set amount of weapon bonus. And, would there be a saving throw involved, or is that taken care of by requiring a critical hit (which is hard enough to get anyway)?

Percentages in pathfinder feel... Weird.

I think extra damage would probably be appropriate, if the weapon is supposed to drain the life of the opponent (because if it drains, there's less left).

But if we look at weapon enchantments there are, generally a plus to to hit is worth two plusses to damage (this is also true for feats). A flaming weapon gets +3.5 damage, a +1 weapon gets +1 to hit and +1 to damage for example.

I think it's fair to price one hp gained about at expensive as half a damage dealt, when it's such small amounts and is required you hurt someone. Note that by carrying a bag of rats it can be used to heal you indefinitely though.

If this worked on everyone, I'd recommend doing it as a +2 ability to get more to work with (since a +2 ability is equal to 6-7 "points" where damage costs one and to hit costs one, and I think one healed point should be worth about a half). For a +2 ability, I'd say draining 1d8 hit points is fair.

If the enhancement only works on the living, and actually hurts you for using it on undead, you might get away with even a little more, something like 2d4 drain - I wouldn't go higher than that though since then it would thread on the same space as double-elemental which deals 2d6 damage.

You could make it an evil ability and make it work only on sentient beings by draining part of their soul - this would get around the issue of carrying a bag of rats for infinite healing.

Another option is to simply let it cast Vampiric Touch a set number of times per day in the normal way (standard action).

That's not quite what I was thinking.

Basically, when the enchantment triggers, you'd heal one hp per character level. It would only trigger upon a critical hit, but the enchantment itself wouldn't dish out more damage to the creature hit. If the creature hit was undead/negative energy, you'd instead LOSE 1 hp per character level. There wouldn't be a saving throw either way, since a confirmed critical is pretty hard to get. I'm not thinking the hp loss should be permanent in any case, and the hp gained in healing wouldn't allow you to go past your normal maximum.

I figure the fact that any weapon so enchanted couldn't be used as an all purpose/all the time weapon should limit how many PC's actually go for it. Also, the fact that the hp healed wouldn't trigger all the time, and scales up as the character levels would keep it still useful over time. More than that, it's a primarily defensive enchantment set on a weapon, since it doesn't deal extra damage, it just heals the wielder a little bit upon a confirmed crit.

Now, all of these limiters make the enchantment a LOT less potent than simply triggering off Vampiric Touch. Still not sure what this is equivalent to in terms of cost or weapon bonus. Obviously to trigger it more often, you'd slap it on a Keen weapon.

I don't think the loosing hit points makes sense. Hit point drain is a negative energy effect isn't it? wouldn't that make it simply ineffective against creatures that are largely negative energy?

I would just gate an ability like this by saying that it cannot be on a good aligned weapon.

Why couldn't it be on a good aligned weapon, like a Holy enchanted one? The hit point loss implies that the wielder is hit by a burst of positive energy being transferred (I think) from the target to the wielder. That's not all that different from the Vampiric Touch spell, and THAT isn't labeled Evil.

Just strikes me as a negative energy effect. You are taking someones life force and consuming it to regenerate. That doesn't exactly scream goodness from the rooftops.

If Vampiric Touch doesn't have an Evil label, why should this enchantment? It's actually weaker.

What do you think it would be worth as a base price, or plus rating?

It's hard to price it because it breaks the mold of weapon enchantments in a few ways.

- Weapon abilities do not usually increase with level, but rather in that case have a lesser and greater version (actually magic item abilities usually does not increase with level at all, except a few things like staves).

- Weapon abilities don't usually "convert" damage (brilliant energy exception) nor do they usually give mechanically unrelated effects to the wielder. This would have to do that.

This ability thus feels "off" in several ways, and I really don't know how to price it. Since it's only on critical hits, I feel it's too weak of an effect to make a +1 out of it. But at higher levels, when both the effect is greater and the number of crits increase, a base price increase that allows it to be gained at low levels means it'll be an "autotake" at higher levels.

I'd probably either increase the effect or the frequency a bit and make it a +1 ability.

