Spells: Remove Magic Weapon, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Weapon in favor of Magic Aura, Greater Magic Aura, Silver Aura, and Dead Magic Aura.
DR/Magic Weapons:
A +2 Weapon counts as silver, a +4 weapon counts as all the alignments of the wielder, and a +5 weapon counts as Adamantine (for all purposes, including hardness). Naturally, a +6 weapon still counts as Epic.
Skjald,
Your suggestions are right in line with my thoughts, for the most part. Indeed, I like your spells better than the existing ones; they seem like a logical extension of where Pathfinder is going with DR, and with a bit of tweaking I'd love to see them in play. I'd still hold out for +3 beats cold iron, just so each plus gets something, so the breakdown would be:DR /+1 (magic)
DR /+2 or silver
DR /+3 or cold iron
DR /+4 or <alignment>
DR /+5 or adamantine
DR /+6 (epic)
I'd leave weapon type-based DR (bludeoning, etc.) strictly alone; no amount of enhancement should overcome that one. And, honestly, I'm on the fence about letting enhancement beat an alignment type.
|
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 sounds about right. The DR bypass rules accomplish what they are designed for, and (Greater) Magic Weapon/Fang still provide a nice buff without overshadowing the value of permanently magical weapons.
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.
This change would remove the worst offender of my rules sensibilities. It makes sense that a temporary buff from a spell is not mighty enough to overcome DR.
Combine this with Kirth Gersen's expanded table above and I'm happy.
----------------
DR /+1 (magic)
DR /+2 or silver
DR /+3 or cold iron
DR /+4 or <alignment>
DR /+5 or adamantine
DR /+6 (epic)
----------------
I also agree that enhancement bonuses should not affect weapon type-based DR. A rapier will slip through skeletons ribs, no matter how sharp it is.
I'd still house-rule DR/magic so that each +1 shaves 5 DR off the total, but that might be too much for the basic rule?
|
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.
This change would remove the worst offender of my rules sensibilities. It makes sense that a temporary buff from a spell is not mighty enough to overcome DR.
Combine this with Kirth Gersen's expanded table above and I'm happy.
----------------
DR /+1 (magic)
DR /+2 or silver
DR /+3 or cold iron
DR /+4 or <alignment>
DR /+5 or adamantine
DR /+6 (epic)
----------------I also agree that enhancement bonuses should not affect weapon type-based DR. A rapier will slip through skeletons ribs, no matter how sharp it is.
I'd still house-rule DR/magic so that each +1 shaves 5 DR off the total, but that might be too much for the basic rule?
I like this. I can live with it - a lot better than the system currently in place.
I also think that the Plus lowering the amount of Magic DR is a good final touch - it allows for some level of difficulty based on the mettle of the creature. You could actually have creatures with DR 20 / Magic and a +4 weapon would effectively beast it completely where-as the +1 would only shave off 5 points of that.
Question though: Does +4 overcome TWO alignment DRs? or just halves the DR amount or what? (for a creature that has DR Law and Good for instance.)
Thanks
Robert
Question though: Does +4 overcome TWO alignment DRs? or just halves the DR amount or what? (for a creature that has DR Law and Good for instance.)
Offhand, I can't think of such a creature, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. And that's a great question. Since I'm on the fence about enhancement vs. alignment anyway, I'll let wiser heads than mine figure that one out.
I would also like to state that I'm really pleased that most of us have been able to work out a compromise system -- it makes me happy to be a participant on these boards. And a special thanks to Jason Bulmahn for dropping in and asking what people think.
I would also like to state that I'm really pleased that most of us have been able to work out a compromise system -- it makes me happy to be a participant on these boards. And a special thanks to Jason Bulmahn for dropping in and asking what people think.
Like I said though, I still wouldn't buy a +5 weapon with your system -- not as long as it's much cheaper to have a cold iron weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, and access to the spells Align Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon.
Like I said though, I still wouldn't buy a +5 weapon with your system -- not as long as it's much cheaper to have a cold iron weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, and access to the spells Align Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon.
That would still be a viable choice; I personally would rather have the one weapon, but that's a matter of personal taste. Do you object to the system overall, though, on that basis? If so, what improvements would you propose?
