|
Yeah, again, my recommendation -- IF AND ONLY IF they stick with "defeat DR" as the means to re-value +N weapons -- is:** spoiler omitted **
And for the people chiming in who haven't read any previous posts, CLICK THIS BUTTON:
** spoiler omitted **
Just thought I'd chime in to say that I think Kirth's solution is fantastic, and I will most likely be using it for my games, even if the final PRPG says otherwise. It's elegant enough to actually offer an interesting choice to the PCs, without making the choice obvious (like it is now).
In this system, you could go with your +1 flaming frost shock keen longsword, but you would be less likely to pass through damage reduction (though it would be no more difficult than it is currently), or you could buy a +5 longsword which can pierce anything. Thus the PCs are faced with a choice: get a weapon that deals quite a bit of damage, or pick a weapon that is less damaging but is more accurate and can be relied on in any situation.
Pretty neat, I think.
Yeah, again, my recommendation -- IF AND ONLY IF they stick with "defeat DR" as the means to re-value +N weapons -- is:** spoiler omitted **
And for the people chiming in who haven't read any previous posts, CLICK THIS BUTTON:
** spoiler omitted **Just thought I'd chime in to say that I think Kirth's solution is fantastic, and I will most likely be using it for my games, even if the final PRPG says otherwise. It's elegant enough to actually offer an interesting choice to the PCs, without making the choice obvious (like it is now).
In this system, you could go with your +1 flaming frost shock keen longsword, but you would be less likely to pass through damage reduction (though it would be no more difficult than it is currently), or you could buy a +5 longsword which can pierce anything. Thus the PCs are faced with a choice: get a weapon that deals quite a bit of damage, or pick a weapon that is less damaging but is more accurate and can be relied on in any situation.
Pretty neat, I think.
I completely agree. Good job Kirth. Consider the idea yoinked.
|
|
I also agree that Kirth's idea is an excellent one. it should be the one they go with if they stick with the damage reduction system. The one they have now is wonky and toploaded. plus I like the idea that magic weapons are sharper and more deadly and can cut through anything.
Edit: also this system rocks for two weapon fighters who got seriously shafted in 3.5 unless both of their weapons were of the type that bypassed DR. Now I can see Two handed fighters always wanting that +1 flaming, wounding, keen longsword and two weapon fighters wanting the +3 and +4 swords with no special enhancements. and both being equally effective in combat now.
Director of Games
|
Hey there Everybody,
I should note that the DR system has been changed a bit for the Beta... since this discussion follows a lot of the ideas that went into the change, I thought I would give you an FYI. Basically, the "+" needed to overcome a specific DR was increased a bit and slashing/bludgeoning/piercing ability was removed.
We did not take the damage plus into account, but I do really like the idea. It is something I am sure we will continue to discuss well into the Beta.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I should note that the DR system has been changed a bit for the Beta... since this discussion follows a lot of the ideas that went into the change, I thought I would give you an FYI. We did not take the damage plus into account, but I do really like the idea. It is something I am sure we will continue to discuss well into the Beta.
Reason Number 579,000 of Why I Love Paizo.
You rock, Jason! Thanks for the update.
Very cool Jason, has there been much an adjustment for magic fang or magic weapon spells? With regards to this change in DR?
My next question as well. The magic weapon pricing system really falls apart again unless GMW specifically can't penetrate DR.
|
Director of Games
|
Very cool Jason, has there been much an adjustment for magic fang or magic weapon spells? With regards to this change in DR?My next question as well. The magic weapon pricing system really falls apart again unless GMW specifically can't penetrate DR.
GMW does not penetrate DR....
This has been your friendly neighborhood Beta Spoiler of the Day!
:-)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This has been your friendly neighborhood Beta Spoiler of the Day!
Any more of them, feel free to divulge... we won't tell anyone! Honest!
Yeah, again, my recommendation -- IF AND ONLY IF they stick with "defeat DR" as the means to re-value +N weapons -- is:** spoiler omitted **
And for the people chiming in who haven't read any previous posts, CLICK THIS BUTTON:
** spoiler omitted **Just thought I'd chime in to say that I think Kirth's solution is fantastic, and I will most likely be using it for my games, even if the final PRPG says otherwise. It's elegant enough to actually offer an interesting choice to the PCs, without making the choice obvious (like it is now).
{snip}
I agree with Nameless. This is a fantastic suggestion, Kirth.
This is the only change from Pathfinder that I find silly. It's part of mythology and heroic fantasy to have obtain the right weapon to kill certain foes. The 3.5 DR system should stay as it is.
The 3.5 DR system should stay as it is.
And for the people chiming in who haven't read any previous posts, CLICK THIS BUTTON:
Spoiler:Allowing +N weapons to defeat DR is just a means to an end: to make +5 weapons worth 50,000 gp. It's not just about DR. There are other possibilities as well (examples omitted). So please, before you chime in with "Keep 3.5e DR!" understand that people are sympathetic, but it needs to include some recommendation for making "+N" weapons worth their list price, or it's failing to address the full issue.
You evidently didn't click the button: no cookie for you.
The 3.5 DR system should stay as it is.And for the people chiming in who haven't read any previous posts, CLICK THIS BUTTON:
** spoiler omitted **You evidently didn't click the button: no cookie for you.
/me late to the party :)
I'm not entirely certain I agree that the DR system needs to fix the broken pricing on magic weapons but it is certainly an excellent 2 birds 1 stone solution.
