|
I've seen a lot of arguments on both sides. Both have their merits; both have their negatives.
Personally, I have not seen the "golf bag" issue. The last character I played I did have a few different weapons that I carried as I found them.
I refused to sell the nonmagical adamantite dagger. I refused to sell the non-magical cold-iron rapier, and I refused to sell the silver battleaxe we found. My main weapon - a longsword is what I made magical; but the other items I held on to for pragmatism instead of selling them - and if/when we encountered a creature that needed one of those materials, I resorted to using a non-magic weapon that was not my "chosen weapon" which I was most feat based proficient with, which IMO means the Damage Reduction system did its job; it took away the "comfort zone" of the attacker and made them switch to a less preferred method. Kinda like in Aliens when they were suppose to remove all explosive rounds due to the proximity of the reactor. One guy had a shotgun "just in case of close encounters" It was not ideal - but it was a good backup.
That I believe supports 3.5
However, I have also seen the lack of exuberance with high PLUS weapons from players; opting to sell them since they're worth so much and instead buying low plus - lots of a abilities - which is frustrating.
That I believe supports 3.0
The overall problem with DR is it is either ALL or NOTHING. A creature reducing 10 points of damage from all attacks unless the weapon is GOOD then it doesn't reduce any.
Here is a plausible fix:
1) Make it so that you dont have to have a PLUS to make a weapon Magical.
2) Make creatures that have DR x /MAGIC will need a +1 or better
3) Make magical pluses do x Times 3 damage all the time; thus making the idea of having a higher plus lucrative. A +3 Longsword getting +3 to hit and +9 to damage may want to be kept around AND will help minimize the effectiveness of DR / "special materials or alignment" but not actually removing the reduced damage.
4) Make some creatures have Damage reduction DR x / "element"
(Trolls DR 5 / Fire) So now that you don't have a +1 needed to make a weapon magical, you COULD have a Flaming Longsword that will do all damage to the troll - but non-flaming will have their damage slightly reduced (although a good plus will help do alot more damage - thus a mere +2 is already doing more damage than the DR takes off...).
You could have creatures with "DR / Cold" or "DR / Electricity"
With the x3 damage from the enhancement bonus - it makes higher pluses more desirable, a good replacement for an extra ability (cost-wise): ("Well, I can get Holy and do 2d6 extra damage and overcome GOOD alignment DR, or I can get an additional +2 on my blade giving me a better chance to hit and 6 more points of damage all the time")
That being said - I am not thrilled about the idea of a higher plus simply negating certain DR types (a golem w/ DR 10 / Adamantite receiving FULL damage if the weapon is +3 doesnt sit well with me - but if that +3 was doing x3 damage - then it's doing 9 points of damage - almost erasing the DR, but still subtracting the 10 from the overall damage output)
3.5 system: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 - 10 (avg 1.5 pts of dmg)
PF: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 - 0 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)
My idea: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR: 1d8+13 - 10 (avg 7.5 pts of dmg)
Robert
As a compromise, I'd keep type-based DR (slashing, etc.) and alignment-based DR "off-limits" for plusses. I'd peg cold iron at +3, and adamantine at +5 for reasons of past continuity (in 3.0, stoneskin gave DR 10/+5, in 3.5 it gave DR 10/adamantine, and that says to me that adamantine was the new +5). +2 and +4 weapons could then be viewed as "stepping stones" on the way to the benefits that +3 and +5 give.
Make magical pluses do x Times 3 damage all the time; thus making the idea of having a higher plus lucrative. A +3 Longsword getting +3 to hit and +9 to damage may want to be kept around AND will help minimize the effectiveness of DR / "special materials or alignment" but not actually removing the reduced damage.
I'd be on board with that, too. Totally.
|
|
If we list +2 weapons at 8,000 gp, +3 at 18,000, etc., then there should be some reasonable explanation for the exponentially-increasing cost. All the way back to 1st edition, bypassing DR was that explanation. But then 3.5 eliminated the explanation and failed to provide another one. That's inconsistent, short-sighted, and just all-around bad design.