Like I said though, I still wouldn't buy a +5 weapon with your system -- not as long as it's much cheaper to have a cold iron weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, and access to the spells Align Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon.That would still be a viable choice; I personally would rather have the one weapon, but that's a matter of personal taste. Do you object to the system overall, though, on that basis? If so, what improvements would you propose?
I don't really think it's any better or worse than the 3.5 DR system (for me, anyways). So I don't object. :)
I’m not a fan the current DR rule simple cause it makes too easy for players to bypass DR even if you did change GMW.
In fact I rather toughen up DR. I felt the DR/magic that high level dragons had was almost useless. I’ve considered house ruling in my home games that each +1 your weapon you take of points in DR/magic. For example +2 sword would reduce 15/magic down to DR of just 5.
I never had the golfbag of weapon problem in my games, most my players would only carry 3 different types of weapons at most, or did enough damage that they didn’t care.
As for making +2 and better weapons more useful, I ruled that the base magic bonus to a weapon or armor must be at least half as large as any additional magical effects added.
|
I'll go on record as opposed to the DR changes even if GMW is nerfed. I've never found the 3.5 DR system to be particularly onerous, and allowing weapons with higher pluses to bypass necessary materials/damage types makes DR meaningless. The nice thing about the 3.5 system is that it preserves flavor (werewolves susceptible to silver, skeletons resistant to piercing or slashing, etc.), rewards players who research their opponents' vulnerabilities and arm themselves appropriately, but doesn't overly punish the unprepared. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any commonly-encountered monster with DR greater than 15/x, which at middling to high level is nowhere near insurmountable. Not to mention, magic weapons already give a bonus to beating damage reduction -- it's called an enhancement bonus to damage. You're gonna tell me that a 17th-level fighter with a +5 sword and a strength in the mid-20s can't overcome a balor's 15 DR? Come on. Sure, the bard might have a little trouble, but what's a high-level bard doing poking a balor with a rapier?
You're gonna tell me that a 17th-level fighter with a +5 sword and a strength in the mid-20s can't overcome a balor's 15 DR? Come on.
Ftr 17, STR 25, +5 bastard sword (shield in the other hand). Guy deals 1d10 + 7 (Str) + 3 (weapon training) +5 (incredibly expensive sword). He deals 1d10 damage, total, on a hit. Ooh, maybe he's got weapon specialization, now he can deal, on average, 7.5 damage on a hit. The balor has 290 hp. The fighter is dog meat.
Why spend the 50K on a +5 sword, then? No reason at all.
As you point out, penetrating DR really benefits only the fighter, and maybe the paladin: arguably the two lamest classes in the roster. Throw them a bone. Let them deal full damage.
|
|
You're gonna tell me that a 17th-level fighter with a +5 sword and a strength in the mid-20s can't overcome a balor's 15 DR? Come on.Ftr 17, STR 25, +5 bastard sword (shield in the other hand). Guy deals 1d10 + 7 (Str) + 3 (weapon training) +5 (incredibly expensive sword). He deals 1d10 damage, total, on a hit. Ooh, maybe he's got weapon specialization, now he can deal, on average, 7.5 damage on a hit. The balor has 290 hp. The fighter is dog meat.
Why spend the 50K on a +5 sword, then? No reason at all.
As you point out, penetrating DR really benefits only the fighter, and maybe the paladin: arguably the two lamest classes in the roster. Throw them a bone. Let them deal full damage.
And with an attack routine of +33/+28/+23/+18 against the balor's AC 35, he can easily afford to power attack (upping that damage another 7/hit and still hitting on 9+/14+/19+/and 20+). Or rely on crits (he almost certainly has improved crit or a keen weapon, meaning about 20 percent of his hits will crit). Or use a holy sword, or Devasting Blow, or Improved Vital Strike. The other classes aren't having any easier of a time -- the thing's got SR 28 and energy resistance out the wazoo. It carries a vorpal sword for god's sake. Is it unfair that the Balor's immunity to fire nerfs a flaming weapon? Balor's are supposed to be nasty, and sometimes you have to use the right tool or tactic for the job. Just because mindlessly swinging away with a +5 longsword is not the best course of action doesn't mean +5 swords are underpriviledged.