My only comment aside from that is... Wouldn't it be far cheaper to buy a Amamantine Long Sword +4 rather than a +5 Long Sword? The +4 Adamantine Long Sword is 35k gp compared to 50k gp and it overcomes all the same DRs.
So a Frost Adamantine Longsword +4 is now best bang for the figurative buck?
I for one would be glad to see the golf bag go away and replaced by a simple, logical system. I'm looking forward to the Beta.
|
I'm still not convinced that energy bonuses are actually massively mathematically superior to the straight enhancement bonuses as it stands. I just built a 7th level PFRPG fighter, and calculated out her average damage on a full attack with a +2 greatsword and a +1 flaming greatsword against an AC 20 foe. The +1 flaming greatsword did actually come out ahead, but by a grand total of 39.875 hp/round to 40.125 hp/round - an increase of slightly more than .6%. The increased to-hit bonus, along with the increased benefit of the enhancement bonus on crits, means that the +2 vs +1 flaming is not as clear cut as this discussion is making it out to be, at least at this level.
(Frankly, the math's a pain, so I'm not jumping up and down about the idea of comparing a +5 weapon against a +1 flaming shocking frost screaming weapon - but someone probably should.)
I liked the DR system as was back in 3.5, and changing the system just because magic weapons needed a boost seems a bit backwards to me.
Well, it's backwards in the sense that it goes back to 3.0, 2e, and 1e, in which the entire purpose of greater "plusses" was to beat better DR (like in 1e, you couln't damage certain monsters at all unless your weapon was at least "+X").
Now, I agree that having DR 10/silver, for example, instead of DR infinite/+3, definitely changes that scenario. So instead of beating DR, +N weapons doing greater damage would be fine with me. A straight 2x still makes a +5 weapon far less useful than a +1 acidic flaming frost shock one, so a less simple (but mathematically more equitable) +1/+3/+6/+10/+15 (cumulative bonus) would suit me far better (and then we could leave DR exactly as it was in 3.5). The math is available a few pages ago (or maybe it was on the other thread).
Anyway, Monte Cook, I know, is a big proponent of a return to +N beating DR/X. If that's what Paizo's going with, I'd like it to be as non-game-breaking as possible; that's why I've lobbied so hard for higher "bars" for defeating certain materials/conditions, and for leaving Prc/Sls/Blg "off-limits," and for nerfing GMW so that it doesn't beat DR. From Jason's comments, it seems like he agreed. Then again, it also sounded like he'd be open to +N weapons dealing more damage, and leaving DR alone for now. So the thing, I guess, is to think about which one is preferrable, and to run the numbers to make sure the end result is that a +4 sword is really worth 16 times more than a +1 sword.
I'm still not convinced that energy bonuses are actually massively mathematically superior to the straight enhancement bonuses as it stands.
It isn't because of energy resistance/immunity. That +1 flaming greatsword gains no benefit from flaming against foes with Fire Resistance 6+ (and only some benefit against lower Fire Resistance) or immunity to fire. A +1 flaming frost screaming shocking weapon against a demon (tanar'ri; immune to electricity, Cold Resistance 10, Fire Resistance 10) or devil (baazetu; immune to fire, Cold Resistance 10) is not going to be dealing +4d6 damage on each strike; it's going to be only +1d6 sonic against the demon and +1d6 electricity, +1d6 sonic against the devil.
Frankly, considering how common energy resistance/immunity is in high-level foes, a +5 weapon is a lot more reliable than a +1 flaming frost screaming shocking weapon. The screaming enhancement is about the only enchantment that's really worth more than an extra +1, IMO, given the rarity of Sonic Resistance.
I'd suggest solving* the golf-bag equipment requirements method a little differently.
Cantrips and orisons are free at-will, right? So make two new ones. Let spellcasters cast alter composition on weapons. The result is that for 1 minute, the touched weapon (or package of 50 units of ammo) change to the specified material. This costs a standard action per weapon you want to change.
This makes it "easy" to comply with DR requirements but at a price you pay in actions. Some parties may prefer to carry around a few staple items (ie. silver daggers for those pesky lycanthropes) but that's their choice.
This also leave the DM the option of having encounters with creatures of mixed nature, which introduces another tactical aspect to the battle.
* It's my opinion that the problem isn't meant to be solved. The intention behind material-based DR to me isn't to force or even encourage players to carry around a lot of equipment. It's there to make some creatures tougher than others because the players DON'T have the appropriate equipment kicking around. The DR is incorporated into the creatures' CR already. Characters who have equipment that overcomes a creature's DR in fact lowers the threat level of the creature, making it perform worse than it's rated.
With plus weapons the boost to damage is more or less incidental: the major benefit is the increased chance to hit. Your fighter needs a 15 to hit some really tough opponent? With a +3 weapon he needs a 12, and he’ll hit 50% more often. With a few other damage bonuses that may be just as effective at taking out a monster with damage reduction as hitting less often but bypassing it.
DR was apparently intended to make some monsters especially tough unless the characters had made appropriate preparations. Unfortunately, they keep popping up even when the characters have not had a chance to learn about them in advance and make those preparations - leading to the characters trying to be prepared for everything.
