I present to you The Perfect Weapon


Combat & Magic


I'd like to present to you the perfect weapon:

Upside
-Two-handed, so it does bigger Power Attacks.

-Adds a +2 shield bonus, so you can enchant it like a magic shield and you can get your shield bonus while two-handed fighting, and without any feats used.

-Adds a +2 to bull rushes.

-damage = 3d6/x2

Downside:

-Must take the feat Caught-off Guard, which is OK because it makes it more awesome (though you could just use the Skillful enchantment).

-double cost to enchant a weapon as a shield, and visa versa.

What is it?

A large table....., as per the Improvised Weapon rules on page 158-159 of the Complete Warrior.

When you take Razor Sharp Table Leg, the damage can go up to 4d6 and the crit is 18-20/ x3. Beware my Flaming Burst Table!

Liberty's Edge

K wrote:

I'd like to present to you the perfect weapon:

Upside
-Two-handed, so it does bigger Power Attacks.

-Adds a +2 shield bonus, so you can enchant it like a magic shield and you can get your shield bonus while two-handed fighting, and without any feats used.

-Adds a +2 to bull rushes.

-damage = 3d6/x2

Downside:

-Must take the feat Caught-off Guard, which is OK because it makes it more awesome (though you could just use the Skillful enchantment).

-double cost to enchant a weapon as a shield, and visa versa.

What is it?

A large table....., as per the Improvised Weapon rules on page 158-159 of the Complete Warrior.

When you take Razor Sharp Table Leg, the damage can go up to 4d6 and the crit is 18-20/ x3. Beware my Flaming Burst Table!

Fear the dread table-fighter!

Okay, all jokes aside, here's the problem: no sane GM is going to let a player wield a weaponized table as their primary weapon, and even if they did, there's all kinds of problems lugging around furniture for use in combat. You can't get through doors, it's too heavy and awkward to carry long distances (even if you're so strong it's not unpleasantly heavy, you'll never get around "awkward") and it makes you stick out like a sore thumb.

Any insane GM is going to either love it or deserve what he gets.

However, it might make for an interesting "boss fight" to have an enemy (probably a rogue/fighter crimelord) who was a master of improvised weapons and had all of the furniture and decorations in his office/dining hall/lair constructed in such a way as to stand up to use as weapons.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Can you enchant an improvised weapon? By definition, you can only enchant masterwork weapons, and I'd say that if it's improvised, it's clearly not masterwork. You could have a MW table, but it's MW quality would refer to it's use as a table, not the alternate use as an improvised weapon.

Hmm, I wonder what bonuses MW furniture would give? +2 to diplomacy checks made while sitting at it? +2 to saves vs. poor taste?

Liberty's Edge

JoelF847 wrote:

Can you enchant an improvised weapon? By definition, you can only enchant masterwork weapons, and I'd say that if it's improvised, it's clearly not masterwork. You could have a MW table, but it's MW quality would refer to it's use as a table, not the alternate use as an improvised weapon.

Hmm, I wonder what bonuses MW furniture would give? +2 to diplomacy checks made while sitting at it? +2 to saves vs. poor taste?

You COULD in theory make a table maximized for its use as a weapon; I can even picture such a thing (carve handgrips into the side or even use poles like the ark of the covenant was carried on, then wrap them in leather for a better grip, add steel bands to the back for additional durability, put shield handles on the top to facilitate adjusting one's grip better, put spikes on the ends of the legs for additional damage, reinforce all of the joints with metal bands for durability, put counterweights in one end to improve balance), but it's both ridiculous and ugly-ass furniture.

I DID once have a couple of low-level players carry a heavy oak table from one room of a ruined-city dungeon with them to use as a portable barricade. They'd set the thing up at a choke point, sneak forward, engage, and then fall back to their improvised fortification (via longstrider and expeditious retreat, if I remember correctly) and then fire from behind it with ranged weapons while the enemies had to either close on them or return fire from in the open. THAT'S an acceptable use of a table in combat over time as far as I'm concerned. At that point it was kind of a semi-portable pallisade, and it took tow of them to carry it.