|
|
Not to mention, that fighter's going to have friends, so you're looking at 3 other sources of damage, as well as the possibility of flanking bonuses. If you want a straight up fight, pair a balor against a Fighter 20. In another thread looking at monks I calculated average damage per round for a reasonably-buffed Fighter 20 (with a +5 sword, in fact) going against Karzoug's AC 36. The numbers worked out to about 3 hits per round, with total average damage per round at about 150. Knock off 45 damage a round for the balor's DR and the fighter will still take it out in about 3 rounds.
Just because mindlessly swinging away with a +5 longsword is not the best course of action doesn't mean +5 swords are underpriviledged.
Yes, it does; otherwise, why is that sword worth 50K? Read the above posts regarding the "wealth-as-power" assumption implicit in 3.0/3.5/PF. Address how a +5 sword fulfills that assumption, if it can't penetrate DR, nor do anything else (a lousy +5 damage is chicken scratch, especially when a 3rd level spell can do the same). Remember, I don't insist on DR penetration; I'm willing to accept any other solution that makes a +5 sword worth 50,000 gp.
|
|
Yes, it does; otherwise, why is that sword worth 50K? Read the above posts regarding the "wealth-as-power" assumption implicit in 3.0/3.5/PF. Address how a +5 sword fulfills that assumption, if it can't penetrate DR, nor do anything else (a lousy +5 damage is chicken scratch, especially when a 3rd level spell can do the same). Remember, I don't insist on DR penetration; I'm willing to accept any other solution that makes a +5 sword worth 50,000 gp.
No, you're confusing entirely separate issues. The fact that a 3rd-level spell inexpensively duplicates a 50,000 gp weapon is a problem with the spell. It's not a reason to mess around with DR.
And while I think you're undervaluing the worth of the attack bonus of a +5 weapon, in the 3.x rule set, "pluses" are the baseline "currency" for magic weapon pricing. If certain weapon abilities have become relatively more desirable than the equivalent number of pluses, then again, it's not the pluses that are the problem that need fixing -- it's the values of the (possibly under-priced) weapon special abilities. I'd be far more open to tweaking the cost of a holy weapon, etc., than gimping around with the baseline capabilities of +x weapons.
And while I think you're undervaluing the worth of the attack bonus of a +5 weapon, in the 3.x rule set, "pluses" are the baseline "currency" for magic weapon pricing. If certain weapon abilities have become relatively more desirable than the equivalent number of pluses, then again, it's not the pluses that are the problem that need fixing -- it's the values of the (possibly under-priced) weapon special abilities. I'd be far more open to tweaking the cost of a holy weapon, etc., than gimping around with the baseline capabilities of +x weapons.
So you're saying that magic weapons are too cheap? Frankly, I think that melee classes need all the help that they can get! If I were playing a high-level fighter and the DM told me "You'll use a plain +4 sword and you'll like it!", I'd be very, very disappointed.
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
Allowing an arrow fired from a +2 bow to be effective as a mace on a skeleton will never make sense. The +2 weapon equivalency needs to be stricken at the very least. The change takes a great deal away from accepted lore-you once needed silver for a werewolf but now any +2 weapon will do. Its not satisfying. It doesn't feel right at all, akin to "In the olden days wood stakes were needed to kill vampires, but now plastic will do."
The fact that a 3rd-level spell inexpensively duplicates a 50,000 gp weapon is a problem with the spell. It's not a reason to mess around with DR.
Divine favor is a 1st level spell that inexpensively duplicates GMW, but for ALL weapons you use. Shorter duration, but it's only 1st level. Bardic music? As divine favor, but multiple recipients. Spells and abilties that give +1 to +5 are rife; you'd have to get rid of them all. Or, much simpler, give the weapons their "oomph" back (remember, they penetrated DR all the way up until 3.5), or replace that ability with something else. As has been stated, the martial classes need all the help they can get.
I think tribeof1 may be suggesting that the price of magic weapons with special abilities could be too cheap, in relation to a basic magical weapon with a straightforward enhancement only bonus, although I could be wrong in my understanding of his post.