So to retain some of the flavor of it being more difficult if you don’t have the appropriate weapon without making it extraordinarily difficult, to increase the attractiveness of basic pluses, to maintain back-compatibility, and to still offer some benefits to having the appropriate weapon, how about this:
“Characters using a “plus” weapon may opt to transfer some or all of its pluses from “attacks” to “damage” during any given round, making their decision as a free action at the start of their attack sequence.”
Now +2 damage without a bonus to hit isn’t as good as a similar +1d6 damage without a bonus to hit - but it isn’t subject to elemental resistances and you always have the option of going back to a bonus to hit. Your +4 sword can effectively reduce DR 10/Whatever to DR 2 - at the price of giving up your bonus to hit. If the DR was the big problem, that shouldn’t worry you too much. If you’re having trouble both hitting and overcoming DR, it may be time to retreat anyway.
The fact that the energy damage from (say) a flaming sword bypasses DR, since DR doesn’t work against energy damage, is another matter entirely - although it does lead to amusing conclusions, such as a mob with flasks of oil being able to burn down an Iron Golem.
If you want to add new weapon powers, +1d6 damage that doesn’t always work is generally equivalent to a +1 attacks and damage. Ergo, +1d6 to overcome damage reduction only seems like a reasonable option - and there really isn’t any good reason why you can’t apply a given +1d6 effect more than once. It’s hardly any odder than having +1d6 each of fire, cold, and lightning damage. If a given opponent doesn’t have DR, don’t roll those dice. If it does, roll them and add them up against the DR total
|
|
idea of comparing a +5 weapon against a +1 flaming shocking frost screaming weapon - but someone probably should.)
My own complaining notwithstanding, I went ahead and did the math for a 14th level greatsword-specialist (that being roughly the point where +5 weapons become an option), comparing a +5 greatsword against a +1 shocking flaming corrosive frost greatsword (I used corrosive to maximize the damage - screaming is only +1d4 sonic), against a relatively level-appropriate AC 30 enemy.
The comparison was as favorable as possible to the energy damage, because I ignored all energy resistance, and as Dragnchess Player rightly points out, that's ludicrously rare at this level. (Anecdotal evidence sidebar:
Two things popped out from the analysis. First, on a full attack, the two kinds of weaponry are very close, though again the energy damage comes out ahead: 96.6 hp/round vs 93 hp/round, a little less than 4% more effective. That's a pretty reasonable result, given the lack of energy resistance being considered here. The second thing, however, is more troublesome, because on a standard attack, the energy damage came out much further ahead: 43.7 hp/attack vs 35.34 hp/attack, 23.6% more effective. There are several reasons for this, mostly having to do with attack bonuses gong up faster than AC - the extra to-hit of the +5 weapon was completely wasted, since both weapons only missed a natural 1. Power Attack might be one way to address the issue, but the Pathfinder version makes that harder to judge, because it's a -8 to hit in this case.
I'd argue that "plus" weapons need some improvement, but I'm not sure how much is safe to toss in. The +X/+2X is about as far as I would go, I think, and even it might be too much. Kirth's is better, but annoyingly nonintuitive.
But I do really hate the pluses=DR avoidance thing. It's too much of a pain to keep track of as a DM.
As previously discussed, there are some common errors in calculations involving greater hit potential of +N weapons, and factoring that into damage. Remember, I'm certainly not saying that a +4 weapon is useless, just that it's not worth anywhere near 32,000 gp. Recap:
1. As pointed out by others, a +5 sword doesn't actually hit 20% more often than a +1 sword. It hits 0.2 * (% of time AC is within a reasonable range compared to atk roll). If you need a natural 20 even with the +5, it gives you no advantage; considering how often this occurs with later iterative attacks, this might happen a third of the time or more. Also, if you can't fail except on a natural 1, whether it's a +1 sword or a +5 sword is meaningless. Therefore, a +5 sword might hit only 0.2 * 0.7 = 14% more often than a +1 sword: not 20% more often. Factor that into the calcs.
2. Energy resistance is indeed a big deal, as Dragonchess Player correctly points out. But, really, if you're playing "Savage Tide," by the time you can afford a +5 weapon, you pretty much know you'll end up fighting demons ad nauseum. In that case, yes, the flaming frost shock weapon is worthless; you're better off with a cold iron weapon with the speed enhancement, or keen and a bunch of other stuff (which would both be better than +5). A +5 sword should be as good as a +1 acidic flaming frost shock sword most of the time, not just in specific adventure paths. If you get the energy one, and your DM notices that and makes it a point that EVERY monster thereafter just happens to have resistance to all energy 10, then he's just being a dick.
But neither of those considerations is important at all, because this last one trumps all considerations, when it comes to "just leaving 3.5 alone":
Greater magic weapon provides the same "to hit" and damage, at no cost except one or two 3rd level spell slots. A party sorcerer, especially at higher levels (when +5 weapons become available), can provide the same benefit repeatedly -- this is especially important, because at higher levels his fireballs are a waste of a spell. Unless a +3 sword does something that a 12th level sorcerer or wizard with GMW can't do, it is NOT worth 18,000 gp. It's worth exactly 350 gp, the same as a masterwork sword. A party without a wizard or sorcerer is already hamstrung; that's like not having a cleric. Almost all adventures are written assuming that one is present.