And regardless it doesn't "feel" like a weapon that drains life, it feels much more like some kind of blessed weapon that heals. Not tying the amount of life drained to actually dealing damage in some way (rather just to hitting) has that effect on me at least. But if it works for you then fine.

But pricing it is still hard.

EDIT: On a side note, negative energy =/= evil. A lot of effects are one but not the other.

So, you are saying I should drop the bit where the wielder takes damage instead of healing if something undead or negative plane charged was hit, right? That would make it a +1, or do you think it would be better to have a flat price?

How would I increase the frequency of triggering? Maybe have it trigger on a critical hit threat instead of a confirmed critical? Or should it heal more hp, like 1hp per character level plus Con bonus? More than that?

Well, the thing is, this enchantment might actually be less effective in the upper levels. 1 hp per character level doesn't really compensate for all the hp capacity a class attains, particularly warrior types. That's the same amount, btw, that one heals in 8 hours of sleep. I didn't want to make it a world altering enchantment. Just something small to help out parties that have a Druid instead of a Cleric, for example.

I could see pairing this enchantment up with a Keen, and a +5 in time. Maybe even a Holy or Bane as well. Barbarians and other relatively lightly armored warrior classes would be interested. Clerics wouldn't want it unless they have some spectacularly stupid warrior types that get damaged a lot in the group. Maybe Rangers that get into 2 weapon fighting. Couldn't see a Paladin wanting it unless it REALLY wants to be a tank. Doesn't add any firepower to the weapon, that's for sure, since I didn't think it should do extra damage to the target unless a positive/negative energy exchange was going on.

I think the "undead" part isn't that important in the grand scheme of things - it's only a minor drawback. Keep or drop, doesn't really matter. I think that an effect that cures only minor hit points and only on a crit is a bit weak regardless for a +1.

If you're 8th level, you can thus have either a +1 weapon that heals 8 hit points on a critical, or a +1 weapon that deals +1d6 damage every hit. Combine that with that offense generally is better than defense.

Doing it on a threat is not a good idea since it even further removes it from actually draining life. Then you could have like a +1 keen kukri with this enchantment, and have 1/4 chance to regain hd hp - even if you can only hit the target on a natural 20 and even if the target has so high damage reduction it can't possibly take any damage from your attacks. It's not that it's too good, it's that it breaks the flavor of it completely.

I agree that it's probably less effective at higher levels, unless you increase your chances of critting (which you generally do, a high-level martial char can often average about one crit per round).

It can be hard to balance costs regarldess - you want to make it good enough so anyone ever uses it, but not so good that it's the obvious choice for a lot of characters.

I think something for specific as specific as this you should really consider pairing it up with some other ability and turn it into a specific weapon. Either that or make it work closer to how weapon abilities already work.

This does not sound like a weapon ability, it sounds more like a specific weapon.

That said, if you wish to keep as is, here are a few suggestions:

As a drain (not Evil) effect:

Make it activate on every hit that strikes (deals at least 1 point of damage). You receive half the damage you deal.

The target receives a fortitude save every time this activates to deny it. The dc is 10 + damage dealt.

Once a target fails a fortitude save and heals you, it becomes immune to this ability for 24 hrs.

It is self limiting, it only works once on any given target per combat. The healing you receive grows with level, but is not attached directly to it. Because it heals half of the damage you deal, a little critter would not give you more than 5 to 7 hps at best. And there is always a chance it rolls a 20 on the fortitude save and does not heal you.

I dunno, HALF of the damage dealt is now healing the wielder? That would make you almost invulnerable in a fight. Requiring a saving throw is a mite excessive, considering that the enchantment isn't doing extra damage to the target (unless we change that).

Hmmm. How about on a successful critical hit, the wielder heals 1hp per character level, AND 1 point of ability points per attribute that has ability damage, just as if the character had gotten 8 hours of sleep? If that's not enough, I could throw in extra healed hp on top of that equal to the wielder's Constitution bonus.

We've already dumped the risk of being damaged by undead.

Basically, I would like to raise the potency of this effect to what would be normal for a +1 weapon bonus worth.