Right, but in my experience 95% of weapons have some kind of special ability (unless it's some piece of treasure dropped by an NPC that hasn't been sold off yet).
If I understand you correctly, you mean that 95% of weapons currently purchased/manufactured by PCs?
What happens to this dynamic if suddenly a +1 flaming sword is suddenly the same price (to buy or manufacture) as a straightforward +3 sword? Or if a +2 icy burst scimitar is the same price as a straightforward +5 scimitar?
I think that this may be what tribeof1 might have been suggesting.
Right. In this case, my melee character is forced to use a crummy +3 sword instead of the +1 holy sword I really want. How does that help melee characters?
Just to clarify -- for a +3 sword, the +3 to hit is not bad but the +3 to damage is just insulting (IMO). That's why I suggested +3X or +X^2 to damage instead.
It's probably wandered off the topic of the thread, but has looked at Kirth's problem of normal '+' weapons not having a reason to exist.
Well, OK, let me clarify. I'd like a reason for +x weapons to exist that doesn't also cripple the fighter class even further.
|
|
Right, but in my experience 95% of weapons have some kind of special ability (unless it's some piece of treasure dropped by an NPC that hasn't been sold off yet).
I think tribeof1 may be suggesting that the price of magic weapons with special abilities could be too cheap, in relation to a basic magical weapon with a straightforward enhancement only bonus, although I could be wrong in my understanding of his post.
If I understand you correctly, you mean that 95% of weapons currently purchased/manufactured by PCs have some kind of special ability?
What happens to this dynamic if suddenly a +1 flaming sword is suddenly the same price (to buy or manufacture) as a straightforward +3 sword? Or if a +2 icy burst scimitar is the same price as a straightforward +5 scimitar?
I think that this may be what tribeof1 might have been suggesting.
Charles Evans is now my official spokesperson while I am asleep. That's what I was saying -- that maybe holy should be a +3 ability, for example, rather than +2.
|
|
Well, OK, let me clarify. I'd like a reason for +x weapons to exist that doesn't also cripple the fighter class even further.
That's fine. But can we not muck up the DR system in the process? I understand your feeling that +5 weapons are boring and relatively less desirable. But is that really such a big deal that it's worth trashing material/damage type-based DR? Or changing the pricing of a host of weapon special abilities? Or eliminating all buff spells that give bonuses to hit and damage? I certainly don't think so.
Please Kirth, just give your player a +4 keen sword instead. He'll love it and we can all go on with our lives.
Charles Evans is now my official spokesperson while I am asleep. That's what I was saying -- that maybe holy should be a +3 ability, for example, rather than +2.
We could do that. I suppose we'd also need to ramp up the prices on staves as well, to keep some sort of parity. But then probably spells should all get a nominal gp cost, because a wizard doesn't really need a staff (or can get one really cheaply now with Arcane Bond)... or we could reduce the price for straight +x to something reasonable.
That's fine. But can we not muck up the DR system in the process? Please Kirth, just give your player a +4 keen sword instead. He'll love it and we can all go on with our lives.
Pathfinder is looking at restoring the DR system; this isn't some new way to "muck it up." The whole point of +x weapons, from 1e to 3e, was that they beat DR. That never changed until 3.5. As I mentioned, I'd be happy to keep 3.5 DR and just give +x weapons some new reason to exist. But right now, I can't give someone a +4 keen sword -- he'll immediately trade it for a +1 keen icy burst evil outsider bane sword, which under 3.5 is infinitely better.
I should also point out that Jason has already restored 3.0 DR, more or less. I'm trying to work out a compromise between that and the 3.5 DR fans. Attacking me would seem to be counterproductive, from that prespective: if you really want me to, I'll be happy to go away and you can just live with what Jason and Monte have already given you. If you won't accept that, and refuse to accept any compromise, you have two options: stick with the 3.5 rules, or convince Jason to change the Pathfinder rules, using better logic than "1.0 to 3.0 sucked."
|
|
I suppose we'd also need to ramp up the prices on staves as well, to keep some sort of parity. But then probably spells should all get a nominal gp cost, because a wizard doesn't really need a staff (or can get one really cheaply now with Arcane Bond)... or we could reduce the price for straight +x to something reasonable.