Shisumo, I appreciate your input on this. If 2* damage for enhanced weapons (and only 1* damage with GMW) fixes that, and the numbers show that speed or energy isn't markedly better, I'd certainly be willing to go with that. But leaving 3.5 "as is" can't work.
|
|
As previously discussed, there are some common errors in calculations involving greater hit potential of +N weapons, and factoring that into damage.
As the saying goes, "Teach your grandmother to suck eggs." ;)
Seriously though, you are correct, and I appreciate the reminder, but I guarantee the math's valid. That's why I stipulated an AC that appears (from a perusal of CR 14 monsters in the SRD) to be in the right class for a 14th level character to be facing.
Greater magic weapon provides the same "to hit" and damage, at no cost except one or two 3rd level spell slots. A party sorcerer, especially at higher levels (when +5 weapons become available), can provide the same benefit repeatedly.
This is definitely an issue, but would seem to be one more centered on greater magic weapon than on general enhancement bonuses. If we were, for instance, to simply chuck GMW, then the whole question takes on a different cast, does it not?
People keep referencing the +1 flaming, frost, shocking, sonic weapon. Energy resistance came up, blah blah.. you read the posts.
But the issue doesn't end there. Its not just about elemental properties.
Take the Holy weapon property for example. In most campaigns you are playing -as they say in firefly- "big damn heroes". this means the lions share of the enemies you fight are going to be evil. Holy weapons are basically rock awesome because none of your enemies are going to have Holy Resistance. Sure you don't get it once in a while against a random monster who is just looking for his next meal, but most of the time, you add your +2d6.
On the axis of good-evil, there are only 3 types. If I'm good... I probably shouldn't be fighting good creatures at all. This narrows it down to two types. Again, if I'm good the only real reason for me to attack a neuteral character is if they have attacked me first... usually this means like wandering monsters, possibly some NPCs who don't know what they're doing really. The vast majority of my battles are going against evil.
the law-chaos properties are not quite as garunteed, but still quite useful, especially if the campaign has a kind of 'theme' to it, say demons. I played in a high level game that was largely demon based... A Holy Axiomatic weapon was the s@%$.
In my eyes, *that's* what makes the "properites weapon" so much better than the straight +5 weapon, not fire or ice or anything...
What about Vicious? Vicious is awesome. Sure you take a d6 when you hit, but you add 2d6 of non-elemental damage. How about Merciful?
Now things are shaping up. How does a +5 longsword stack up against a +1 Holy Merciful Vicious longsword? Not well I imagine... not well at all. Thats +5d6 that's hardly ever going to be resisted.
*That's* what this is about...
EDIT: not sure if you are or are not allowed to stack the same property on a weapon, but i had a dm who allowed it once. property weapons also quite good there because you could get the "+1 Flaming Burning Firey Longsword of Fire" and add +4d6 fire damage, which has a much better chance to penetrate fire resistance, especially if the fire resistance is not all that high.
Here's how 3.5 looks at this discussion.
Point the first: Power Attack levels the playing field. A +1 enhancement becomes the choice of +1 attack, +1 damage, or +2 damage. For anyone concerned over hitting things as their primary function, this is what they are looking at.
Twohanded is even better, as it matches the avg damage of a +1d6 enhancement (+3 damage). My current fighter views every +1 enhancement as the choice of hitting more often, or doing as much damage as if it were a +1d6 enhancement. Worth more than a flaming enhancement any day.
Point the second: Out of the 100 or so monsters in the core MM, there's less than 10 that have a DR of 15. ~8% of the monsters that have DR have DR 15. The rest of DR 10 or less.
And the ones that have DR 15 are ridiculously powerful and are supposed to be hard: Solar, Balor, Pit Fiend, Iron Golem, Nightshades, Noble Salamander, Tarrasque, Titan. Other than a couple cases, most are Epic or CR 20+, with a couple lower level cases where it's their gimmick (made of shadow or iron, etc).
*Most* DRs you'll fight where you would have the money to tailor your weapon, it'll be DR 10. Standard weapon damage is already doing more than that.
This is done on purpose. If you don't have the right weapon, it's not a "oh no, I am useless" fight, rather, it's meant to slow down how fast you kill the creature and reward those that were able to find out information ahead of time.
.
If you look at Power Attack and a +5 weapon, you'll see that you can already "bypass" (as in, still deal damage) over 90% of the DRs out there without even getting into a twohanded weapon.
So there's incentive to gain a + weapon, and not so tough when you don't have the specific weapon against a DR.
.
In Pathfinder, Power Attack has been nerfed a bit, so this flies out the window.
So something might need to be changed.
Here's how 3.5 looks at this discussion.
Point the first: Power Attack levels the playing field. A +1 enhancement becomes the choice of +1 attack, +1 damage, or +2 damage. For anyone concerned over hitting things as their primary function, this is what they are looking at.
Twohanded is even better, as it matches the avg damage of a +1d6 enhancement (+3 damage). My current fighter views every +1 enhancement as the choice of hitting more often, or doing as much damage as if it were a +1d6 enhancement. Worth more than a flaming enhancement any day.
The point you're missing is that the party spellcaster can cast Greater Magic Weapon on a +1 Holy sword to turn it into a +3 Holy sword. So why would I ever use a plain vanilla +3 sword if I have a spellcaster in my party?
Perhaps Greater Magic Weapon will get changed in the Pathfinder RPG.
|
I'm fond of Kirth's system as well.
