It was very interesting for me, when 3E came out. So much had changed; probably for the better. New rules, new magic weapons, etc.
What surprised me then and surprises me in Pathfinder, is that the game has taken a step backward. I refer you to the 4 volume Encyclopedia of Magica (EoM). In that volume, they mix and match enchantments with weapons. You could have a Frostbrand Glaive. Frankly, something I had done for years. Ever seen the look of glee on a mage's face when he realizes that the "reject" enchanted staff is a +4 Defender?
3E, 3.5, and Pathfinder make the same tragic error. They limit the magic weapon enchantment combinations. Let us look at my favorite example, Keen. Keen is only for piercing or slashing weapons. Why? In 3.5 they released seperate enchantments for blunt weapons and, I think, bows. Why? Keen did the job, mechanically, so why new enhancements? Because the word Keen refers to things with an edge. Do not let the definition of the word, restrict your creativity (especially when you are redefining the word in the context of your game).
Further, you used to be able to get Frostbrands in Shortsword, Longsword, Any-kind-of-sword varieties. I went further and tried out staves, hammers, Any-kind-of-weapon-I-wanted varieties. The same was done in the EoM. Some worked great, some not so good, but they were all fun.
I say maximize the fun.
I say maximize the fun.
But then the fun would take up a slot three levels higher!
And I'm not sure Fun, even with all the variables maximized, beats Revelry III.
Heh, sorry, had to make the joke.
I say maximize the fun.But then the fun would take up a slot three levels higher!
And I'm not sure Fun, even with all the variables maximized, beats Revelry III.
Heh, sorry, had to make the joke.
No worries, at least you read it. Besides you had fun, which is ultimately the point.
I say maximize the fun.But then the fun would take up a slot three levels higher!
JESUS SAVES! And only takes half damage!
|
You are usually better of Empowering the fun....most of the time this nets a higher end result and only takes up a slot of 2 higher than regular fun. Of course if you Arcane Thesis the fun you could toss around Blistering, Empowered fun at only 1 slot higher than normal.
Or get a Empowered spellshard of fun.......
sorry.
I do the same thing as the OP with swapping stuff from one weapon type to another. My group thinks I am crazy but that's just the way it always was for me.
|
My favorite weapon enchantment, bar none, is that thing on the Sun Blade that lets it function as a Short Sword *and* a Bastard Sword. The undead stuff? Whatever. The blinding flash of light? Meh.
Just give my TWF Ranger a pair of Short Swords that do the damage of Bastard Swords for Christmas and stand back!
Just porting that idea over to other weapons;
Longsword that does damage as a Greatsword.
Dagger that does damage as a Longsword.
Mace that does damage as a Maul.
Sickle that does damage as a Scythe.
Hand Crossbow that does damage as a Heavy Crossbow.
A Shortbow that fires arrows that hit like Longspears.
Let us look at my favorite example, Keen. Keen is only for piercing or slashing weapons. Why? In 3.5 they released seperate enchantments for blunt weapons and, I think, bows. Why? Keen did the job, mechanically, so why new enhancements? Because the word Keen refers to things with an edge. Do not let the definition of the word, restrict your creativity (especially when you are redefining the word in the context of your game).
So we should reject common sense (and an equivalent, more appropriately named enchantment) for nostalgia or "creativity"?
I would have thought that allowing more weapon variety, which the d20 rules do, would increase andencourage creativity, not restrict it.
Further, you used to be able to get Frostbrands in Shortsword, Longsword, Any-kind-of-sword varieties. I went further and tried out staves, hammers, Any-kind-of-weapon-I-wanted varieties. The same was done in the EoM. Some worked great, some not so good, but they were all fun.
Have you bothered to look over what the 3.5 (or Pathfinder) frostband is?
It's nothing more than a +3 frost longsword (says so in the weapon's description). Which means you can replace "longsword" with any other weapon name for the same effect.
+3 frost warhammer? Check.
+3 frost crossbow? Check.
+3 frost gauntlets? Check.
You can even have a +3 frost sling if that floats your boat.