That's a really stunning leap of logic. You seem intent on making wholesale changes to good rules to fix one relatively minor issue. I've said my piece, and now it's off to work.
|
|
Pathfinder is looking at restoring the DR system; this isn't some new way to "muck it up."
One last thing: the Alpha 3 DR system absolutely is "mucking it up" as it's mixing up the 3.0 system of +1 to +5 with the 3.5 system of damage types, alignments and special materials. I am fully aware that damage reduction was based around +5 weapons for decades, and I would rather Pathfinder switch back to the 3.0 DR system entirely than go forward with the current, non-sensical amalgamation. I do, however, think 3.5 DR is a superior system.
The whole point of this thread was to express our preferences for or against the Alpha DR system -- because it's not set in stone. There is no mandate that there has to be some sort of compromise system.
The whole point of this thread was to express our preferences for or against the Alpha DR system -- because it's not set in stone. There is no mandate that there has to be some sort of compromise system.
That's fine; if you cannot tolerate compromise, I'll simply vote in favor of the new system and move on.
This is why Jason should just put a plus one enchantment that allows the weapon to take on any meta type and another plus one enchanment to allow a weapon to allign any way
And just keep the SRD Damage reduction
|
|
Charles Evans is now my official spokesperson while I am asleep. That's what I was saying -- that maybe holy should be a +3 ability, for example, rather than +2.
Tribe, I think you're mirroring something I suggested several posts back.
Initially I suggested making the enhancment bonus of a weapon do x3 to the damage (so a +1 sword is +1 to attacks, and +3 to damage) to keep it on par with instead opting to take a d6 element damage ability. (not to mention the extra damage helps overcome the DR and thus fixes the very issue this thread is arguing). Looking back, this seems to be congruent to what Hogarth is suggesting.
Then I said as an alternate means of making the Enhancement bonus a better value was to change the pricing scheme of weapons; (similar in theme to your suggestion, Tribe) perhaps cost the same as armor, and move all the abilities up to being equivalent to one more plus than they are listed. Thus Flaming is +2, and Holy would be +3. Thus its cheaper to just get a flat "enhancement bonus" and that may close the gap too.
But changing the pricing scheme may be a bigger game changer than the first suggestion - which as I said - also solves some of the DR issues people are having - and we can keep the 3.5 flavor-based DR intact and still provide a means of overcoming the DR by being able to do more damage with a higher plus (which effectively does what PF is suggesting higher pluses do - just a different way in acheiving it). And the extra 2 points of damage (raising it 1/1 to 1/3 attack/damage ratio) is no unbalancing since you could instead add a d6 of additional damage for the same "enhancment cost"
Robert
|
|
Another idea to make the Enhancement bonus of a weapon more viable of an option: (although this will not fix the DR debate).
Have the actual PLUS of the weapon affect the amount of damage certain abilites do.
For example:
+1 Flaming Longsword 1d8 + 1d6 fire
+2 Flaming Longsword 1d8 + 1d8 fire
+3 Flaming Longsword 1d8 + 1d10 fire
+4 Flaming Longsword 1d8 + 2d6 fire
+5 Flaming Longsword 1d8 + 3d6 fire
That should help make the enhancement more lucrative wouldn't it?
As a side note:
Greater Magic Weapon would definitely need to be changed so as to not allow it to up the amount of element damage
The spell should be changed to: This spell allows a non-magical weapon to effectively be magical for the purposes of hitting incorporeal creatures and affecting creatures with Damage Reduction x / Magic. It also provides a competency bonus to the weapon of +1 to attack rolls and +1 to damage per 4 caster levels.
Robert
Here's a totally different idea, that would leave DR exactly as it is in 3.5.
What if we instead reinstated the 3.0 rule that a magic weapon or shield can be damaged only by a weapon with an equal or greater enhancement bonus? Then a +5 weapon would be special, not because it can bypass DR, but because it requires another +5 weapon to sunder, and can itself sunder any lesser weapon (it doesn't bypass the hardness, it just has the ability to damage it at all).