I dunno, there's not that many feats and enchantments that actually stack for inducing critical hits. Why do you say that critical hits become so very common as one levels up?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Half is okay when it can only work once per target per day. And we are not adding any damage to the attack with the ability. If you really want to cap it somehow, then make the ability only activate x times per day.

It would not turn a character invulnerable at all, unless the only things your players fight against are many weak easily hit enemies.

It is however, high for a +1, it would probably land in the +2 price.

Doing it based on critical threats or critical hits only really pays off for a two weapon fighter with a pair of scimitars and improved critical. On a full attack, the fighter would statistically get at least one crit off, therefore healing. Assuming he can take a full round attack. At level 10 (when he could afford two +3 weapons) he would have 6 swings each 30% chance of a critical hit. That means he should be rolling 1.5 crits per round.

Healing ability point damage is pretty powerful, not nearly as common as hit points, I have never seen it as an ability on a weapon. Value goes past +1 automatically.

Chances are that no character with a two handed weapon (5% critical, 10% with improved critical or keen) would touch this as currently written. Having to proc on a critical really hurts any melee that is not critical focused. Why would I spend the money to "maybe" heal me when I can add 2 different elements to my weapon for +2d6 damage to every single swing?

And critical hits become more common at higher levels because you swing more often (even if you do nothing to enhance your critical chances).

Well, what I'd prefer to do is to have this ability trigger often, which is why I like the smaller reward. But I also want to keep it to a +1.

The reason why I wanted to include the ability point healing is that you guys were telling me that it wouldn't qualify for a +1.

So, where's the happy medium? I figure one point healed per confirmed crit is good, but I can throw in the Con bonus worth of healing and/or the ability point damage healing if necessary to up it to a full +1. Or, when it kicks in you not only heal hp, but you also do extra equivalent damage?

Have you ever played Diablo 1 and 2? I noticed there that the vampiric weapon enchantments were especially useful, because you'd get swarmed and couldn't often heal fast enough. Thus, being able to gain back some of what you lost during combat, like having a Ring of Vampiric Regeneration in the older editions of D&D, was incredibly useful. Yeah, you didn't do extra damage, but you could outlast your opponents, and that's what really mattered.

I still don't understand why you won't make it just a flat amount or even copying a spell. It would be much simpler to balance. I get the diablo 2 reference but combat works very differently here.

I guess you could heal like 1 point per 10 damage you deal, that might work - it isn't very complex math. I'd put such an ability as a +2 bonus I think. Maaaybe a +1 bonus.

Restricting it to crits is a bad idea, as motionmatrix mentions it becomes so very, very build dependant.

Note though that any ability that gives you a defensive boost based on your offensive boost will mean going offense gets a higher priority. This is something you see in for example diablo, where damage dealt + life leech is much more important than hit points and defense.

There is already such an issue in pathfinder where the top damage dealers seem to be the most effective builds in many circumstances - two-handed weapon wielders and archers are generally more dangerous than sword & boarders and two-weapon warriors. Since the drawback of archers and two-handed weapon wielders is generally having lesser defense, this enchantment would give them a further boost. (if crit-based, it'd benefit two-weapon fighters and archers the most, if based on amount of damage dealt it would boost two-handed fighters most).

So be very careful with an enchantment like this - it can mean a greatsword wielding fighter becomes as tough as a longsword and shield wielding one, but with far more offensive output.

Sorry, I typoed, I meant to have it be one hp per character level healed upon activation.

Okay, then instead of the confirmed critical activating the enchantment, then let's just have a saving throw. The only problem is, one would think this would do more damage to the target. For example, if the target has to roll a Fortitude save, one would think that would mean hp are being transferred to the wielder from the target. I resisted this idea earlier because it already takes a d20 roll just to hit an opponent in the first place.

On a side note, I have noticed that archer types tend to have quite good Defense, simply because of their high Dexterity ratings. Why would archers be so much better than other warrior types? They need TONS of feats just to get to functional, like Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. And they need to have a high Strength as well if they expect to do any damage (melee warriors don't need Dexterity to hit). Plus they get caught with their pants proverbially down if firing next to an opponent, and this happens a LOT if you are dungeon crawling.