Kirth, I posted my thoughts on this issue about the same time you were writing this. Take a look at my thoughts on the PLUS, and see if it makes a difference in your opinion of it overall worth/value.
Robert
EDIT: Ah, I see now you already have seen it. ;-) (once again it seems we have similar appreciations.)
A +5 weapon versus a +1 weapon with various enhancements that cause, lets say +4d6 points of damage may seem like a better choice, but the various d6s may be negated by various energy resistances, and the +4 to hit is not in evidence with the various alternate traits, meaning that the +5 weapon is more reliable.
My personal opinion is that this balances out fine.
Maybe that's not a great example, but the point I'm trying to get across is that just because something is expensive doesn't mean its worth buying. Fact Of Life.
But no character would ever buy one, ever. Any one they found, they would immediately try to sell for vastly more than we both agree it's actually worth. Would you allow them to find a buyer that gullible every time? I wouldn't. To assume that everyone other than the PCs is a low-grade moron, and will happily pay 50,000 gp for something that's worth maybe 2,000, really ruins my game experience.
EDIT: Ah, I see now you already have seen it. ;-) (once again it seems we have similar appreciations.)
Yeah, I like your suggestion, a lot. I might even bend as far as +2x for damage, to keep a parallel consistency with weapon focus/specialization. But despite KEJR's correct statement regarding reliability, I believe that in the long run the +1d6 cold damage (or whatever) will give you a LOT more damage dealt than a +1 enhancement to damage, even factoring in the extra +1 to attacks. Obviously, if 50% of monsters were resistant to cold, that would change, but really it works out to be a lot less than that.
Even the +4d6 sometimes (+3d6 other times, +2d6 others) is still better in the long run than a steady +4, I suspect, even with an extra +4 to attacks (which is nice, but not "all that"). Of course, if someone showed me correct math indicating that +4 to attack was worth +4d6-4 damage, at the high levels at which you'd have 50K to spend on a sword, I might be convinced... But no; greater magic weapon STILL trumps the weapon property. Its existence renders KEJR's suggestion (which was still viable, until I reconsidered) invalid, unless the spell is nerfed.
Shoot, in 3.5e, you could at least use Power Attack to convert the extra +4 to attack into a reliable +8 damage. Now, you can't even do that.
|
|
EDIT: Ah, I see now you already have seen it. ;-) (once again it seems we have similar appreciations.)Yeah, I like your suggestion, a lot. I might even bend as far as +2x for damage, to keep a parallel consistency with weapon focus/specialization. But despite KEJR's correct statement regarding reliability, I believe that in the long run the +1d6 cold damage (or whatever) will give you a LOT more damage dealt than a +1 enhancement to damage, even factoring in the extra +1 to attacks. Obviously, if 50% of monsters were resistant to cold, that would change, but really it works out to be a lot less than that.
There are fewer creatures resistant to cold than fire - and even few yet to acid - which is the min/maxer element of choice since so fewer creatures are resistant to Acid. Nontheless, there was an archer in a game I played - it was +1 Longbow of Acid/cold/Fire/electricity.
That did 1d8 + 4d6 +1. It was equivalent of +5 bow doing all that dmg and he simply had the party cleric cast Greater Magic Weapon on it every day (we were 12th level - so it was still +3 for the purpose of attack rolls etc) That was where I truly saw the pluses not worth as much as the abilities.
But I'd rather fix THAT then change the Damage Reduction to remove the need for cool abilities and/or material.
Robert
But I'd rather fix THAT then change the Damage Reduction to remove the need for cool abilities and/or material.
Robert
Fair enough. All I ask for is "a" workable fix, not "the" workable fix! Your 3x scaling damage (which greater magic weapon would have to be spelled out as NOT providing) provides just such a fix. Revising greater magic weapon so that it's an 8th level spell, or lasts only 1 round/level, or whatever, is another possible fix -- if KEJR's math is correct (which I'm not sure yet). Paizo's recommended return to a 3.0-like system is still another possible fix; you disagree with it, but provide an equally workable alternative, and for that I salute you. My only issue is in NOT providing such an alternative.