My favorite weapon enchantment, bar none, is that thing on the Sun Blade that lets it function as a Short Sword *and* a Bastard Sword. The undead stuff? Whatever. The blinding flash of light? Meh.
Just give my TWF Ranger a pair of Short Swords that do the damage of Bastard Swords for Christmas and stand back!
Just porting that idea over to other weapons;
Longsword that does damage as a Greatsword.
Dagger that does damage as a Longsword.
Mace that does damage as a Maul.
Sickle that does damage as a Scythe.
Hand Crossbow that does damage as a Heavy Crossbow.
A Shortbow that fires arrows that hit like Longspears.
I want a longsword that does the same damage as a planet. :P
I want a longsword that does the same damage as a planet. :P
I think I may have made that psion once. Heh. Ah Psionics, what don't you break. ::nostalgic look::
Let us look at my favorite example, Keen. Keen is only for piercing or slashing weapons. Why? In 3.5 they released seperate enchantments for blunt weapons and, I think, bows. Why? Keen did the job, mechanically, so why new enhancements? Because the word Keen refers to things with an edge. Do not let the definition of the word, restrict your creativity (especially when you are redefining the word in the context of your game).So we should reject common sense (and an equivalent, more appropriately named enchantment) for nostalgia or "creativity"?
I would have thought that allowing more weapon variety, which the d20 rules do, would increase andencourage creativity, not restrict it.
Further, you used to be able to get Frostbrands in Shortsword, Longsword, Any-kind-of-sword varieties. I went further and tried out staves, hammers, Any-kind-of-weapon-I-wanted varieties. The same was done in the EoM. Some worked great, some not so good, but they were all fun.Have you bothered to look over what the 3.5 (or Pathfinder) frostband is?
It's nothing more than a +3 frost longsword (says so in the weapon's description). Which means you can replace "longsword" with any other weapon name for the same effect.
+3 frost warhammer? Check.
+3 frost crossbow? Check.
+3 frost gauntlets? Check.
You can even have a +3 frost sling if that floats your boat.
First: Why waste the paper to print the same thing several times, just to satisfy "common sense"? Or do you object to the description of a bow as keen?
Second: I have read the section in question. Most recently pages 348-350 of the Pathfinder Beta. These pages include the "Specific Weapons Table" and the description of the Specific Weapon: Frostbrand (+3 Frost Greatsword). Since this is a specific weapon, should I not yield to "common sense" here and not modify it. Or are you suggesting that this enchantment need not be a specific weapon, which then begs the question, why have specific weapons? Yes, you are correct I can do as I please, but that was not the point.
Third: D20 does not have more weapon variety. It has less. The point of all of the polearms, swords, etc from prior versions was not to have hundreds of things with the same damage ratings (or even different damage ratings). The point was that you had at your fingertips the information you might want to build to suit your creativity. You had the flavor text to write up Roman Legionaires, in game terms, in gear that your players would recognize as Roman. It did not matter who you called them or whether they were even human, what mattered was added oomph from the description.
Fourth: Since D20 uses a shortened list, be kind enough to include random tables to do what I want and make sure all the powers are such that they go with everything. (Or at least 90% of the stuff.)
Fifth: The point of referencing an older product was not to burden you with nostalgia; rather it was two fold. 1) Give an example of what I am talking about so that others could reference a visual aid and converse intelligently; 2) Point out that it has already been done and thus should easily be done again (especially in light of the open and creative d20 system).
I'm not sure I follow this thread.
Can you give some examples of what you mean from the EoM since I do not have that text?
Certainly. In the old days (AD&D, and 2nd Ed, to be clear) you used to have your standard +1-5 swords and weapons. Further you had a swords only table and misc magic weapons table. On these tables you would find flame tongues, frostbrands, or Hammer of Thunderbolts, Scimitar of Speed (respectively).
In EoM (Encyclopedia of Magica, 4 volumes), they compiled 25 years of magic items. They had both a swords table and a weapons table, maintaining the separate headings for ease of use. What they did different was put the "enchantments" together for both tables. You could randomly roll up a +4 Defender Glaive or Longsword of Thunderbolts. There were a few exceptions, things that only appeared on one list or the other, but even these were written up in a more non-weapon type specific way.