In this manner, higher enhancement bonuses regain some meaning.
Again, I'd include the caveat that GMW does not confer this sunder resistance the way a permanent enhancement bonus does.
|
|
Here's a totally different idea, that would leave DR exactly as it is in 3.5.
What if we instead reinstated the 3.0 rule that a magic weapon or shield can be damaged only by a weapon with an equal or greater enhancement bonus? Then a +5 weapon would be special, not because it can bypass DR, but because it requires another +5 weapon to sunder, and can itself sunder any lesser weapon (it doesn't bypass the hardness, it just has the ability to damage it at all).
In this manner, higher enhancement bonuses regain some meaning.
Again, I'd include the caveat that GMW does not confer this sunder resistance the way a permanent enhancement bonus does.
I dont see that as a necessary change, Kirth. It's a good suggestion, I just don't think it should be that way. Higher enhancement bonus already provides additional hardness and hit points - which is the incentive already.
Robert
|
|
Here's a totally different idea, that would leave DR exactly as it is in 3.5.
What if we instead reinstated the 3.0 rule that a magic weapon or shield can be damaged only by a weapon with an equal or greater enhancement bonus? Then a +5 weapon would be special, not because it can bypass DR, but because it requires another +5 weapon to sunder, and can itself sunder any lesser weapon (it doesn't bypass the hardness, it just has the ability to damage it at all).
In this manner, higher enhancement bonuses regain some meaning.
Again, I'd include the caveat that GMW does not confer this sunder resistance the way a permanent enhancement bonus does.
I actually don't mind that. How would it play with adamantine, though?
[I dont see that as a necessary change, Kirth. It's a good suggestion, I just don't think it should be that way. Higher enhancement bonus already provides additional hardness and hit points - which is the incentive already.
The extra +2 hardness and 10 hp is fairly lame; certainly not in itself worth the cost of the added enhancement bonus. But never mind that; it was just a thought. I'm grasping at straws here, because so many people are so violently against 3.0 DR. The suggestion was an attempt to illustrate, as you have as well, that there are other possibilities for making higher enhancement bonuses worthwhile.
I actually don't mind that. How would it play with adamantine, though?
I'd probably stick with the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion model that adamantine = +5. I mean, adamantine is the new +5; look at the 3.0 vs. 3.5 versions of stoneskin, for example.
Although I suspect that there are probably sundering weapons out there in optional rulesbooks with a special ability which will need to be taken into account or mercilessly nerfed. :)
Sundering weapons are in the SRD; they just give you the Improved Sunder feat (I understand that in the Expanded Psionics Handbook or somewhere they give you +1d6 damage to the object as well). Still, that's all I could find for that.
I still like Robert's damage multiplier suggestion an awful lot; that would subsume some amount of DR pseudo-penetration (by virtue of greater damage) and some sundering ability (likewise). If the rest of the 3.5 crowd can't stomach that, though, sundering ability/resistance is another option. PLEASE help me think of others. I do NOT want to reprice all the magic items (I was being tongue-in-cheek when I suggested that); I just want +5 weapons to be worth 50K again. The exact property that does that is open for discussion. Jason and Monte have recommended DR penetration, as before; I like that, but with the provisions I listed earlier. Barring that, I really like Robert's suggestion. If that won't work, this is still another one. And there must be others as well; the possibilities are limited only by our own creativity.
|
|
(Boards finally behaving, so I can post this)
I've continued thinking about this issue, and came up with a couple of relatively simple options that might fix the root problem. I'm not going to rehash my reasons for not liking the amalgam system in Alpha 3, or why I think the 3.5 DR system is superior. Here's what I've got (these could be used separately or all together):
1) Eliminate greater magic weapon. It's unnecessary, and the prime factor in the "devaluation" of high-plus weapons. Under the 3.5 DR system, PCs don't need the spell (under 3.0, they did need it, in order to combat monsters with really high DR). Under 3.5, magic weapon is enough to get through simple DR/magic. Greater magic weapon just allows players to load up on weapon special abilities but still get a high plus -without paying for it-. So nix the spell. I think other cleric buffs can stay as is. With this change, enhancement bonuses remain available, characters just have to pay for them. This would discourage the +1 keen, flaming, holy, shatting sword syndrome.