Erik
I'll also throw this out there. You may be right about no one wanting a +5 weapon, but when I was playing a fighter, for some reason I really did want a +2 weapon at least, because it gave me more of a "cushion" for when I wanted to do something like power attack. Its true, after the +2 I wanted a +2 frost longsword, and the next enhancement I wanted was a keen longsword, but I wasn't completely willing to ignore reliability for "flashy" abilities.
I'll also throw this out there. You may be right about no one wanting a +5 weapon, but when I was playing a fighter, for some reason I really did want a +2 weapon at least, because it gave me more of a "cushion" for when I wanted to do something like power attack.
Again, reliability may be a big issue... but not if greater magic weapon easily trumps weapon properties. You know, maybe if the spell had a huge material component cost, so that you were spending as much on the spell as you would on a better weapon... but otherwise, a person would have to be an idiot to actually buy a +3 sword. As Robert points out, just get a +1 acid frost sword, and then get your buddy the sorcerer to cast GMW on it, and you've got everyone beat!
Again, reliability may be a big issue... but not if greater magic weapon easily trumps weapon properties. You know, maybe if the spell had a huge material component cost, so that you were spending as much on the spell as you would on a better weapon... but otherwise, a person would have to be an idiot to actually buy a +3 sword. As Robert points out, just get a +1 acid frost sword, and then get your buddy the sorcerer to cast GMW on it, and you've got everyone beat!
You have an interesting point in that perhaps the problem isn't so much with the weapons, but with the spell. At any rate, I must admit that I've not had many players that even thought to prepare greater magic weapon, and in the campaign involving the fighter, our divine caster was a druid, and not inclined to buffing us so much as summoning an army of animals.
|
|
Again, reliability may be a big issue... but not if greater magic weapon easily trumps weapon properties. You know, maybe if the spell had a huge material component cost, so that you were spending as much on the spell as you would on a better weapon... but otherwise, a person would have to be an idiot to actually buy a +3 sword. As Robert points out, just get a +1 acid frost sword, and then get your buddy the sorcerer to cast GMW on it, and you've got everyone beat!You have an interesting point in that perhaps the problem isn't so much with the weapons, but with the spell. At any rate, I must admit that I've not had many players that even thought to prepare greater magic weapon, and in the campaign involving the fighter, our divine caster was a druid, and not inclined to buffing us so much as summoning an army of animals.
its also on the wizard/sorcerer spell and lasts an hour per level so its quite functional for this purpose.
Robert
its also on the wizard/sorcerer spell and lasts an hour per level so its quite functional for this purpose.
Yeah; all the sorcerers I've DMed for have chosen that spell. The thing is, divine favor is better still, so I hate to nerf GMW too much without also redoing half the other spells. So instead, my thought was that by making weapons with a permanent enhancement bonus able to do something that GMW things can't, you'd go a long way towards justifying their insane price tags. It doesn't HAVE to be penetrating DR (although that's been their purpose all the way back to 1e, and only changed recently, in 3.5), but something is good. A damage multiplier, as you proposed, Robert, is an easy and logical fix. Skjaldbakka mentioned functioning in an antimagic zone; if there way to scale that with the bonus, that would work pretty niftily, too.
3.5 system: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 - 10 (avg 1.5 pts of dmg)
PF: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 - 0 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)
My idea: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR: 1d8+13 - 10 (avg 7.5 pts of dmg)
Now, without the DRs:
3.5 system: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)PF: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)
Your idea: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR: 1d8+13 (avg 19.5 pts of dmg)
So, your idea indeed works fine for balancing the DR rules, but against no DR crits, a +3 sword with no other special ability is dealing 6 extra dmg. It does make the 'pluses' on a weapon more appealing, but I fear I might make them too powerful and unbalanced.
