One of my players claims to have read a book where one of the weapons is what could only be described as a Bear Trap Hammer and he showed me a picture of it. It is quite literally a bear trap hammer.
He has been pleading with me to use this oversized weapon for his level 1 character, and I keep telling him no, not in a million years, no. Here is why:
A bear trap does 2d6+3 damage because it is over sized it does 3d6+4 and if the player gets enlarge person cast upon him it jumps to 4d6+5. Adding +2 to strength each time it goes up a size category as well.
The hammer that the bear trap is attached to does 1d10 damage, but it is over sized so it goes to 2d8, and if he has enlarge person cast on him it will be 3d8.
His level 1 character is a 20 point buy with a starting strength of 20. So here is the breakdown. If he hits while enlarge person is not cast on him he will do 2d8+3d6+11 (1.5*str + bear trap str). If he is large, he hits for 3d8+4d6+14. Taking just the average of the large hit this is 12+12+14 = 38 damage per swing.
Does anyone else have players that try to attach bear traps, caltrops, or swords to already statted weapons, or is it just me? Please post about the ridiculous things your groups have tried.
My first thought on this, is that the weapon is now a new weapon. He will suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty unless he takes Exotic Weapon proficiency with it (bear-trap hammer)
Because the item it quite cumbersome and difficult to use even for a trained warrior, I would also apply a -2 penalty for it being too top-heavy.
Since the blunt head of the hammer is no longer the contact point, I would also reduce the damage either by -2, or for simplification of game mechanics I would say that the trap replaces the hammer damage.
Since the trap is not designed to be bashed in this way, I would either say its only usuable once in this method, or apply damage to the trap as well. (Or in the very least say that the trap breaks apart on an attack roll of 1).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players always try to get super overpowered stuff in their backstory's. For example I had a player who just recently tried to get his great grandfather's bow who was some sort of badass demon hunter. He wanted a holy energy damage (electricity) bow for free. (32000gp bow) in his backstory.
I had another guy who took exotic wep pro and thought he was then proficient with ALL exotic weapons.
Kinda unrelated, but I had a guy who when he was bored would just roll his d20 to kill time until his turn arrived (see where this is going?). Well inevitably he rolled a 20 when it wasn't his turn. He looks me dead in the face and asks "Can I save this for my next attack?". The entire table erupts into laughter. He persisted so hard that he nearly rage quit. The notion of "Saving rolls" is now infamous at our games.
He wanted to take an exotic weapon feat to use it. I am still putting my foot down and saying no. Next he will want a shield with a bear trap that snaps any sword that hits it or a bear trap launcher. Hell it has even been suggested that the casters can mage hand bear traps into enemies.
I am getting ready to have a bunch of angry druids ask them why they are using bear traps in the forest.
|
I agreed to hitting myself with the trap end on a 1, and still only having a 25% chance of actually hitting with the trap effectively at range.
He'll see play ONE of these days. Perhaps through fun use of Equipment Trick.
For seriousness, though. You're the GM. You can say no. But if you were to allow anything like it at some point, note that the Double Crossbow (Even with proficiency) imposes a -4. This sounds like a weapon that would do such a thing. It also sounds like any kind of impact would set off the trap. Does he have a reliable way to reopen a bear trap at the end of a 2h-weapon? He'd have to drop the thing to open it, and even at that it requires a DC 20 Strength check.
In short, if he can pull off dropping his weapon (a free action), Attempting to reopen the trap DC 20 (a standard or possibly a full round, I'd estimate), then pick it back up (a move action) EVERY ROUND, that'd truly be amazing, but he'd still be attacking (at if Standard action reopening) every other round, AND provoking twice. A Fighter can't get damage quite that good at 1st, but is a hell of a lot more efficient at it.
Yeah, having multiple weapons and Quick Draw could make this work better, but if he's really walking around with set bear traps on hammers, I'd like to see him fall prone. Ouch.
Well, I'd actually allow it... with restrictions:
1: Requires exotic weapon proficiency
2: It's a medium two handed weapon. Period. No oversized weapons.
3: It takes a full round action (that provokes AoO) to reset the trap between swings... and every swing discharges the trap, whether he hits the target or not. (he's gonna hit something in those 6 seconds, even if it's the ground.) If he doesn't reset the trap he takes a -4 to attack because it moves differently with the trap closed. If he actually hit with it then he cannot use the weapon because there is a (very angry) person attached to the head of his weapon.
As far as mage hand-ing bear traps into enemies, sure, why not. Remember that they can do the same to you... Don't think he would like it very much if he was caught in an oversized bear trap courtesy of the enemy wizard and so helpless for a coup de grace....
Regards,
Pol
Well, I'd actually allow it... with restrictions:
1: Requires exotic weapon proficiency
2: It's a medium two handed weapon. Period. No oversized weapons.
3: It takes a full round action (that provokes AoO) to reset the trap between swings... and every swing discharges the trap, whether he hits the target or not. (he's gonna hit something in those 6 seconds, even if it's the ground.) If he doesn't reset the trap he takes a -4 to attack because it moves differently with the trap closed. If he actually hit with it then he cannot use the weapon because there is a (very angry) person attached to the head of his weapon.