Last summer, at a Dungeon Delve at Origins, we had a party wipe because only one of the pre-gen characters had the spell needed to overcome the Rakshasa's DR. Nobody at the table happened to have picked that character, and so a six-man party lost to an encounter we otherwise would have blown through like the previous four Delves we'd done. I despite that sort of railroading, and, in a tournament style game or RPGA mod it becomes even more egregious, as there is no opportunity to 'run away and re-equip.'
The 3.5 DR system, IMO, was a huge step backwards, and the design team specifically saying that it was designed to eliminate 'golf bag syndrome' (which it instead *created,* and, indeed, wasn't even a term I'd ever heard before the article claiming that the DR change was to 'fix' it!) was just extra irony on top.
Going back to 3.0, some creatures just took a flat half-damage from weapons that weren't appropriate (such as skeletons vs. piercing). A similar ruling could be applied to special monsters, having them only take 1/2 damage vs. a weapon not made from their bane material.
But special vulnerabilities should be, IMO, *special.* As of 3.5, *every single monster* with DR has a 'kryptonite.' That's boring, IMO. [grognard hat on] Back in the day, the Rakshasa was something special, because of how he had this special vulnerability! You kids today... [grognard hat off]
The point you're missing is that the party spellcaster can cast Greater Magic Weapon on a +1 Holy sword to turn it into a +3 Holy sword. So why would I ever use a plain vanilla +3 sword if I have a spellcaster in my party?Perhaps Greater Magic Weapon will get changed in the Pathfinder RPG.
Additonal +1 to a weapon are just too expensive. Would making other enhancements more expensive help with the problem? +1 to damage and attack always seemed far worse than +1d6 to damage that gets through DR.
And in a story-driven campaign, a bane weapon is just unbeliveable powerful:+1 to attack and damage, or +2 on attack and +2d6+2 to damage against all hostile soldiers?
Raising all weapon enhancements by +1 or +2, would that maybe make things less problematic?
+1 Flaming against +2 is an easy choice. But +1 flaming against +3? Or +1 holy against +4? I don't thik that's so easy.
But not sure if it would make enough of a difference.
Together with a +3 weapon overcoming Cold Iron damage reduction, I think that's not so bad.
Would making other enhancements more expensive help with the problem?
That's yet a fourth possibility. To make a +3 weapon worth 18,000 gp (as much as, say, a +1 holy weapon), we can either:
1. Let it penetrate DR/cold iron; OR
2. Let it deal additional damage (+6 vs. +3); OR
3. Make it immune to sundering by anything less than +3; OR
4. Make all the other "+3" equavalents more expensive; OR
5. (Option not yet proposed).
Here's how 3.5 looks at this discussion.
Point the first: Power Attack levels the playing field. A +1 enhancement becomes the choice of +1 attack, +1 damage, or +2 damage. For anyone concerned over hitting things as their primary function, this is what they are looking at.
Twohanded is even better, as it matches the avg damage of a +1d6 enhancement (+3 damage). My current fighter views every +1 enhancement as the choice of hitting more often, or doing as much damage as if it were a +1d6 enhancement. Worth more than a flaming enhancement any day.The point you're missing is that the party spellcaster can cast Greater Magic Weapon on a +1 Holy sword to turn it into a +3 Holy sword. So why would I ever use a plain vanilla +3 sword if I have a spellcaster in my party?
Perhaps Greater Magic Weapon will get changed in the Pathfinder RPG.
This was something I was going to touch on, but was cut short because my internet access at work was going to drop off. Hurray for posting at work, lol.
Also, I was agreeing with the sentiment that something needs to be done, since there have been changes that even take away with the bonuses I mentioned.
.
This is something that will always be a problem as long as this spell is available. It can be dispelled, so there's a bit of a vulnerability there, but unless the campaign is set up with a lot of dispelling involved, it probably won't be something that comes up very much.
Honestly, this is the Biggest Factor in devaluing the permanent + enhancements to magical weapons. Also, if you spent all your money on maxing out the enhancements on a weapon to +10, you can STILL benefit from Greater Magic Weapon, so I'm wondering if there's a balance issue with this aswell.
Is this spell actually considered balanced? I've never seen a writeup on this one, so I'm actually curious about it.
Would making other enhancements more expensive help with the problem?That's yet a fourth possibility. To make a +3 weapon worth 18,000 gp (as much as, say, a +1 holy weapon), we can either:
1. Let it penetrate DR/cold iron; OR
2. Let it deal additional damage (+6 vs. +3); OR
3. Make it immune to sundering by anything less than +3; OR
4. Make all the other "+3" equavalents more expensive; OR
5. (Option not yet proposed).
5. Not buy a +3 weapon
Who says that all options need to be exactly equal? Heck, why is a +3 magic weapon 18,000GP and a +2 Flaming weapon the same? It's all arbitrary stuff some game designer thought was balanced.
Actually free market weapon sales would be a great experiment for D&D. If we could have a digital marketplace where magic items are produced (spawned by the system) and players bought and sold items it would be very curious to see where the prices of items went.
The biggest problem with item pricing in D&D is that prices are not set by market forces, instead they are built into the game system. This is one advantage MMOrpgs have, they can dynamically change their prices based on demand.
This post is a direct result of an Ogre listening to too many economics podcasts.
Actually free market weapon sales would be a great experiment for D&D. If we could have a digital marketplace where magic items are produced (spawned by the system) and players bought and sold items it would be very curious to see where the prices of items went.