As far as a MW table maximized for its use as a table, I think you're mostly looking at aesthetic and ergonomic traits. It would probably give a +2 to profession(waiter) check made to serve someone at it, for instance; a large interior area sized appropriately for the most common serving trays used with it, the dimensions carefully considered to it would be at a comfortable height for most diners, accomodate a certain number of chairs with ample legroom, etc.

Liberty's Edge

Something else to consider: Complete Warrior is CLOSED CONTENT. Paizo can't reference it, so holding them responsible for imbalances in it is the height of unfairness.


JoelF847 wrote:

Can you enchant an improvised weapon? By definition, you can only enchant masterwork weapons, and I'd say that if it's improvised, it's clearly not masterwork. You could have a MW table, but it's MW quality would refer to it's use as a table, not the alternate use as an improvised weapon.

Hmm, I wonder what bonuses MW furniture would give? +2 to diplomacy checks made while sitting at it? +2 to saves vs. poor taste?

So a paladi weilding a +3 Holy Table? What an odd image. "Face the might of my rgihteous dinner table for 4, foul fiend!"


Weylin Stormcrowe 798 wrote:


So a paladi weilding a +3 Holy Table? What an odd image. "Face the might of my rgihteous dinner table for 4, foul fiend!"

"I have set a place for you at the table of judgment!"

You know, these lines are reminding me of the Tick . . .


JoelF847 wrote:

Can you enchant an improvised weapon? By definition, you can only enchant masterwork weapons, and I'd say that if it's improvised, it's clearly not masterwork. You could have a MW table, but it's MW quality would refer to it's use as a table, not the alternate use as an improvised weapon.

Hmm, I wonder what bonuses MW furniture would give? +2 to diplomacy checks made while sitting at it? +2 to saves vs. poor taste?

You can always cast greater magic weapon on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Darn, I was hoping someone'd statted out Jeff Speakman for an NPC. :P


Timespike wrote:
Something else to consider: Complete Warrior is CLOSED CONTENT. Paizo can't reference it, so holding them responsible for imbalances in it is the height of unfairness.

They are making their rules backwards-compatible with the old rules. They can't reprint things that aren't OGL, but can be held responsible for how their rules interact with the old ones.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

K wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Can you enchant an improvised weapon? By definition, you can only enchant masterwork weapons, and I'd say that if it's improvised, it's clearly not masterwork. You could have a MW table, but it's MW quality would refer to it's use as a table, not the alternate use as an improvised weapon.

Hmm, I wonder what bonuses MW furniture would give? +2 to diplomacy checks made while sitting at it? +2 to saves vs. poor taste?

You can always cast greater magic weapon on it.

True, you can do that, since the spell doesn't restrict from improvised weapons, only natural ones. You can also increase the shield bonus with magic vestment, and add special properties through spells that grant them (I think spell compendium has Weapon of Impact that increases the threat range for blunt weapons.)

Liberty's Edge

K wrote:
Timespike wrote:
Something else to consider: Complete Warrior is CLOSED CONTENT. Paizo can't reference it, so holding them responsible for imbalances in it is the height of unfairness.
They are making their rules backwards-compatible with the old rules. They can't reprint things that aren't OGL, but can be held responsible for how their rules interact with the old ones.

No, they really can't, at least not fairly. They're by law not allowed to take anything that's closed content into consideration. What you're discussing is tantamount to writing you a speeding ticket when a friend who borrows your car speeds, or punishing you for a crime that was committed in your house by the previous owner. Besides, there is SO much d20 compatible material out there that there's no way to balance something against all of it, especially with companies like Mongoose spewing trash all over the place.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

K wrote:
You can always cast greater magic weapon on it.

I don't think you can. The target of the spell is 1 weapon (or bundle of ammunition), and if it is an object being used as an improvised weapon, it isn't actually a weapon.


Russ Taylor wrote:
K wrote:
You can always cast greater magic weapon on it.
I don't think you can. The target of the spell is 1 weapon (or bundle of ammunition), and if it is an object being used as an improvised weapon, it isn't actually a weapon.