Saving throws would really not make any sense as the ability does not negatively affect the attacked target at all. Also it forces a lot more rolling.

on different fighting techniques:
Archers are generally very high damage dealers because they get to make full attacks almost every turn. They're more feat intense than two-handed fighters but less than two-weapon fighters and S&B'ers. Since they're in the back, they don't even need to have that awesome dex - they can put a decent score in strength too to cram out a lot of extra damage since they make lots of attacks.

A focused archer at say level 8 basically needs point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, many shot for the basic setup. A two-handed fighter basically just needs good strength and Power Attack. A two-weapon fighter is MAD, since it needs decent strength to deal damage and still 17 dex for TWF, ITWF, power attack and two-weapon rend. You _can_ make a dex twfer, getting decent defenses and skills, but your damage output will be low. Sword and boarders either go all defensive "tin cans" with antagonize, but if the DM doesn't allow that (which is very, very common) you need to be offensive as a S&B and that means TWFing with the S&B.

For classes other than fighters, options are usually more limited. paladins can do about the same styles as fighters, barbarians aren't very good with archery, rogues are bad with archery and S&B, rangers can do about the same things as fighters.

There are a few threads with DPR calculations, and usually, THF gets the highest DPR, slightly above archery (but with archery you get to full attack nearly always), followed by TWF/S&B (which are the most depending on full attacks, as an extra drawback).

Thought I would point out that most parties do not have a dedicated archer, unless they can get to 5 members. You need to have that armored warrior up front paired up with the Rogue. Otherwise the cleric can't move about enough to heal or shore up the other two melee combatants, and the Wizard is just plain hosed over once surrounded (the latter is a artillery piece, essentially). That means you aren't going to see a dedicated archer in most games.

Dunno about you, but a lot of my PC warrior types have either gone to two handed weapons or sword and shield, the latter because I tend to pound the bejeezus out of my players when possible. Even if they do go sword and shield, if they have a high enough Dex they can use the shield like a club via a few feats. Haven't found any lunatic enough to go for 2 weapon fighting, probably because their base attributes aren't good enough. I just used the recommended dice rolling method (4d6, best 3 results, do this 6 times and arrange to taste).

Second, I should point out that Rogues can do quite a lot with a rapier and shield. Specifically, a Rogue can start out with Dodge, and then at 2nd, 4th and 6th can use the class to grant Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and Mobility. Plus, while not proficient in a shield, they can still use a Mithril Heavy Shield with no ill effects. If the character trait system is being used, a Rogue can wear a Mithril Breastplate with no penalty, thus gaining an extra 2 from the armor (instead of a Chain Shirt) and another 2 from the shield to AC. The most intensive result with a 20 Dex, Dodge, Shield Focus, Mithril Breastplate, and finally a Mithril Heavy Shield means a 25 Defense for the Medium sized Rogue. That is not counting enchantments. That's damned respectable, methinks. For offense, the Rogue can flank with the warrior and get sneak attack damage. To get really mean about it, one could take the trait "Dirty Fighter", slap on a Keen and perhaps a Sword of Subtlety effect on the rapier, then add in some poison. Again, damned respectable.

But I digress. A saving throw would be appropriate if I had the enchantment dish out damage equal to the amount the wielder healed (1hp per level), would it not? And would that result in a +1 bonus worth in gp? If this is acceptable, then what kind of save and dc should it have?

I think damage to hit point conversion at ten to one is pretty good. At around tenth level, the average damage dealer will be getting five hit points per turn. It will scale faster as you reach the upper echelons, but at that point creatures will be tearing through massive volumes of hit points. I imagine that if it was set up in this way, you'd be getting an extra round of effective combat before getting knocked out.

There is no reason why you can't have it stipulate it only works with melee weapons, it is a standard limitation on many enchantments.

Hadn't even thought of limiting it to melee. Fine with me, though. Doesn't seem appropriate to have hp transfer or healing gift coming from arrow shots. For the latter, I could see somehow attaching a Fireball spell onto the fired arrow to induce area effect damage being much more appropriate to an archer.