This supported what I have always done which is mix them up. Why not have a +4 Defender Glaive? How would a Vorpal Hammer work? Not all of these combinations worked with the same style as the original incarnation (Vorpal Hammer for instance, not as satisfying smashing a head v slicing it off).
What I am after is everything goes with everything combinations for magic weapons (and how about a nice table while you are at it). Which natrually means I want the restriction on Keen (my example originally) only applying to bladed weapons lifted (mechanically it just expnads the critical threat range of the weapon). I would also want any other limitations to weapons/enchantment combinations lifted also. Further, take the specific weapons and specific swords and make those enchantments (albeit more powerful ones); allowing more weapon/enchantment combinations. I realize that some may not work; I would find it hard to adapt Arrows of Slaying to things not ammunition. Even with these difficulties (there cannot be more than 6), you would increase the options (and fun, IMHO) a hundred fold.
Did that help?
I'm not clear on why you can't make a frost brand glaive, for example. Use the price difference between a glaive and a sword, if you must calculate down to the gp. Otherwise, just make the daggone thing a glaive.
Now, if you want a life stealing sword with more "plusses," take the base weapon price and subtract from the total. That's the premium for the new special quality. This isn't hard to do (I've done it myself many times); it just takes a calculator. Why Paizo hasn't gone ahead and done that (which seems to be what you're demanding) is probably explained by the fact that they have bigger fish to fry (like making fighters viable above 11th level).
As far as "keen," it's a corner case. "Impact" does the same thing for bludgeoning weapons, and doesn't violate common sense. Originally in 3.0, a name that could have been applied to either would have been great, but they didn't do that, and now everyone knows what "keen" is, so there you have it. If you insist on a vorpal equivalent for bludgeoning weapons, it's easy enough to use the vorpal specs but call it "skullcrushing" or whatever -- no one will stop you.
Overall, a table like you describe would be nice, but not nearly as nice as finishing the classes re-writes and working out the remaining systems kinks that plagued 3.0 and 3.5.
I'm not clear on why you can't make a frost brand glaive, for example. Use the price difference between a glaive and a sword, if you must calculate down to the gp. Otherwise, just make the daggone thing a glaive.
Now, if you want a life stealing sword with more "plusses," take the base weapon price and subtract from the total. That's the premium for the new special quality. This isn't hard to do (I've done it myself many times); it just takes a calculator. Why Paizo hasn't gone ahead and done that (which seems to be what you're demanding) is probably explained by the fact that they have bigger fish to fry (like making fighters viable above 11th level).
As far as "keen," it's a corner case. "Impact" does the same thing for bludgeoning weapons, and doesn't violate common sense. Originally in 3.0, a name that could have been applied to either would have been great, but they didn't do that, and now everyone knows what "keen" is, so there you have it. If you insist on a vorpal equivalent for bludgeoning weapons, it's easy enough to use the vorpal specs but call it "skullcrushing" or whatever -- no one will stop you.
Overall, a table like you describe would be nice, but not nearly as nice as finishing the classes re-writes and working out the remaining systems kinks that plagued 3.0 and 3.5.
I can make a frostbrand glaive, a vorpal blunt weapon, and use keen for any weapon. Which I do.
Yes, succintly the tables are the majority of the point. The remainder being lift the restrictions and enjoy the possiblities.
It is unfortunate to hear that the classes are so screwed up, that everything else pales in comparison. I would disagree that so simple a thing should be cast aside.
Thanks
Well, not to sound snarky, but if you compiled a list for them, and submit it, they might decide that the work you put into it is enough to allow them to just 'plug and play' with what you've done.
As a side bonus you would get what you want too. ;)
JESUS SAVES! And only takes half damage!Have you seen his character sheet? Monk 10/Ranger 5/Cleric 5. Heard he took the archery style for casting the first AND the second stone.
I'm glad my wife's at work or else I'd have woken her up from laughing as loud as I did...
Regardless, if you look in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, one of the NPCs has a battle axe of thunderbolts. I see no reason to limit named magic items to simply what was presented in the DMG. If a paladin of Torag quests enough, I'm sure he'll find a cold iron warhammer holy avenger.