It has the word "weapon" in it. It doesn't get clearer. Its not like the spell says "only well crafted weapons".


Timespike wrote:
K wrote:
Timespike wrote:
Something else to consider: Complete Warrior is CLOSED CONTENT. Paizo can't reference it, so holding them responsible for imbalances in it is the height of unfairness.
They are making their rules backwards-compatible with the old rules. They can't reprint things that aren't OGL, but can be held responsible for how their rules interact with the old ones.
No, they really can't, at least not fairly. They're by law not allowed to take anything that's closed content into consideration.

That's not true, and not the way that copyright law works. If it were, it'd be a breach of federal fair competition laws.

Copyright law won't let you reprint direct quotes. Thats its limit. It doesn't protect ideas. So you can't say "I have a game that uses Hit points" and copyright "hit points".

Liberty's Edge

K wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
K wrote:
You can always cast greater magic weapon on it.
I don't think you can. The target of the spell is 1 weapon (or bundle of ammunition), and if it is an object being used as an improvised weapon, it isn't actually a weapon.
It has the word "weapon" in it. It doesn't get clearer. Its not like the spell says "only well crafted weapons".

You're really taking a Lawful Evil interpretation of the rules on this. Any GM worth their salt is going to put the kibosh on this. Try as you might, you really can't make a perfect system. It's not possible.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

K wrote:


It has the word "weapon" in it. It doesn't get clearer. Its not like the spell says "only well crafted weapons".

That's equivalent to saying you can gmw anything, because anything can potentially be used as a weapon. That fails the absurdity test, particularly when ogres start gmw'ing the prisoners they're using as clubs (see Classic Monsters Revisited).


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Weylin Stormcrowe 798 wrote:


So a paladi weilding a +3 Holy Table? What an odd image. "Face the might of my rgihteous dinner table for 4, foul fiend!"

"I have set a place for you at the table of judgment!"

You know, these lines are reminding me of the Tick . . .

lol!!

And I learn the hard way yet again not to drink Coke while reading the Paizo boards!


Timespike wrote:
K wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
K wrote:
You can always cast greater magic weapon on it.
I don't think you can. The target of the spell is 1 weapon (or bundle of ammunition), and if it is an object being used as an improvised weapon, it isn't actually a weapon.
It has the word "weapon" in it. It doesn't get clearer. Its not like the spell says "only well crafted weapons".
You're really taking a Lawful Evil interpretation of the rules on this. Any GM worth their salt is going to put the kibosh on this. Try as you might, you really can't make a perfect system. It's not possible.

Probably the best way to deal with rules, really, especially during a design phase. Just the rules, no feelings, pity or mercy. Getting the rules right requires a bit of ruthlessness, not defaulting to 'spirit of the rules' arguments. Thats just designers slacking off and dumping a weak system on the players.

That said, I don't think that you're going to convince anyone that doesn't already share your opinion that a weapon isn't a weapon just because it has an adjective in front of the noun.


K wrote:
Timespike wrote:
K wrote:
Timespike wrote:
Something else to consider: Complete Warrior is CLOSED CONTENT. Paizo can't reference it, so holding them responsible for imbalances in it is the height of unfairness.
They are making their rules backwards-compatible with the old rules. They can't reprint things that aren't OGL, but can be held responsible for how their rules interact with the old ones.
No, they really can't, at least not fairly. They're by law not allowed to take anything that's closed content into consideration.

That's not true, and not the way that copyright law works. If it were, it'd be a breach of federal fair competition laws.

Copyright law won't let you reprint direct quotes. Thats its limit. It doesn't protect ideas. So you can't say "I have a game that uses Hit points" and copyright "hit points".

I'm quite sure your understanding of what Jason means by "backward compatible" is wrong. I sincerely doubt Jason's intention was to make things compatible with the 3.5 splatbooks. I think he only means to make PFRPG compatible with the base OGL.