Not sure I understand Trogdar's point, however.

Oh, and I forgot that you need shield prof to get Shield Focus. That knocks the prospective AC down to 24 for Rogues with a 20 Dex, Mithril Breastplate, Mithril Heavy Shield, Dodge feat, sans magic.

If your GM will let you at the 3.5 magic items compendium, pick up some weapon gems of lifedrinking. From least to greatest, they grant you 1-3 hp per hit to a max of 10-30 hp per day. They're pretty cheap, too.

My idea: A legendary dagger made from the bones of a vampire that leeches the life force of creatures that it strikes and heals its wielder... 1d4+Str+other bonuses... Healing a maximum of one days worth of rest (character level plus Con bonus). Per hit? Per day? Per round sounds fair to me, though this is something that should probably be seen no earlier than 8th or 9th level. I would personally think to limit it to light melee weapons, and just say that all weapon damage is treated as health drain up to the maximum.

Personally, I dislike effects that rely on critical hits. I see critical hits so rarely that it's laughable, and when I do see them, it is usually against something in the way of goblins or stray dogs. Tacking on special abilities to them makes them a further disappointment. So I am against that from a design standpoint. Special abilities want to be seen.

Actually, I *am* the GM. I don't have access to that, Umbral Reaver. And I don't want an enchantment only usable on light weapons like daggers. Daggers are the medieval equivalent of sidearms. Pointless in a serious fight.

I just want an enchantment that a warrior could use that would reduce the burden on the cleric for healing his butt. It screws over the cleric, who then has to give up his spellcasting ability, and it shafts over the rest of the party because all the healing goes to the warrior types.

The reason why I introduced the scaling ability (1hp per character level) is that I noticed hp dramatically increases as one levels up, so any amount of flat healing would become rapidly more irrelevant the higher one levels.

Since warrior types tend to suck up all the healing ability, it would make practical sense to give them some sort of enchantment that would help reduce this need. I figured a weapon would be more appropriate than armor, since I recalled the old ring of vampiric regeneration that 2nd ed had. It actually allowed one to regenerate much more damage during combat than what I am proposing.

Originally, I thought that having anyone hit by the weapon roll a saving throw to prevent the additional hp loss would be kinda clunky, and would slow down combat considerably. So I had to find another limiter. A straight percentage of the damage dealt would get kinda funky mathematically, and I wanted this to be a simple enchantment. Thus, the concept of this enchantment kicking in only on a critical hit was born. Note that other items already exist (flaming burst et al) that only trigger on a critical hit.

Now, I still think the idea of having this trigger only on a critical hit has merit, if only to knock down dice rolling. And I like the idea of 1 hp per character level, because healing becomes increasingly irrelevant as one levels up otherwise (cure light wounds is kinda silly when you get up there in character level, see what I mean?). I am just fine with limiting this enchantment to ONLY melee weapons. So, on a confirmed critical hit, this enchantment would do 1 extra damage per wielder's character level, and the wielder would receive that amount in healing up to the maximum amount for that character (with the excess being wasted).

Should I include the weakness toward undead (while you cant crit them, you can still roll a crit, thus dealing damage to oneself on occasion)?

What would you guys say would be a reasonable flat cost or worth in weapon plusses?

If you have Psionics in your game then just go by this spell and the cost accordingly.

Vampiric Blade
Discipline Psychometabolism
Level Psychic warrior 3
Target One weapon you hold
Duration 1 round/level
Power Points 5

3rd Party Publisher
You heal a number of hit points equal to half the base damage dealt by your weapon, rounded down (additional damage dealt because of a high Strength score or other enhancements does not count toward the amount you heal). You heal as many hit points as can be gained while the creature remains at 1 hit point or higher. Any damage that would reduce the creature to 0 or fewer hit points does not benefit you.

Use-activated or continuou: Spell level x caster level x 2,000 x dur

So Cost:
Minimal caster leval: 7
Spell Level: 3
Multiplier for duration: 4

7x3x4x2000 = 168,000 Base price.