Adding my 2 coppers...
My suggestion for DR system (from my current house rules):
Unchanged:
x/-
--> Should be unpenetrable DR as currently.
x/bludgeon;slah;pierce
--> Should also stay as is. However this type DR should never be higher than 10.
Changed (everything else):
x/magic(special)
--> X gets reduced by 5 per each +1 the weapon has. If special is specified ignore the DR completely when using a weapon filling the special requirement.
Example 1:
Werewolf DR: 10/magic(silver)
normal weapon --> reduce 10 from damage
+1 weapon --> reduce 5
+2 or more --> ignore DR
any silver --> ignore DR
Example 2:
Iron Golem DR: 15/magic(adamantine)
normal weapon --> reduce 15 from damage
+1 weapon --> reduce 10
+2 weapon --> reduce 5
+3 or more --> ignore DR
any adamantine --> ignore DR
If multiple specials are needed, you need both to ignore the DR. If you have only one of required specials, count the weapon as +1 higher.
Using DR like this, I'd personally also modify the DR numbers on some creatures a bit higher. Not as high as in 3.0, but a bit depending on the creature. Some (great wyrms, demiliches, etc.) should even be fully vulnerable only to +5 weapons. That is, have a DR of 25/magic.
PS: This also scales to Epic levels. DR: 10/Epic is just DR: 35/magic (+7 weapon)...
--> X gets reduced by 5 per each +1 the weapon has. If special is specified ignore the DR completely when using a weapon filling the special requirement.
That's still another possibility I'd be on board with. The only down side I can see is the potential for it to get a bit difficult to keep track of in the midst of a big fight with demons, for example, all of which have different DR, when all the characters with different "plusses" on their weapons.
The only down side I can see is the potential for it to get a bit difficult to keep track of in the midst of a big fight with demons, for example, all of which have different DR, when all the characters with different "plusses" on their weapons.
I can only speak for myself, but we've been playing with this rule since a few months after 3.5 release, and I've never had problems with this.
If I have problems remembering PC details, I make little cheat sheets (post-its) about theirs skills/abilities/items/whatnot at the beginning of each session.
I also just realized that my post above should've gone to "New Rules Suggestions" -forum... :( Should I crosspost it there, or is that frowned upon?
I also just realized that my post above should've gone to "New Rules Suggestions" -forum... :( Should I crosspost it there, or is that frowned upon?
The line certainly gets blurred when we're talking about tweaking existing rules, so I have no idea what the protocol is (<fails Diplomacy check>). Still, it couldn't hurt; if people get annoyed with it, they'll just ignore it. (Or they'll jump down your throat and you can ignore them, I suppose!)
Skjal,
Thanks for the clarification. I do see where you're coming from; I just disagree on some fundamental level that has to do with underlying game assumptions, I guess. To my mind, game rules should not be altered to make certain pre-existing items not only obsolete, but also obscenely overpriced, given their lack of function; I'll explain why this is an issue for me in 3.5 and 3.PF in particular (vs. other systems) in the next paragraph. Rather than retain the relict rules because they follow all the creation mechanics rules correctly, I'd like to see them augmented (or restored) to the point where 50,000 gp in-game is worth 50,000 gp in-game.
Here's why: Let me hasten to explain that this would be no issue to me at all except that 3rd/3.5/PF editions are founded on the rubric that gp, as much as xp, is used as a fundamental scaling variable for character advancement. If gp value could be decoupled from gear and hence from character effectiveness, I'd be in 100% agreement with you. But as it is, an "X" level PC or NPC is assumed by default to have "Y" or "Z" gp gear that directly augments his or her personal prowess. That's an unfortunate situation, in my mind, but not one that can be easily removed without massively restructuring the game rules. Given that situation, 50,000 gp represents, in-game, not an amount of money as much as an amount of power. And a +5 sword doesn't deliver if it can't beat DR or do anything else. It breaks the system.