This is not to mention that Jason has stated that backward compatibility is not the only, or even the primary design concern. In fact, I thought it was pretty clear that the game would backward compatible only where possible.

The Exchange

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Weylin Stormcrowe 798 wrote:


So a paladi weilding a +3 Holy Table? What an odd image. "Face the might of my rgihteous dinner table for 4, foul fiend!"

"I have set a place for you at the table of judgment!"

You know, these lines are reminding me of the Tick . . .

Gives "Knights of the Dinner Table" new meaning....


Everyone does know that this is just a thought exercise, right?

That's how you get better rules. You push them absurdity, then edit them. Rinse and repeat.


~thinks~ Well, my Dwarf Warrior always did want that +3 Silver Mug of Smiting! And he might just use a table too.


Fake Healer wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
Weylin Stormcrowe 798 wrote:
So a paladi weilding a +3 Holy Table? What an odd image. "Face the might of my rgihteous dinner table for 4, foul fiend!"

"I have set a place for you at the table of judgment!"

You know, these lines are reminding me of the Tick . . .

Gives "Knights of the Dinner Table" new meaning....

I can see it now...

Wrothgareth, Paladin of Torag, sits at the table of his foe, Vetuberous the Treacherous, "You have called me before you to negotiate Vetuberous - speak!"

"I have called you before me... to die! You have let yourself be stripped of your weapons foolish knight!" Vetuberous cackles, his minions drawing their blades.

Wrothgareth sighs, gripping the table in his hands, "This was your last chance Vetuberous, prepare to greet the underworld... Holy Sword on table!" Wrothgareth casts his spell upon the hard oak table in his hands and it gleams and sparks with righteous energies.

Vetuberous cries in fear as Wrothgareth raises the table over his head, and proceeds to smite him into dust.


That is all.

-Frank


If I had a choice, I'd rather fight with a comfy chair.

Or better yet, have an entire squad of Valkyries armed with... pillows.

Mmmmm... pillow fight.

Liberty's Edge

dodo wrote:

If I had a choice, I'd rather fight with a comfy chair.

Or better yet, have an entire squad of Valkyries armed with... pillows.

Mmmmm... pillow fight.

I think Valkyries would just smother you with them. I seriously doubt asphixiation would be as sexy as you imagine. ;)

Dark Archive

Razor Sharp Chair Leg is a combat feat, so by using it you forfeit the use of any other combat feat like Devastating Blow for the round. The character also needs to be at least 8th level, so other character will run around casting save or die spells. I also have to say the idea of a barbarian or fighter, running around hitting monsters with a table is totally awesome. A dungeoncrasher fighter who bullrushes enemies with a large table could make a fun character.

Scarab Sages

/cues music

I got the power!
:da-bum da bum bum:

I got the power!
:da-bum da bum bum:

I got the power!
:da-bum da bum bum:

/dances


(I am equal parts insane and reasonable... I totally love this and will be using it on my first major NPC Pathfinder Fighter Villain if possible.)

K, you're missing a whole other aspect of this. It acts like a shield so TWF Shield Bash with the sucker! You won't be able to use Deft Shield at the same time you use it as a weapon, however if your going to go crazy go all the way. (If the limitation on Combat Feats is removed it'll be even more amusing.)

As to backwards compatibly with splat-books, WotC never really respected the damage they did to their own products *cough* serpent kingdoms *cough* *cough* pun-pun *cough* *cough* faiths of eberron *cough* *cough* planar shepherd *cough*. Some one get me some cough medicine, I think I'm about to hack up a lung. There has always been a need for a little judicious DM ruling. I'm not saying that means writers should be careless or sloppy, however it only takes on slip up to totally mess up well written future material.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Jadeite wrote:
The character also needs to be at least 8th level, so other character will run around casting save or die spells

I've never bought this as a game balance argument. It gets trotted out at nearly all levels of play, and it amounts to an appeal rather than any thought of logic-based approach to game design. I'm not sold on the feat being out of whack myself, but I would note that it has the crit properties (6x extra damage over the long run) of scythe with improved critical, which basically means that you shouldn't be getting into greatsword damage ranges under stock assumptions. I'd be happier seeing it dropped to either 18-20 (3x extra) or 19-20/x3 (4x extra), and explicitly made exempt from anything else that improves threat range or multiplier.