This is for half of whatever your base weapons damage.

Examples. Shortsword: 1d6 heals 3dmg
Longsword: 1d8 heals 4dmg
Baster Sword: 1d10 heals 5dmg
Greatsword: 1d12 heals 6dmg.
You see where this is going. So the higher the base dmg the better its to get.

The price tag makes it withen reason and not to over powered IMO

Interesting, but so far I haven't had any form of psionics in my game. Second, this doesn't increase with character level, meaning that the enchantment would become increasingly irrelevant as the character levels up.

Well, most enchantments become increasingly irrelevant as characters go up. Flaming increases damage by 1d6, the only way it increases in effect is when characters get more attacks/better chance to hit, which also increases the effect of mavbors suggested weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

168000 gold puts it right into the garbage bin enhancement wise. No one will ever have the cash to pay for it so no one will. I would call it a +2 enhancement and call er done. At least then you may actually see it in a game.

Agreed, Trogdar. Or a specific weapon.

That shows how expensive it would be to add healing on a weapon if going by the magic item cost table. Also like Ilja said that its normal for enchantments to have diminishing returns as you level.

I wouldnt go lower then 168,000 base cost if it doesnt have serious restrictions. Also most items goes by its creator's caster level at the time of creation and wouldn't scale depending on whos using it.

If you want it to scale instead of it scaling for the player make it scale for the weapons enchantment. I dont think thats to far fetch. For every +1 enhancement enchantment adds 1 to its healing. Would increase the base cost by alot imo though.

Ok think of your a fighter and you have 5 attacks. While wielding a 1d8 weapon you hit 3 out of those 5 you would heal 12 hps that round. I agree thats sorta lacking. But say if you are wielding a Greatsword and then enlarge yourself. You hit for 3 out of 5 attacks. Since its base that would do half of 3d6 per so 9hps x 3 hits thats 27hps. Thats not so bad.

Have to think about it being abused by some way that will make the character overpowered and the healer job less worthy. If you only make it happen on crits I could see it being a +2 but not every hit.

If would become the first choice of any two hand wielders if it was only at a +2 cost. Heck make a class that can use larger weapons then normal and its even better. Or a monks unarmed damage and then enlarge at higher levels.

Seems im playing the devils advocate. Its all up to the GM and how the game is being played so may not be overpowered at that gamers table. If your the GM and wanting to make it for a player just make him what you feel is needed but let the player know it may be scaled either down or up if its needed.

Why would anyone ever buy it for 168k gp though? I mean, it's a piddly amount of damage healed. It wouldn't even be practical to get the weapon before 16th level - and at that point it costs over half your WBL for _just that ability and nothing else_.

For 168k you could have a +5 Holy Keen Shocking weapon... So you choose between healing ~5 damage or dealing an additional 6-23 extra damage and having a +5 to hit and damage and doubled crit range.

Even if I found it i'd sell it and buy a +5 Keen weapon and still have some spare change.

I agree 168k is high and I wouldnt choose it. Just going by the spell and item creation gold guide. I do think a +2 is way to low though. Was looking at the item creation guide and though of why not just make it like bonus for AC or ablitiles scores.

Option 1: HP (bonus)/hit Bonus squared x 1,000 gp

Option 2: HP (bonus)/hit Bonus squared x 2,000 gp

Would be cheaper and wouldnt make a difference on what type of weapon it goes on. Wont scale on its own but can add HP bonus as you can afford it. Also as you level you get more attacks so get more hps per round.

Well, if you want to balance both consistency and broken-ness, I'd say that the effect deals 1D6 Force damage, and has the option to take 25% of the total damage dealt to instead heal the wielder, and that the effect does not work on creatures whose Hit Dice is lesser than the wielder's current Hit Dice by 5 or more. I'd classify it as Siphoning, a +1 Base Price Bonus.

You could also make Siphoning Burst, a +2 Bonus version that allows the bearer's criticals to ignore the 25% subtraction, and to add an additional 1D8 Force Damage (or 2D8 on X3, 3D8 on X4, etc.) on top of what is listed.

Hope that helps!