Agreed. But lacking such an experiment, it would be nice if we could assume that market forces had already been at work, and that an X-thousand gp object is worth Y% of the gear of a Zth level character (which is really what we're saying). Gold in 3rd edtion D&D isn't just gold, it's another pseudo-XP system for measuring character power through granted item bonuses. As of 3.5 ed., you can spend 18,000 gp on a +3 sword, or on a +1 holy sword... and, guess what? Nobody buys the +3 sword. Because that's like playing a wizard with a 9 Intelligence. Sure, you can do it, but it sort of hamstrings you.
Agreed. But lacking such an experiment, it would be nice if we could assume that market forces had already been at work, and that an X-thousand gp object is worth Y% of the gear of a Zth level character (which is really what we're saying). Gold in 3rd edtion D&D isn't just gold, it's another pseudo-XP system for measuring character power through granted item bonuses. As of 3.5 ed., you can spend 18,000 gp on a +3 sword, or on a +1 holy sword... and, guess what? Nobody buys the +3 sword. Because that's like playing a wizard with a 9 Intelligence. Sure, you can do it, but it sort of hamstrings you.
Mostly just a thought experiment. Right now I'm waiting to see what's in the beta and then I'll think and comment on that. As it stands we are debating a target which has moved. Maybe Jason's latest changes will be right on target, it sounds to me like he's changed it significantly based on previous discussions.
As it stands we are debating a target which has moved. Maybe Jason's latest changes will be right on target, it sounds to me like he's changed it significantly based on previous discussions.
Right on. That guy rocks!
Mostly I'm trying to make it clear to the "3.5 DR was perfect!" people why anyone would possibly even consider returning +N weapons to 3.0 rules.|
|
As it stands we are debating a target which has moved. Maybe Jason's latest changes will be right on target, it sounds to me like he's changed it significantly based on previous discussions.Right on. That guy rocks!
Mostly I'm trying to make it clear to the "3.5 DR was perfect!" people why anyone would possibly even consider returning +N weapons to 3.0 rules.
and here I thought you were just being a curmudgeonly half goat man.
As it stands we are debating a target which has moved. Maybe Jason's latest changes will be right on target, it sounds to me like he's changed it significantly based on previous discussions.Right on. That guy rocks!
Mostly I'm trying to make it clear to the "3.5 DR was perfect!" people why anyone would possibly even consider returning +N weapons to 3.0 rules.
After scanning through this thread... it sounds like, Kirth, your problem isn't with 3.5 DR or with +X vs +1/X/Y/Z weapons, it's with Greater Magic Weapon.
Firstly, Kirth, you're forgetting about Power Attack. More specifically, two-handed Power Attack. Each +1 to a weapon translates into +1 to hit and damage. With Power Attack, that becomes +3 to damage. Flaming, on the other hand, is +3.5 damage. And that Power Attack damage multiplies on a crit, and is not subject to energy resistance.
So in all reality, to a two-handed Power Attacker, +X > +1/X/Y/Z. To others, it's the reverse.
Until you bring Greater Magic Weapon into the picture, of course. It does devalue a +X enchantment... but so what? I don't know about you, but I like my magic weapons to be unique, and when two guys both have +4 weapons, uniqueness is not happening.
So... buffing the damage of a +X enchantment... bad idea, as suddenly +X becomes even greater than +1/X/Y/Z, due to Power Attack. (sure, Pathfinder has super-simplified Power Attack, but I think Pathfinder Power Attack is a very inelegant solution. Fighters need choices to make during combat!) On top of that, giving +X weapons DR-overcoming abilities also adds to their already-superior power level.
In the end, Kirth, it sounds like your problem is solely with Greater Magic Weapon.
If anything could use a change, look at these:
-Greater Magic Weapon. And Magic Vestment, for the same reason.
-DR/magic. As it stands, what's the point?
-Matt
Firstly, Kirth, you're forgetting about Power Attack. More specifically, two-handed Power Attack.
Not all all. I should point out that it makes me absolutely furious in 3.5 that, if you want to deal damage without spells, 2-handed power attack is infinitely better than any other choice (except maybe a rogue with TWF, but let's leave that off for now). If the only way for a fighter to be viable is to take that feat, why not make it a default combat option? Because, as written, it's not really a "choice." They guy with it so far outclasses the guy without it that there's no comparison.
Paizo has, thankfully, nerfed Power Attack so that you don't get to just pick some amount -- the strong guys, who get the most bang out of it, also risk missing with every attack now. Power Attack in 3.PF is a riskier proposition than it was in 3.5, and therefore less of a default assumption. It's AS GOOD as TWF, instead of being absurdly better.
So remove Power Attack from consideration for now. Also, for the time being, pretend we remove greater magic weapon from the table. (Magic vestment is OK for now because magic armor and shields stack, and because they're cheaper than weapons anyway, and mostly because I'm not convinced that any of the "+1" armor enhancements are manifestly way better than another +1 to AC -- and clerics get fewer low-level spell slots now).
What are we left with? I can take, say, a +4 sword, or a +1 keen holy sword. The choice is a no-brainer. No one, at present, takes the +4 sword (they might claim they do, but they'd trade it in a second if the chance came up. Or maybe they like playing a martyr. Either way). My issue is that the +4 weapon is manifestly not as good. It used to be just as good, in 3.0. Now it's not. I'm looking at ways of fixing that. Nerfing Power Attack and GMW is a start. Another tweak, and we're there.