Dark Archive

Russ Taylor wrote:


I've never bought this as a game balance argument. It gets trotted out at nearly all levels of play, and it amounts to an appeal rather than any thought of logic-based approach to game design. I'm not sold on the feat being out of whack myself, but I would note that it has the crit properties (6x extra damage over the long run) of scythe with improved critical, which basically means that you shouldn't be getting into greatsword damage ranges under stock assumptions. I'd be happier seeing it dropped to either 18-20 (3x extra) or 19-20/x3 (4x extra), and explicitly made exempt from anything else that improves threat range or multiplier.

Devestating Blow allows a 12th level character to deal critical hits as standard actions. Razor Sharp Chair Leg prevents you from using it. I find it rather strange that on one hand people complain about the one combat feat per round clause and on the other hand about feats like RSCL. It just isn't that great. It's a nice amount of damage on 8th level, but the price are limited combat options. A 8th level rogue has, under some rule interpretations, the option to 15d6 of acid damage per round (he could of course also choose to maul people with furniture, but this would actually reduce his damage output dramatically). Compared to damage monsters like hulking hurlers RSCL is rather tame.


I seem to recall some discussion of this before on this Thread: Razor Sharp Chair Leg - Page 38
Jackie Chan and Jason Bourne even got mentions as examples of users of unconventional weapons.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Jadeite wrote:
Devestating Blow allows a 12th level character to deal critical hits as standard actions. Razor Sharp Chair Leg prevents you from using it. I find it rather strange that on one hand people complain about the one combat feat per round clause and on the other hand about feats like RSCL. It just isn't that great. It's a nice amount of damage on 8th level, but the price are limited combat options. A 8th level rogue has, under some rule interpretations, the option to 15d6 of acid damage per round (he could of course also choose to maul people with furniture, but this would actually reduce his damage output dramatically). Compared to damage monsters like hulking hurlers RSCL is rather tame.

Yes, and devastating blow is my list of things to playtest, because on the surface it looks overpowered, and it introduces wonkiness with regards to making high-mult weapons more desirable than high-range weapons. So I don't really consider it a good argument to say "Problematic Feat A exists, so Problematic Feat B doesn't matter". The conflict with power attack MAY fix devastating blow to some extent (it eliminates a lot of the synergies that make lance builds so deadly), but it still to my mind an undesirable feature that the feat works better with a scythe than a falchion.

As far as non-core items like hulking hurlers and frenzied berserkers, one of the the things I'm looking forward to about Paizo's design is hopefully a lot less out-of-whack prestige classes. You can make nearly ANYTHING seem acceptable if you take the hulking hurler as a starting point for "balanced".

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Coming back briefly to gmw on improvised weapons, as I had some thoughts on that:

Adding an adjective to a word does not necessarily mean the modified word keeps the same meaning. For example, "counterfeit money" is not money, and a "fallen paladin" is no longer a paladin. In D&D terms, an improvised weapon is not always an object that is a weapon, it may be an object that is not a weapon. I say "not always" because of javelins, arrows, and bolts, although I personally view arrows/bolts as projectiles/ammunition rather than weapons per se.

Here is what the SRD has to say about improvised weapons, note that they are objects "not crafted to be weapons".
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on that rules case :)

Dark Archive

The falchion is better still than the scythe Russ.

It can be used with Devastating Blow and has a better crit range. When you don't need to move, a full attack is better than Devastating Blow for all weapons (sans the scythe). A falchion with improved crit is likely to crit more than once if you use full attack, especially if you use backswing to get a fifth attack. If you crit more than once per round, you have done more damage than possible with Devastating Blow. And more importantly, Devastating Blow can only be used on 1 target per round, making it useless for fighting hordes of enemies.