Wait 1d6 _force_ damage with the extra option to choose to heal instead for a +1 bonus? Why ever take flaming if that's available? Just being force damage should itself drop it to 1d4 since practically nothing is immune to it.

Ilja wrote:
Wait 1d6 _force_ damage with the extra option to choose to heal instead for a +1 bonus? Why ever take flaming if that's available? Just being force damage should itself drop it to 1d4 since practically nothing is immune to it.

Its Force due that if we used Positive Energy, Negative Energy, Holy, Unholy, Profane, Sacred, etc. It limits what it can be used on when it shouldn't be limited. There's also the option to take 25% of the total damage dealt to instead heal the bearer, and that the limit of it not working on creatures that have less than 5 or more Hit Dice in difference to the wielder that the healing effect does not work.

It could be 1D4 due to the extra option, though...

Well not being limited should of course cost more too. I mean, flaming is practically useless against like 1/3 of the bestiary above CR 6 as well as most casters and a lot of other high-level characters.

Being force damage itself should mean it's dropped in damage a LOT. If about 1/3 of opponents are practically immune to flaming, something that works on all opponents should deal about 1/3 less damage.

The spell in Core Rulebook, 2nd printing, doesn't go into much detail.
As a GM I will assume it has no effect on undead. Any protection from negitive energy or draining would also block VT.
I will also assume that it drains, bestows, 1D6 on a hit.
2D6 on a vampiric burst.
Pricing would be the same as flaming and flaming burst.

First off, let's be realistic here. These characters are starting at 1st level. That means giant weapon enchantments and 4 attacks per round etc are wildly unlikely. In fact, the highest level characters I have ever had hit 9th level.

I did check out Vampiric Touch, but it actually grants something more valuable (but not as long lasting) than healing. It grants temp hp, and does LOTS more damage than this enchantment is likely to ever do. Plus, it's got range.

All I wanted was to have an enchantment that grants a small amount of healing to keep the warrior types going without having to drain the clerics dry of healing and spells.

mavbor, that's just too much. A +1 price per hp healed? Get serious.

Now, assuming that in worst case scenario, a warrior PC uses this as part of its main weapon. That means most PC's will have a standard +5 enchantment as a matter of course, leaving 5 points for special ability. Most players would be relatively smart to have a Holy put on it, because Evil monsters etc are more common than any other alignment. That leaves 3 points capacity left. Because most players want to ensure they actually hit, many are going to put a Ghost Touch on the weapon because incorporeal creatures really suck to fight against (50% miss chance). That leaves 2 points left on the weapon.

So, even if this WAS placed on a seriously high level weapon for someone who was in the late teen levels, it isn't going to dish out much damage, and likely its never going to get to that in the first place because almost NO campaigns last that long. Thus, healing 1hp per wielder character level isn't much. I could see perhaps changing it to 1hp per hit die of the monster hit, if that helps any, but monster hit dice tend to get huge in the later levels so I dunno if that's a good idea.

The real trick would be to limit the trigger condition without increasing dice rolls. So, let's consider restrictions, bearing in mind that we'd like to keep the enchantment down in potency to +1, maybe +2.

Having it trigger upon a critical hit mimics many enchantments already in the core books, and it even keeps down the dice needed to roll, but some of you have objected to that limiter since it's too dependent on a specific character build.

I considered having the spell not actually do damage to the target, simply because this would increase its worth, but that seems to have been ignored.

I thought maybe having the spell instead actually dish out damage to the wielder if the weapon triggers on an undead or negative energy being, but this was seen as not much of a help.

Lots of you have suggested having a flat amount of healing granted, but most of those amounts have been much greater than what I had wanted. This would make it more potent by far.

I liked the idea of restricting this enchantment to melee weapons. It makes the need for healing greater.

So, what do you guys think? Is it good enough to restrict it to a critical hit, only on melee for a +1 enchantment?

I just realized having the spell do damage equal to one's level is a bit much. How about a d20, the result of which is not to exceed one's character level?

Far too much design breaking in this for my taste.


Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Vampiric Touch weapon enchantment All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.