So, I don't really care if we re-word the GMW spell, or allow the sword to bypass DR (fully or in part), or give it a bigger damage bonus, or just reduce the price for bonuses as opposed to other imbuements (like vorpal or whatever). But, to my mind, we're obliged to accept that 50,000 gp in 3.5/PDF rules is more than just an amount of money.
But, whether or not you purchase a +5 sword is an option, and not one you have to take. You could also spend 50,000 gp on chickens, which would also be an ineffective and unlikely choice. I don't see why its existence as a possible bad choice is such a thorn in your side.
Purchasing a +5 sword that does nothing else, at the listed price, is an option NO ONE would take. The chickens you mentioned still represent currency; you could sell them to various poultry farmer consortiums, or whatever, and in exchange collect gear to augment you abilities (the way the rules, right or wrong, assume you're "supposed" to). But because a +5 sword has no inherent value based on its abilities (beyond 2,500 gp or so), and because you and I agree that no one would ever buy one, it isn't currency anymore; it's a dead-end to 50,000 gp in gold (and hence personal power) that was "promised" to the characters (or NPCs, or whomever) and can never be delivered. A +5 sword in 3.5e is really a +1 sword plus a whole lot of gold thrown into a pool of magma. Why should there be rules to support an irreversible drain of power -- especially when Pathfinder is moving in the exact opposite direction, by removing XP costs?
And especially... why should we create this situation by removing a workable option (defeating DR), and then adamantly refuse to replace that option, assuming we're dead-set on not restoring it? It would be fairly easy to come up with a replacement; several possibilities have already been mentioned. They'll have a minimal effect on backward compatibility, because almost no one took +2 to +5 weapons in 3.5e anyway.
|
|
I use the same house rule and will keep on house ruling it if Pathfinder keeps the current DR rules.
I think there's a common house rule that tons of people already use, that each + of an enchanted weapon overcomes five points of DR/Magic. I've been using that in my high-level game and it's worked perfectly. I keep all other forms of DR completely by-the-book.
Wow, a popular idea, which I too have used since 3.5 came out and will continue to do so in the future.
-DM Jeff
I really dislike the new DR system I hope they go back to the SRD one
The supposed workable option doesn't make a +5 sword any more valuable than it was before. Magic weapons punching Dr just cheapens DR, it doesn't actually make it more likely you'll buy a +5 sword, becuase of GMW.
As I've said more than once before, the wording of GMW would be amended with "Because this spell provides only a temporary enhancement bonus, not an actual permanent enhancementy property, it does not allow the weapon to bypass/reduce DR the way a magical weapon does."
Furthermore, you might buy a +5 sword if you are not part of an adventuring group with access to GMW. This crops up with non-traditional parties.
I still wouldn't spend the gold on it if it does nothing else, and I'll wager you wouldn't, either, when it came down to it. As others have pointed out, the other properties are usually a MUCH better buy for the money.
Assuming you are willing to spend no more than half your WBL on a +5 sword, you won't have one til 13th level, at which point GMW is giving you a +3 weapon. So there is some give and take there, GMW is behind what you can buy until really high level.
Yes, that's true, and it's the spell's one saving grace.
Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.
That's the logical next thing to consider, I agree.
For one, it means that GMW no longer subsumes all the "silvered weapon" and "align weapon" and "adamantine weapon" and "cold iron weapon" spells and oils from various sources. Those things would therefore retain their usefulness, which could only please the 3.5e DR fans. It therefore makes DR more important, insofar as DR can't easily be bypassed by a single spell. And it makes magical weapons with real "plusses," that do bypass DR, that much more valuable in comparison.
I'd still probably up the "plusses" needed; +5 = adamantine seems to be one of the assumed conversions between 3.0 and 3.5, for example. Alignment-based and type-based DR would have to be adjudicated carefully: not too easy to bypass (if at all possible) would seem to be most people's preference.
I'd actually be happier if you let GMW punch through material but didn't allow the magical weapon enhancement bonus to do the same.