The fighter's formula:

(X number of attacks*percent of critical hit chance)*crit multiplier*(damage dice+damage mod)

This is the formula that fighter's work off. As one can see, a better crit range works best if you get a higher number of attacks. All one needs to do is boost the number of attacks and the crit range pays for itself. Devastating Blow is only good because it locks the percent of crit chance at 1. That is the sole trick to it. Every thing else is working on the other half of the formula.

All anyone has to do is play with that formula to make the fighter do lots of damage. Devastating Blow is just one of the clear ways to do so.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

BM wrote:
The falchion is better still than the scythe Russ.

Your formula is flawed, actually. You're factoring in the base damage of the weapon, when for critical damage calculations you need to be looking at the added damage (1 to 3 increments, depending on the crit multiplier. Mechanically, the x2/20, x3/19-20 and x4/18-pair all add the same amount over time, with a slight deviation in favor of high-mult weapons when low-numbered crit threats would miss rather than hit. The scythe and the falchion have identical damage properties over time. This can be verified with either a simulation or a spreadsheet, your choice.

There is an overkill factor that works for high-range weapons, but it is offset by the 1-shot kill factor in favor of high-mult weapons.

Edit:
What may be a better way to explain the flaw is this:
Your formula is looking at a 18-20 range weapon, and saying it does 6x damage over 18-20. It then looks at a x4 mult weapon, says says it does 4x damage on a 20 (I realize the extra damage is only a potential, but bear with me). This makes the 18-20 weapon look better. But what your formula leaves out is that the x4 weapon still does 1x damage on an 18-20, so both wind up doing 6x over the 18-20 range. Personally, I find it easier to look at the added damage and drop out the 1x (base damage) across the board.

Dark Archive

Russ Taylor wrote:
BM wrote:
The falchion is better still than the scythe Russ.

Your formula is flawed, actually. You're factoring in the base damage of the weapon, when for critical damage calculations you need to be looking at the added damage (1 to 3 increments, depending on the crit multiplier. Mechanically, the x2/20, x3/19-20 and x4/18-pair all add the same amount over time, with a slight deviation in favor of high-mult weapons when low-numbered crit threats would miss rather than hit. The scythe and the falchion have identical damage properties over time. This can be verified with either a simulation or a spreadsheet, your choice.

There is an overkill factor that works for high-range weapons, but it is offset by the 1-shot kill factor in favor of high-mult weapons.

Huh? The extra damage is added by multiplying damage by the crit multiplier(in my formula). My formula isn't a weapon balancer, it is the fighter damage formula meant to figure out critical damage of any build.

X number of attacks is the number of attacks that hit.

percent of critical hit chance is self explanatory. I don't calculate it in the formula through because there are things that could change it. Especially for fighters who go from (crit threat range*5%^2) to (crit threat range*5%) at level 20.

The idea is that you times number of attacks by the chance of a critical, get the average number of criticals, times that by crit multiplier and times that by damage to figure average critical hit damage of the build.

Which isn't wrong, because that is what you do in a game of D&D. All I need to do is add the second formula that adds damage of the non-critical hit damage to critical hit damage to figure true average damage.

That formula is:

(X number of attacks-Average number of Criticals hits)*(damage dice+Damage mod)

Your formula won't work because the numbers change at level 20. Fighter get to automatically confirm crits at that level greatly favoring large crit ranges.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

BM wrote:
Your formula won't work because the numbers change at level 20. Fighter get to automatically confirm crits at that level greatly favoring large crit ranges.

Mechnically, a 100% chance of crit confirmation does nothing to favor range over mult. Note that adding to mult will skew this, so I'm not factoring in anything that changes mult (but if you'll wish, I can explain why a flat add to mult or range skews weapon critical damage).

Consider the scythe, and an attack that hits on 11 or higher:
11-19: 1x damage
20: 4x damage
Total damage: 13x (9x1 + 1x4)

Consider the falchion, and the same odds:
11-17: 1x damage
18-20: 2x damage
Total damage: 13x (7x1 + 3x2)

The two are identical in terms of damage characteristics over the long haul, even with 100% critical confirmation.

