I finished Dragon #258 a few days ago and decided to put this question out to the forum.
The timing of this issue was good for me since I was developing a character and wanted to give them an unusual weapon. The Dire Mace (pg 56-57)in the Chess Made Deadly article fit the bill pretty wall.
My only worry is that it could be a little over powerfull. At first glance it looks equal to a bastard sword, (damage 1d10, Bludgening instead of Slashing, and can be used two handed as a martial weapon or One handed as an exotic weapon). The thing is it is a reach weapon. Now granted it IS fun to think of a character having a one handed reach weapon that does d10 for damage, but combine that with TWF and Oversized TWF and you get a character that at first glance is a little overpowered, (I live in a kind of gamer void so I seldom if ever get to playtest my ideas).
I know I'd have to burn the majority of the characters available feats but I am looking to the story telling aspect a little as well, Exotic warrior guild, personal quest etc.
Any suggestions?
The dire mace crit is only 20/x2, making it less deadly than the bastard sword (19-20/x2) vs. most creatures. If it still bothers you, though, note that the text states, "A king wielding a dire mace has reach," not "the dire mace is a reach weapon." That leaves it up to the DM whether it's a reach weapon for everyone.
|
First, bastard sword is a bit weak for an exotic weapon. (Compare the benefits of spending a feat to use a bastard sword in one hand and the benefits of spending a feat for Cleave, for example.)
Second, the fact that the weapon is a reach weapon is an advantage, but it's not a huge advantage, since you don't get to attack anyone adjacent unless you spend another feat for Short Haft, and you can't do that until your BAB is +3 or higher.
Dire Mace doesn't look like much of a problem to me.
So does the Dire Mace only have reach in the hands of a Chaturan King or in anyone's hands?
I hope BOZ or Shade can answer this one since they wrote the article. I'm confused myself. Though, from the wording, I think a Dire Mace only has reach when in the hands of a Chaturan King.
Which makes the Dire Mace a bludgeoning version of a bastard sword, I guess, to everyone else.
This is driving me nuts, but I swear I saw dire maces in another product before this article (and not the Neverwinter Nights ones), but I can't remember where it might have been. I was just wondering of anyone else can remember that, because if the weapon itself shows up elsewhere, it would probably answer the original question.
Nevermind . . . I was thinking of the Warmace from Complete Warrior . . . which to my way of thinking is a bit too similar to use both in a given campaign (kind of like trying to figure out the difference between a falchion and a great scimitar).
What is the thing that Kyuss wields again? Is that a dire mace?
Executioner's Mace (suggested by Bill Hinch's axe in King's "Eyes of the Dragon?"). MUCH badder than a dire mace (1d12/x3, martial weapon, Piercing and Bludgeoning and Slashing, I think).
I firmly believe that most of the melee classes in the game are underpowered compared to the full casters (yes, even ToB, just not as much), and so I say anything that powers up melee is a good thing. In that light the dire mace (even with reach) does not seem over powered.
Is it more powerful than "normal" melee? Maybe a little (but it does cost you a feat).
Is this a problem? Not at all, as you shouldn't compare it to a fighter, compare it to the Cleric / Druid / Wizard to see if it is powerful. In that light, it is probably just another tool that lets the melee guys not suck for a few level longer.
So in short, not as powerful as a full spell caster, so I say allow it as is, with reach.
I firmly believe that most of the melee classes in the game are underpowered compared to the full casters (yes, even ToB, just not as much), and so I say anything that powers up melee is a good thing. In that light the dire mace (even with reach) does not seem over powered.
Is it more powerful than "normal" melee? Maybe a little (but it does cost you a feat).
Is this a problem? Not at all, as you shouldn't compare it to a fighter, compare it to the Cleric / Druid / Wizard to see if it is powerful. In that light, it is probably just another tool that lets the melee guys not suck for a few level longer.
So in short, not as powerful as a full spell caster, so I say allow it as is, with reach.
This is a completely valid position. However, others might feel that if the descrepency between melee and casters is so obvious, it was probably intended. Whether this is a good thing or not is also open to debate. To each their own; just thought I'd throw this out for consideration.
I firmly believe that most of the melee classes in the game are underpowered compared to the full casters (yes, even ToB, just not as much), and so I say anything that powers up melee is a good thing. In that light the dire mace (even with reach) does not seem over powered.
Is it more powerful than "normal" melee? Maybe a little (but it does cost you a feat).
Is this a problem? Not at all, as you shouldn't compare it to a fighter, compare it to the Cleric / Druid / Wizard to see if it is powerful. In that light, it is probably just another tool that lets the melee guys not suck for a few level longer.
So in short, not as powerful as a full spell caster, so I say allow it as is, with reach.
My problem with this philosophy is that its not really a case of balancing a weapon against what potential spell casters might do but a case of balancing a weapon against other weapons. In fact making one uber weapon in order to compensate fighter type characters against casters is probably a bad idea - your just forcing all the martial players to use this one great weapon. Better to have a house rule that all weapons get an extra d12 of damage on top of their normal damage or some such.
Oh and have you seen the Fighter Vs. Mage showdown thread? Not exactly the final word but Good reading nonetheless.