RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards and others, the two-weapon fighting style is grossly suboptimal from a mechanical standpoint when compared to two-handed weapons. Classes such as the rogue that are able to add significant bonus damage on a per-hit basis CAN make up for some of this discrepancy, but another major factor against two-weapon fighting... it's prohibitively expensive!
A +5 greatsword is only 40gp more than a +5 short sword, yet the two-weapon fighter needs TWO of these short swords to even hope to compare to the greatsword in terms of usefulness. Thus, the cost difference is a whopping 50,000+ gp for something that is LESS effective in general. Now, granted, two +5 short swords are actually getting a net benefit of +5 damage since EACH WEAPON is dealing +5 instead of the greatsword's single +5 but hear me out: A mechanic/system should be in place that allows the creation of a weapon "set." A single pairing of weapons that can be enchanted/enhanced/targeted as though they were a single item. There may be an increased initial cost for a "matched" set of items, perhaps an extra 1000gp or something.
"The leather wrapped around the grips of these twin short swords comes from the hide of the same demonic beast that rampaged through the village only a few short years ago. The hide serves to tie the weapons together with an otherworldly bond, greatly enhancing the ease with which they may be enchanted."
After the initial investment, though, the weapons are treated as one object for the purpose of enhancing. Perhaps one weapon would need to be designated as the "master" and the other the "slave" such that, in the event that the weapons are separated for more than a few minutes, the slave weapon loses all magical properties until brought near the master again. This would also prevent abuse in the form of players buying a "set" of greatswords and then having two separate characters getting their weapons essentially at half cost. Perhaps the "master" weapon also has one of the demon's teeth ensconced in the pommel or adorning the crossguard or something to differentiate them.
Thoughts?
Or along those lines, that the set you enchant gains a bonus of 1 less than you'd enchant a single weapon with. A +1 would not be lowered, though. They'd probably just be masterwork weapons if separated so it wouldn't be just a cheap way to make magic weapons...
Thoughts?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Or along those lines, that the set you enchant gains a bonus of 1 less than you'd enchant a single weapon with. A +1 would not be lowered, though. They'd probably just be masterwork weapons if separated so it wouldn't be just a cheap way to make magic weapons...
Thoughts?
It's a good idea in principle... until you realize that, early on, it's still cheaper to buy two +1 short swords (or even two +2 short swords) than a single pair of matched short swords priced one tier higher.
+1 short sword = 2360gp x 2 = 4720gp
+1 matched short swords (a +2 weapon by your system) = 8720gp
+2 short sword = 8360gp x 2 = 16,720gp
+2 matched short swords (a +3 weapon) = 18,720gp
Then, finally, you start saving money:
+3 short sword = 18,360gp x 2 = 36,720gp
+3 matched short swords (a +4 weapon) = 32,720gp
Good idea, though, but I don't think it has the effect necessary to balance the problem.
Math! *shakes fist*
Hehe... Didn't do my math before I proposed the idea ;-)
Thematically speaking, I like the idea, a lot.
As far as implementation goes, I'm not sure there isn't another, more equitable/flexible way... some different ideas:
Allow spells and class abilities that function similar to Magic Weapon to target the wielder instead of the weapon. They affect any weapons the wielder uses for the duration, "fading off" of the weapon by the end of the round if disarmed or dropped.
Allow a new +1 modification: Channeling (or anything else you'd like to call it). Any weapon with this property can "channel" the other enchantments of the weapon to another weapon of at least masterwork quality on its holder's person. Any enchantments that are incompatible with the weapon (Vorpal on a hammer, for example) are not transferred. Also specify that this mod cannot be placed on ammunition, nor will it transfer to ammunition. This still makes it expensive, but not terribly so, and allows a dual-dagger wielder to throw daggers without fear (as long as he throws the correct one). It takes a Move Action to activate the Channeling effect, and the weapon must be wielded during the channeling (though not necessarily used).
Allow a new feat/class ability that allows "channeling" as above for a certain level-based duration a day. Perhaps some UMD skill as a prerequisite, and a check based on the level of enchantment in the weapon.
A regular use of the UMD skill (high DC) will allow one to "bleed" a level of enchantment from one weapon to another as raw numerical bonus only, or only "primitive" enhancements such as Fiery. Doing so damages the weapon, which must be repaired via magic or by someone with the appropriate Item Creation feats.
Just some quick-and-dirty ideas to play with. Discovering any of these methods might be a fun quest in itself.
Now, granted, two +5 short swords are actually getting a net benefit of +5 damage since EACH WEAPON is dealing +5 instead of the greatsword's single +5
There's part of your answer: A pair of equally strong weapons will generally give you twice the damage bonus, since you have roughly twice as many attacks.
So compare a +4 weapon with 2 +2 weapons: 32000gp against 2 x 8000gp. You could almost get 2 +3 weapons (they'd cost 36000 plus masterwork and weapon cost itself for each weapon against the 32k + masterwork and weapon itself).
But let's imagine that we agree that it's not quite the same (the attack bonus will be less, even more so when you figure in the two-weapon fighting penalty, though that's not the weapons' fault)
+1 for "matched pair" is one idea. I have another:
Introduce "off-hand weapons". They only work if you use them as an offhand weapon of equal or higher power (or otherwise they don't work as well as they could) and cost 50% of their normal price. You can also do this to double weapons.
So when the hunk wielder has a +4 greatsword for 32000, you have a pair of +4 short swords for 48000, or a pair of +3 weapons for 27000.
Allow a new +1 modification: ChannelingThis is a pretty good idea. I dunno about the name (Channeling is what Clerics do, after all).
Although, on second thought, I'll point out it's (essentially) functionally identical to what Gworeth and I already suggested.
Perhaps cost-out the "partner" based on it's total Enhancement bonus on the Armor chart (so, half-cost)?