Again, your critical formula is flawed, because it doesn't factor in that the high-mult weapon does normal damage when it doesn't crit. You're counting the base damage in too many times on the high-range weapon, or too few times on the high-mult weapon if you prefer.

Dark Archive

Problem with that is that you're saying a feat is unbalanced and favors a single weapon, when feat(s) exist that puts it large ranges back in line.

More important, really what we are talking about is effect that fighter can have with various weapons, and does a feat(Devastating Blow) unbalance that. At that point, you must balance feats by effect.

A falchion user can take improved critical and make it his weapon mastery. Doing so allows him to make a critical automatically with a roll of 15 or higher, with a 3x crit. That is a 30% chance of a crit on every attack. That gives one a 27%(30%*[3*30/100]) chance for 2 or more attacks to hit on a full attack. If that happens, you get more damage than if you had used the scythe(2*3x=6). For a large crit range weapons, the the goal to get as many attacks as possible. You weighting Devastating Blow to much, as you can only use it once per turn to make one attack. Once you make that attack, the scythe gos back to its normal use.

And you can take devastating blow with the falchion too.

to clarify my formula:(And note, its its not meant to balance a weapon)

Average number of critical hits=X number of attacks*% chance of critical hits

Average damage=(Average number of critical hits*crit multiplier*(Damage dice+damage mod))+((X number of attacks-Average number of critical hits)*(Damage dice+damage mod))

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

I'll keep trying to show the math here :)

Two PCs, both with improved critical, one with a falchion, one with a scythe, doing a sequence. We'll pretend that anything but 1 hits across the whole sequence, just to keep the math simpler. We'll do 4 rounds at 5 attacks (haste) per round, and assume the person rolls every number from 1 to 20 inclusive:

falchion:
1 miss
2-14 hit, no crit, x1 damage
15-20 crit, x2 damage

13 hits, 6 crits, 13 + (6*2) = 25 times base damage over 4 rounds

scythe:
1 miss
2-18 hit, no crit, x1 damage
19-20 crit, x4 damage

17 hits, 2 crits, 17 + (4*2) = 25 times base damage over 4 rounds

Both weapons have identical damage characteristics over time. Their tradeoff is in one weapon doing frequent crits, the other overwhelming crits, not in terms of overall damage output.

(you can also plug it into a spreadsheet, and come out with the same principle but without the assumptions about hitting except on a 1 and rolling all 20 numbers)

Dark Archive

I understand you math behind the weapons. What I'm saying is that for the purpose of the conversation, we need to look at not the weapons, but the effects of the feats, and the changes they bring.

You stated that you are not sure that Devastating Blow is balanced. I disagree, because if done right, another proper fighter build can compete with it.

Also, my complete formula works. This is the most complete one:

Average damage=(Average number of critical hits*crit multiplier*(Damage dice+damage mod))+((X number of attacks-Average number of critical hits)*(Damage dice+damage mod))

For example:

20 attacks, falchion vs scythe, weapon damage will be represented by a 1.

Falchion:

Average number of critical hits=20*.15 (3 numbers, times 5%)=3

(3*2*1)+((20-3 or 17)*1)=23

Scythe:

Average number of critical hits=20*.5 (1 number, times 5%)=1

(1*4*1)+((20-1 or 19)*1)=23

See, my complete formula works. It just uses a more complex formula. Why use the more complex formula? It allows me to model the various fighter builds more precisely. I admit my first formula was off, but it was a quick formula made after two builds. My second is accurate, but you need to do other calculations before getting to it or it will be off. Most notably the number of attacks and critical hit chance. I could represent them with calculations in the formula but I don't want to overcomplicate the formula, given that you can assume or add the data if one wanted.


Timespike wrote:
dodo wrote:

If I had a choice, I'd rather fight with a comfy chair.

Or better yet, have an entire squad of Valkyries armed with... pillows.

Mmmmm... pillow fight.

I think Valkyries would just smother you with them. I seriously doubt asphixiation would be as sexy as you imagine. ;)

No, they fight each other, I just watch...