-----
What I'm trying to do is replace false options (you have a choice, but one of the choices is absurdly inferior to the other) with real options.
|
|
What are we left with? I can take, say, a +4 sword, or a +1 keen holy sword. The choice is a no-brainer. No one, at present, takes the +4 sword (they might claim they do, but they'd trade it in a second if the chance came up. Or maybe they like playing a martyr. Either way). My issue is that the +4 weapon is manifestly not as good.
I ran the numbers on this, and they came out much as they have on the previous tests. In this case, it was a 12th level paladin, focused on mounted combat (and thus without feats to burn on things like Improved Critical), facing off against an AC 23 evil Something (AC derived by taking the average of all the CR 12 monsters in the SRD except the Elder Black Pudding).
The results were pretty much in line with what we've seen elsewhere: +4 longsword on full attack, 39.84 hp/round; +1 keen holy longsword on full attack, 42.22 hp/round. Using the special ability weapon is good for an approximately 6% increase in effectiveness. And again, the difference is much greater if the paladin only gets a single swing: 15.77 damage vs 19.44, a roughly 23% increase. Additional pluses allow iterative attacks to hit more often and thus balance out the damage edge that special abilities offer, but only in cases where you are actually allowed a full attack.
I'm not sure where the evidence seems to be leading except that we will need to be careful with fixes; increases to damage on the front end might turn out to be too good if the character actually gets to unload an entire full attack.
I ran the numbers on this, and they came out much as they have on the previous tests. Using the special ability weapon is good for an approximately 6% increase in effectiveness.
Thanks, Shisumo. That's actually a hefty increase, considering that a 5% increase in effectiveness is supposedly the difference between 18,000 gp and 32,000 gp, for example (+3 to +4). That implies to me that either (a) special abilities are underpriced, or (b) adding +1 is currently seriously overpriced... unless something is added to balance it.
Most of your math seems to indicate that allowing extra damage (rather than DR penetration) isn't good enough on the low end (+1), and is too good on the high end (+5), using the scaling bonus I'd suggested. If a straight +2 damage per +1 to hit works out as a mathematically more equitable system, I'd be on board with that. And then the 3.5 DR fans would keep their preference as well -- seems like a win-win situation.
Most of your math seems to indicate that allowing extra damage (rather than DR penetration) isn't good enough on the low end (+1), and is too good on the high end (+5), using the scaling bonus I'd suggested. If a straight +2 damage per +1 to hit works out as a mathematically more equitable system, I'd be on board with that. And then the 3.5 DR fans would keep their preference as well -- seems like a win-win situation.
This is interesting, a +5 attack/+10 damage longsword is actually significantly better than your proposal of bypassing damage reduction. Most creatures DR is 10, so your +5/+10 sword deals straight weapon damage (the sword bonus damage cancels the DR). While the +5 longsword that bypasses damage reduction does weapon damage +5. So the DR bypassing version is slightly more effective against creatures with DR while you are more effective with the +5/+10 sword against every other creature in the game. I think the simple DR bypass you mentioned previously adds value to +x weapons but doesn't impact anything outside the DR creatures.
I think the simple DR bypass you mentioned previously adds value to +x weapons but doesn't impact anything outside the DR creatures.
I'm happy with that, as is Paizo, seemingly, but there seem to be MANY voices adamantly opposed to any alteration in 3.5e DR. I'm trying to keep them in the loop.
|
|
I think the simple DR bypass you mentioned previously adds value to +x weapons but doesn't impact anything outside the DR creatures.I'm happy with that, as is Paizo, seemingly, but there seem to be MANY voices adamantly opposed to any alteration in 3.5e DR. I'm trying to keep them in the loop.
I think they key point is that this is not a return to the 3.0 DR system. As much as allowing higher + weapons to pierce DR is a throwback to that system, note that monsters' DRs will not return to being "ridiculous number"/+4. In my mind, the system Kirth (and Jason) want to switch to is a "best of both worlds" scenario.
Special weapon qualities are still useful. Suppose you're going to the Abyss to recover an imprisoned companion. What would you rather bring with you: a +4 longswrod or a +1 holy keen cold iron longsword? Or even better, a +1 holy demon-bane cold iron longsword. Yes, that +4 longsword is useful against everything, but does not specialize in any way, unlike our Demon Killer longsword, here.
I think that this system not only allows higher + weapons to be worth their price, but also encourages the creation of specialized weapons. The Demon Killer (lame name, I know) would be perfect for a Demon hunter type character, who could have his +4 longsword handy for when he fights any other enemies.
Yes, most characters will want to carry around two swords (though some might be content to aim for the +5 sword and be done with it), but it's better than the current system where you need your Demon Killer for one set of enemies, and you Devil Killer for another set, and your Construct Killer for others. You could potentially even need a Law Killer and a Chaos Killer. Now we're talking golf-bag.
Yes, most characters will want to carry around two swords (though some might be content to aim for the +5 sword and be done with it), but it's better than the current system where you need your Demon Killer for one set of enemies, and you Devil Killer for another set, and your Construct Killer for others. You could potentially even need a Law Killer and a Chaos Killer. Now we're talking golf-bag.