That sends a clear message that a single 3rd level spell is, by the nature of the rules, supposed to be worth more than 50,000 gp worth of gear. Don't get me wrong; I actually might prefer playing a game founded on that assumption, but it would be something more like Iron Heroes and a lot less like 3.5, unfortunately.
|
|
3.5 system: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 - 10 (avg 1.5 pts of dmg)
PF: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 - 0 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)
My idea: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR: 1d8+13 - 10 (avg 7.5 pts of dmg)Now, without the DRs:
3.5 system: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)
PF: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR. 1d8+7 (avg 11.5 pts of dmg)
Your idea: +3 longsword w/ 18 STR: 1d8+13 (avg 19.5 pts of dmg)So, your idea indeed works fine for balancing the DR rules, but against no DR crits, a +3 sword with no other special ability is dealing 6 extra dmg. It does make the 'pluses' on a weapon more appealing, but I fear I might make them too powerful and unbalanced.
I disagree; it doesn't make it unbalanced. The conscious choice in this case would be "Do I enhance my sword from +2 to +3 - giving me an extra +1 to hit and a flat 3 extra points of damage? Or do I add Cold element giving it an addition 1d6 damage (possible of 6) against MOST targets. Sure there are a few that are immune to that cold - but there are alot of "fire" creatures that would take DOUBLE from that cold damage"
The way I see it, each Enhancement plus giving +1 to attacks and +3 to damage is a fair compromise to adding another ability to give a 1d6 damage. (or 2d6 against a certain type of foe "Bane").
Kirth is right - its more "bang for the buck" under the 3.5 system to get more elemental type damage than it is to just have a +4 weapon. I believe my suggestion may help make this a more feasible option, AND helps in overcoming the damage reduction - thus making it SEEM as if the higher PLUS of a weapon does work to negate damage reduction. Sure its not REALLY negating the damage reduction in place - but it IS creating a much more liklihood of doing enough damage to overcome it.
And furthermore, with the newer established way of Power Attack, have 3x the enhancment of a plus to damage isn't going to break the bank and do too much damage. Take a straight +5 longsword doing 1d8+15 vs one that is +1 of Holy, Fire, and Cold, doing 1d8+4d6. Now the gap is closed between the two but certainly my idea isn't over the top, too much, unbalancing, or outside of the realm of feasibility. Even making it x2 damage being 1d8+10 for a +5 weapon is still plausible - but 4d6 from additional options is still a far better bang for the buck than the +10 - but at least its a step in the right direction IMO.
Robert
|
|
Quick question for the crowd,
Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I still like the 3.5 DR better - not that the proposed way is undo-able or a deal-breaker - just that I like (as DM) the difficult means to overcome ALL types of damage reduction. The difficulty and CR of a creature with DR take into account the fact that not everyone in a party will have a way to overcome all DR.
A fix on the GMW to not allow to overcome DR does make the permanent enhancement of a weapon more desireable; but I still dont like the idea of changing the DR to be able to be overcome by a higher plus of a weapon.
I think it also causes spells like Align Weapon to become inert, it takes away the specialness of a "Holy" or "Lawful" weapon in that the PLUS alone can now overcome it, and I like the aspect of the abilities and such that can be put in weapons - it adds a flavor that is needed IMO - certainly more than the plain 'ol +3 dagger.
I may be biased, but I firmly believe that simply making the ENHANCEMENT plus of a weapon do a higher amount of damage to allow it to better overcome the amount of DR and make such a bonus a viable option (in lieu of a special ability) - so it becomes a conscious choice - but at least one that isn't a "no-brainer" (like choosing Haste as your third level spell is).
Robert
Quick question for the crowd,
Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It still wouldn't make any difference to me. The base cost for punching through DR is small:
- cold iron weapons are cheap- silver weapons are cheap
- adamantine weapons are relatively cheap
- a wand of Bless Weapon/Align Weapon is relatively cheap
So you cast GMW and/or Align Weapon on your backup cold iron/silver/adamantine weapon and you can punch through most DR for much, much less than 50,000 gp.
|
|
You just don't get it, do you? The paladin was supposed to shine in that encounter. This is not bad DMing or favoritism. It would be if all the encounters were designed for the paladin's benefit, but that was not the case.