Or how about wet towels? Snapping a rolled up towel just right could leave a nasty welt.


Timespike wrote:
Okay, all jokes aside, here's the problem: no sane GM is going to let a player wield a weaponized table as their primary weapon, and even if they did, there's all kinds of problems lugging around furniture for use in combat.

My first thought was:

"You're going to backstab him with a ballista?"
"Uh huh!"
"With a f***ing seige weapon?"
"Uh huh!!!"
"OK. There's gotta be a rule against this."


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
K wrote:


...
-Adds a +2 shield bonus, ... shield bonus while two-handed fighting, and without any feats used.
-Adds a +2 to bull rushes.
-damage = 3d6/x2
...
as per the Improvised Weapon rules on page 158-159 of the Complete Warrior.

I figure the problem is right there.

How can you get to an Improvised Weapon beign better in combat then both a Tower Shield (witch would get you an additionnal -2 on attacks over the -4 of an improvised weapon) and a HUGE sized Mace or a GARGANTUAN sized Club?

Sure you get the -4 from Improvised weapon but if you get that damage and THOSE bonuses how can you look at those stats and say "sounds fair!".

Any other "core"-weapon that gives a "side-bonus" (on trips and/or) pays for it in either lesser damage or crit.

I see the core Books of 3.5 as very stongly balanced in most areas (not all and not perfect but strong) but if you get into the supplement books I'd call that slippery slope a cliff if you stack them all together!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

"I do not fear the Knights of the Round Table," announces the daring bandit.

"I believe you are mistaken," replies the leader of the knights. "We are not the Knights of the Round Table. We are the Knights of the Round Tables. Plural."

The knights draw their +3 holy tables. The bandit flees in terror.


I sadly have an intense furniture combat that involved the use of spells.

I was but a wee first level human paragon with his band of first level friends when the DM desided that a bar fight was going to break out. Well my character tries to get his friend clear of the fight but there was a 14th level monk bartender standing between us and the exit. My loyal band of friends made for windows and the back door leaving me (last iniative) to face the monk. The monk went first by trying to throw me which hurt but nothing real (1 damage on a d6 of falling). The monk was approch by drunken orcs who were instantly dispatched. So I did what and paladin in training would do, I grabbed a chair and charged (critical) he stepped up and made a single maneuver against me sending me across the room to the doorway (door did not stop my fall, 6 on a d6) I staggered forward lifting another chair but this time my lovely and smarter magely girlfriend cast some weapon enchancement spell that increased critical and add a d6 to the damage. I then criticalled 4 fold (that is a roll of a 20-20-20-20, and then confimred for 3+2+2+2 times damage.) which KOed the monk. My first level human paragon gain renown (no xp of course). This was not a very good DM, he kinda had a mean streak towards his PCs and game every monster magic items in every slot which somehow vanished when they were defeated among a mess of other problems.

The moral of the story is that a keen chair, saved my life. Improvised weapons with responsible PCs are fine, enchancing them with spells isnt that bad. Oh and luck will sometimes trump crappy DMs.


Gods, the things that come up in D&D.

In my last campaign, we had a drunk monk who tried to do exactly this - using a dining table improvised weapon for ungodly damage. After a short discussion, I ruled it infeasible for his medium-sized monk to utilize it. Enlarged, well, that was a slightly different case. :P

And the perfect weapon is not an dining table. It's a Dire Bear animal companion with Spider Climb. Seriously. When it does a shoulder drop from a 10 ft. height (i.e., from the ceiling), IT DEALS 40D6 damage.

We discovered this when playing the same module with the drunk monk's table antics. The falling object damage rules are seriously f'ed up. Especially when you consider what a dragon's crush damage attack is, and what it could do using the falling object rules (according to the Draconomicon, a wyrm red dragon could do upwards of 600d6 damage with a 10 ft. jump onto an opponent). I think the falling objects damage rules was the fastest time I'd ever had to house-rule something.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Combat & Magic / I present to you The Perfect Weapon All Messageboards
Recent threads in Combat & Magic