Actually I honestly think most players would prefer their character had one weapon rather than one for each situation. Indeed, I would go further and say that most players would prefer to have one magic weapon throughout their characters progression. To me, this is why I really don't like the DR system under 3.5. I can deal with having a slashing weapon and a bludgeoning weapon but in general the DR system has gone nuts.
The results were pretty much in line with what we've seen elsewhere: +4 longsword on full attack, 39.84 hp/round; +1 keen holy longsword on full attack, 42.22 hp/round. Using the special ability weapon is good for an approximately 6% increase in effectiveness.
Was two-handed Power Attack figured in? Because if not, the numbers may tell a different story.
-Matt
Was two-handed Power Attack figured in? Because if not, the numbers may tell a different story.
Like I said before, if Power Attack is a REQUIRED feat to make every other system work, then it should be built into the rules, not offered as a feat. And I suspect that the Paizo PA evens out somewhat, given that the high-Str people lose more chances to hit.
|
|
(sigh) Math.
Okay, so here's the deal. The +4 longsword vs +1 keen holy longsword numbers I posted earlier were for one-handed use (I decided rather arbitrarily this was a sword-and-board paladin). So, for comparison, I figured out the average damage against AC 23 for the same character use her longsword two-handed. I then did a two-handed Power Attack for each weapon, and then tried the +X/+2X enhancement option, two-handed, with and without Power Attack. The results:
+4 longsword: SA - 18.905, FA - 47.76.
+1 keen holy longsword: SA - 23.94, FA - 52.92
+4 longsword, with Power Attack: SA - 26.475, FA - 52.95
+1 keen longsword, with Power Attack: SA - 25.08, FA - 48.07
+4/+8 longsword: SA - 23.08, FA - 58.32
+1/+2 keen holy longsword: SA - 25.08, FA - 55.44
+4/+8 longsword, with Power Attack: SA - 32.33, FA - 64.66
+1/+2 keen holy longsword, with Power Attack: SA - 26.27, FA - 50.36
It seems to me that the most important things to note here are a) +X/+2X is just too good and b) Power Attack almost exactly brings the +4 longsword into parity with the +1 keen holy longsword as long as the latter skips the Power Attack. This is using the standard 3.5 version - i.e., "the way things are now."
Yes, most characters will want to carry around two swords (though some might be content to aim for the +5 sword and be done with it), but it's better than the current system where you need your Demon Killer for one set of enemies, and you Devil Killer for another set, and your Construct Killer for others. You could potentially even need a Law Killer and a Chaos Killer. Now we're talking golf-bag.Actually I honestly think most players would prefer their character had one weapon rather than one for each situation. Indeed, I would go further and say that most players would prefer to have one magic weapon throughout their characters progression. To me, this is why I really don't like the DR system under 3.5. I can deal with having a slashing weapon and a bludgeoning weapon but in general the DR system has gone nuts.
The big problem with "one weapon" characters is that they become (almost) useless when they can't use their weapon. And then they whine about it when they aren't able to use their "one weapon," because they've developed their character completely around the weapon, not the personality or experiences.
I thought the 3.5 DR system was a big improvement over the 3.0 DR system. It almost required that characters have a variety of weapons (missile weapon, primary melee, and backup melee) of different types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) and materials (adamantine, cold iron, silver), instead of one maximized weapon. With a small amount of planning, it is fairly simple to cover the bases: bow/crossbow for piercing with a few arrows/bolts made of cold iron and silver (affordable even at 1st level!), primary melee weapon as either bludgeoning or slashing (upgraded to cold iron or adamantine later), backup melee weapon as either slashing or bludgeoning (counterpoint to the primary weapon; upgraded to a special material as well); light crossbow, heavy mace/morning star, dagger for a cleric; heavy crossbow, waraxe, light hammer for a dwarf fighter; etc. Concentrating on having an adamantine primary melee and a cold iron backup melee weapon (or vice versa) and buying a few applications of silversheen is a very cost effective method of ensuring you can penetrate most DRs. The aligned/holy/unholy DRs can be an issue, but by the time they matter the party should be seeking the appropriate weapons (or at least some help in the form of scrolls/wands of align weapon).
The big problem with "one weapon" characters is that they become (almost) useless when they can't use their weapon. And then they whine about it when they aren't able to use their "one weapon," because they've developed their character completely around the weapon, not the personality or experiences.
I thought the 3.5 DR system was a big improvement over the 3.0 DR system. It almost required that characters have a variety of weapons (missile weapon, primary melee, and backup melee) of different types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) and materials (adamantine, cold iron, silver), instead of one maximized weapon.
This is neither realistic or consistent with fantasy fiction. I don't understand why you would want to punish someone for having a primary preferred weapon. Yes, it makes sense for someone to have a bow/ crossbow and a melee weapon, I can also buy into a bludgeoning weapon as well. Beyond that lies craziness.
The number of fictional characters who lug around 4-5 weapons is tiny... extremely tiny. Frodo had Sting, I don't even recall him having a sling or bow. Aragorn had a sword and sometimes used a bow... not 3-4 weapons. Legalas? Sword and Bow. Gimli, An Axe, not 3, not an axe and a hammer, just the axe.
Real life knights generally separated the ranged combatants from the melee combatants. Samari would sometimes carry 2 swords and a bow for different uses which is about as big as the variety went.
So why on earth does it make sense to have rules that encourage people carrying around 3+ weapons?