Yeah, I suffered from the same problem (shooting ideas from the hip as it were). However, the fact that if the copy is destroyed, the main weapon is unaffected is a bonus. The copies can be thrown, which for some characters is a bonus. The copies don't have to be the same type of weapon (though I will admit for TWF efficiency they probably will be). So if the character finds a "Mirroring" (just renamed!) Dagger thanks to random rolls, but is a Short Sword user, he can use it anyway with a Short Sword with only a small drop in efficiency, rather than having a pair of Daggers.
|
I like the idea of paired weapons very much. I don't see how they would work if split as mentioned above.
As for cost and rules, thats another thing. Double weapons have always been priced as two seperate weapons. Spiked shields have to be double enchanted if considered magic weapons.
In game design terms it is apparent these dual weild weapons are not considered sub-optimal.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Now, granted, two +5 short swords are actually getting a net benefit of +5 damage since EACH WEAPON is dealing +5 instead of the greatsword's single +5There's part of your answer: A pair of equally strong weapons will generally give you twice the damage bonus, since you have roughly twice as many attacks.
Oh yeah, absolutely. That's why I mentioned it. But, it also means that DR gets applied twice AND you need two attack rolls to get two hits, as you mention...
But let's imagine that we agree that it's not quite the same (the attack bonus will be less, even more so when you figure in the two-weapon fighting penalty, though that's not the weapons' fault)
Let's also not forget that no character is making full attacks all the time and that's where the Power Attack/Vital Striker with the greatsword is REALLY outpacing the dual-wielder.
Introduce "off-hand weapons". They only work if you use them as an offhand weapon of equal or higher power (or otherwise they don't work as well as they could) and cost 50% of their normal price. You can also do this to double weapons.
So when the hunk wielder has a +4 greatsword for 32000, you have a pair of +4 short swords for 48000, or a pair of +3 weapons for 27000.
This has promise. The notion of putting a mechanical emphasis on "off-hand" seems a little odd to me... and what happens if you put a +2 flaming burst off-hand short sword into your main hand? Does it downgrade to +1 flaming? What about a +1 speed dagger? I can see a lot of arbitration issues arising there. What about "companion weapons" that lose all enchantment except when wielded alongside their "mate" and function along the lines of your "off-hand" idea?
I'm not sure I like the idea of weapons losing all of their enchantment when separated from their "unique mate." While I understand that it's much simpler, that's somewhat akin to giving a Druid only one animal companion or a Cleric only one holy symbol, and making them pay a massive cost per level for another one. Either weapon might as well only be Masterwork alone, and priced as such. It should probably maintain a minimum level of enchantment somewhat comparable to the amount of money spent on it, at least. It just seems more equitable than losing the whole investment if any one piece goes missing for whatever reason.
I'd hate to face a disarm or sunder-master, succeed on one check, fail the other, and be left holding something worth about as much as if I had failed both checks.
KaeYoss' original suggestion was that the "Off-hand" property required the "main weapon" to be equal or greater in enchantment before the Off-Hand weapon fully functioned. I quite like it-no need for unique pairings unless the story asks for it.
Maybe your "Companion" weapons work similarly, but offer a deeper discount than "Off-Hand" alone with the commensurate risk of losing it all?
How about something like this?
Paired Weapons :
Sometimes two weapons are crafted as a set. When so crafted, they are counterbalanced against each other, designed to be used in two-handed fighting styles. When using such weapons, reduce the penalties for two-weapon fighting by -1. Paired weapons cost an additional +500gp each, and are automatically masterwork (this is included in the price). If a paired weapon is used without it's twin, the inherent balancing actually throws the user off, applying a -1 penalty to their BAB when making attacks with the weapon. Forging paired weapons increases the DC for both weapons by +5. If a paired weapon is destroyed or lost, a new paired weapon can be forged to replace it. Paired weapons, when enchanted, grant a 10% discount to the cost of enchantment, provided both weapons are enchanted to the same power level (+1/+1, +1 flaming/+1 frost, +1 flaming/+2, etc) simultaneously. If enchanted separately, the cost is normal. Note that both weapons must be enchanted simultaneously to gain the benefit of the discount, not simply enchanted the same way at different times.
This has promise. The notion of putting a mechanical emphasis on "off-hand" seems a little odd to me... and what happens if you put a +2 flaming burst off-hand short sword into your main hand? Does it downgrade to +1 flaming? What about a +1 speed dagger? I can see a lot of arbitration issues arising there. What about "companion weapons" that lose all enchantment except when wielded alongside their "mate" and function along the lines of your "off-hand" idea?
You don't have to take the "off-hand" part too literal. You can switch the weapons around, no problem.
But you can't get the use of such a weapon (maybe "secondary" would be better as a name) unless you wield a normal weapon in your main hand.
My "secondary" (name subject to change) weapon concept doesn't rely on mated pairs of weapons. You can buy secondary weapons right off the shelf (provided you can do that with normal weapons in your game), and pair them up with normal weapons any way you like. You don't need to buy the +1 flaming daggers as a set.
Maybe you already have the +1 flaming dagger, but then get a secondary +1 keen longsword somehow (take it off an enemy's cold, dead hand, buy it somewhere, win it in a raffle). You can use them just fine. You can use the longsword as your "main" weapon, the dagger as the "off-hand" weapon.
But you couldn't use a secondary +3 dagger together with your main +1 flaming dagger, since that's only a +2 weapon. The secondary dagger would be weaker as its enchantment feeds off the main weapon's magical field.
And while we're at it, that field would persist until just before your next turn, in cases where you have throwing weapons or are disarmed, meaning the secondary weapon will keep on working for a bit in such cases and you don't have to plan the sequence of attacks when you're throwing daggers or the like.