2) Rule that magic weapons cannot carry special abilities that exceed their basic "plus." So, want vorpal? Has to be on a +5 sword. Want a holy sword? Has to be at least +2 first. You could do this either on a per-ability basis (so a +2 sword could carry any number of +1 or +2 special abilities) or on a total basis, so a +3 sword could carry a maximum of +3 in special abilities, with none costing more than a +3 equivalent. This would eliminate the +1 keen, flaming, holy, shatting sword syndrome.
3) Adopt Kirth's suggestion and revert to the 3.0 rule that magic weapons/armor/shields can only be damaged/sundered by a weapon with an equal or higher enhancement bonus. This would encourage players to bypass the +1 keen, flaming, holy, shatting sword syndrome, because higher plus weapons would be safer from sundering (not to mention, any dedicated sunderer would be aching for a +5 greatsword).
Each of these options is narrowly targets the real problem — +1 keen, flaming, holy, shatting sword syndrome, or KFHSS for short — without mucking up tertiary systems or requiring massive restructuring. They're also short and sweet — each requiring maybe a line or two of text (or the elimination of a couple paragraphs). They don't increase the -actual- value of +5 weapons, but they do return some -relative- value by eliminating the exploits that devalued high plus weapons in the first place.
Thoughts? Does this go far enough for you Kirth?
|
|
Each of these options is narrowly targets the real problem — +1 keen, flaming, holy, shatting sword syndrome, or KFHSS for short — without mucking up tertiary systems or requiring massive restructuring. They're also short and sweet — each requiring maybe a line or two of text (or the elimination of a couple paragraphs). They don't increase the -actual- value of +5 weapons, but they do return some -relative- value by eliminating the exploits that devalued high plus weapons in the first place.
Thoughts? Does this go far enough for you Kirth?
I'm not Kirth, but I'll contribute...
None of them are 'bad' ideas - in that they'll cause hovoc; more specifically however:
The first option is a no-brainer; I think the spell needs to go irrespective of what ever else is done.
As for the plus equaling the plus value of abilities - I think that would help the problem in making the plus of a weapon worth more, but I just feel its not a fair fix - makes the cost of the items skewed to costing too much and taking too long to obtain these types of weapons with these abilities. It would be okay if you used to running alot of 12-18 level games all the time; but sadly most games hang around the 5-12 levels most of the time.
As for the third, it certainly will make the plus more valuable - but so many creatures (giants especially) rely on being able to sunder as one of their core feats - and I doubt very much that the DMs are going to want the Fire Giants walking around with +4 Warmhammers. Even some monsters have sunder (using their claws or even bite) to sunder items. These abilities - within the 3.5 system become cheapened and pretty much moot.
Another option is INCLUDE a + Value of the weapon within the magical ability. In other words - if it's a HOLY weapon (+2 ability) it carries with it a +2 competency (or enhancement or whatever) bonus to hit (and damage if you want - but its' already getting the +2d6 damage). Perhaps make it so that the highest valued ability in the weapon dictates the "bonus" of the weapon. So a Keen, Holy, Flaming sword would be equivalent to +2.
Defending would be the only one that you'd have to pay extra for a "level of defending" to determine it AC bonus. Obviously there's a few particulars that would need ironed out - but it's a feasible solution. Lets not forget that weapons have to be masterwork before they're magical - so they already have a +1 to hit! The only thing you're changing by adding a +1 Flaming to a weapon is 1d6+1 damage and the "magical" nature of overcoming damage reduction - but mechanically speaking in regards to the D20 - nothing changed on your attack roll.
Robert
|
|
Lots of stuff
That's a good catch on option 3 -- I hadn't considered the effect on monsters sundering. So nix that.
I don't love love love option 2, but I could live with it so I decided to throw it out there. Really, I think simply eliminating greater magic weapon sufficiently addresses the problem. So that's my final answer: nix GMW and keep the 3.5 DR system as is.