Sorry for the threadjack - but there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. I have encounters all the time geared towards one PC or another being the shining star.
If you break it down - all adventures have this - perhaps without conscious forethought, but they have it.
Undead encounters will showcase the cleric. Targets far away, flying, or up on high areas will showcase the wizards, or archers, big powerful lots of hit point sponge monsters will showcase fighters, role-playing encounters will showcase the bard/rogue, or diplomatic cleric or paladin, wildlife animals are certainly the ranger or druid's forte' - etc etc.
That is the whole reason a party of adventurers are suppose to be varied and diverse mix - to have at least one member capable of being able to step up to the plate and make a difference.
So there is nothing wrong with a particular encounter meant to be the paladins moment to shine. Everyone deserves occasional spotlights, and certainly makes the player feel great afterwards. As long as you're spreading the love around, there's no reason to be thought of as "biased" and nothing that the original author of this comment seemed to indicate that this was the way he runs all of his encounters.
Robert
[/threadjack]
|
|
Kirth:
I believe that the 3.5 rules say that you can't give a magic weapon an ability unless it has a +1 bonus; what happens if you extend that further and say that the enhancment equivalents of weapon abilities can not sum more than the regular enhancment bonus of that weapon? Effectively, you need to 'prepare' a weapon to load up with those abilities by strengthening it with regular enhancement bonuses.
This means no Icy burst weapons (+2 equivalence), unless they have a +2 enhancement bonus already, no flaming frost weapons (2*+1 equivalence) unless they have a +2 enhancement bonus, and no vorpal weapons (+5 equivalence) unless the weapon has a +5 enchancement bonus.
The price structures for weapons might need restructuring to reflect that it would no longer be possible to pile abilities on +1 enhancement bonus weapons- either that or the equivalence of some of the higher end abilities might need reducing.
I've thought of restructuring the price as well. My initial vision was:
Have the price of weapons match that of armor (bonus squared x 1000) and make all the abilities that you can put in weapons be 1 higher in the enhancment equivalent.
Thus it's CHEAPER to increase a weapon from +1 to +2 and so on - but it's pricier to advance it from +1 to +1 Flaming.
Ultimately the goal is to make the enhancement bonus more balanced and viable an option and reward in buying it - than just another ability. This may work - but i still like my other idea better.
Also - I'm not opposed to allowing weapons to have special abilities without making it magical first. (why not a spear of Returning with no magical bonus to hit and damage?)
Robert
|
|
Quick question for the crowd,
Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As a side note - it's necessary for a weapon to be "magical" for the purpose of hitting incorporeal creatures - so the spell Magic Weapon is IMO a necessary spell to ensure this capability too - and certainly helps warrant its appearance on the War Domain.
Robert
I believe that the 3.5 rules say that you can't give a magic weapon an ability unless it has a +1 bonus; what happens if you extend that further and say that the enhancment equivalents of weapon abilities can not sum more than the regular enhancment bonus of that weapon? Effectively, you need to 'prepare' a weapon to load up with those abilities by strengthening it with regular enhancement bonuses.
Charles,
If you scroll past 2-3 hours of my unfortunate rambling about worthless swords and valuable chickens, I dimly recall mentioning that option somewhere as well. And I'd be in favor of it, too. Anything to make a +5 sword worth 50,000 gp is fine by me.
|
I like the changes but think it could do with a slight revision, when I think about the reasons behind DRs of a particular damage type (piercing/slashing/bludgeoning) I would prefer to see a reduction in DR intead of ignoring it entirely. I agree adamatine should come after alignment too.
Also checking multiple DRs to find out if you get a +2 is very metagamey and too easy to forget or overlook. It needs to be dropped IMHO.