As far as mage hand-ing bear traps into enemies, sure, why not. Remember that they can do the same to you... Don't think he would like it very much if he was caught in an oversized bear trap courtesy of the enemy wizard and so helpless for a coup de grace....
Regards,
Pol
While I would like to use a small army of level 1 Wizards to cast sleep and Mage Hand Bear traps at the players for some all's fair in war play, my goal is not to kill the players. I think just not allowing the bear traps to be moved once set is a far better judgment.
As far as mage hand-ing bear traps into enemies, sure, why not. Remember that they can do the same to you... Don't think he would like it very much if he was caught in an oversized bear trap courtesy of the enemy wizard and so helpless for a coup de grace....Regards,
Pol
Mage hand lifts 5 pounds
bear trap is 10 pounds.
Unseen servant on the other hand.....
As far as mage hand-ing bear traps into enemies, sure, why not. Remember that they can do the same to you... Don't think he would like it very much if he was caught in an oversized bear trap courtesy of the enemy wizard and so helpless for a coup de grace....Regards,
PolMage hand lifts 5 pounds
bear trap is 10 pounds.
Unseen servant on the other hand.....
They were trying to argue dragging rules, for the mage handing of bear traps into baddies as the baddies advanced.
First of all, if he's basing this off a warhammer (which he should, since that's the 1-H medium hammer which would be 2H if large), it's a d8, not a d10, so it larges to 2d6.
Second, impose huge penalties on this. A large warhammer weighs 10 pounds. A large bear trap weighs 20. This thing weighs 30 pounds, which is rivaled only by a large orc double axe, and as a double axe the extra weight actually helps balance that. This is HORRIBLY off balance, with all the weight (the hammer head and the trap) all the way at the end of a lever. That will be stupidly difficult to wield. At least a -4, plus the penalty improperly sized.
It's a DC 26 Strength check to get out of a bear trap, so it will be even higher to set it. Getting out involves opening the jaws just enough to slip out. I'd say its a DC 30 strength check to set the medium bear trap. Full round action. Provokes AoO while he is doing it. Is considered unarmed for the full round while resetting the trap.
Since this is a large bear trap, however, I'd up the DC to 35 to set it.
And here's the kicker: If you fail the check to set the trap by 10 or more, you trigger the trap on yourself.
That seems like the right amount of stupid difficulty and self-immolating hoops to make him jump through for his bear trap on a hammer thing.
They were trying to argue dragging rules, for the mage handing of bear traps into baddies as the baddies advanced.
As far as mage hand-ing bear traps into enemies, sure, why not. Remember that they can do the same to you... Don't think he would like it very much if he was caught in an oversized bear trap courtesy of the enemy wizard and so helpless for a coup de grace....Regards,
PolMage hand lifts 5 pounds
bear trap is 10 pounds.
Unseen servant on the other hand.....
Mage hand exerts 5 pounds of force. Period. It doesn't have a maximum heavy load of 5 pounds, meaning it can push 25. It can only exert 5 pounds of force.
If they keep trying to do this, let them know that it can actually push LESS as it has to overcome the friction with the ground.
My players always try to get super overpowered stuff in their backstory's. For example I had a player who just recently tried to get his great grandfather's bow who was some sort of badass demon hunter. He wanted a holy energy damage (electricity) bow for free. (32000gp bow) in his backstory.
I had another guy who took exotic wep pro and thought he was then proficient with ALL exotic weapons.
Kinda unrelated, but I had a guy who when he was bored would just roll his d20 to kill time until his turn arrived (see where this is going?). Well inevitably he rolled a 20 when it wasn't his turn. He looks me dead in the face and asks "Can I save this for my next attack?". The entire table erupts into laughter. He persisted so hard that he nearly rage quit. The notion of "Saving rolls" is now infamous at our games.
Here is what I would tell your player about his grandfather's bow, "When your grandfather died, his party members took all of his items, splitting them among the group. The party members sent nothing back to his family.
(I have never played in an RPG where the players haven't looted the corpse of a close friend, let alone where they sent the family heirlooms and weapons back to the grieving family.)
And here's the kicker: If you fail the check to set the trap by 10 or more, you trigger the trap on yourself.That seems like the right amount of stupid difficulty and self-immolating hoops to make him jump through for his bear trap on a hammer thing.
Use this! And when he kills himself on his own bear trap, have him write up a new character that doesn't come from the cheese factory.
And - SUPER KUDOS to Mogart for have the courage to stand up to this sort of stupidity.
Mogart is my new Hero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may just be the coolest idea for a weapon ever. Where can the full write up be found?
Also, something to consider. Awesome things shouldn't be banned. Like...ever. Instead, a compromise can be made to make the awesome thing not broken. Rather than impose a hugely arbitrary -4 penalty to hit or some other crap, use the limitation that is literally built into the item. Bear traps clasp onto the target. Make that a feature of the item. For example...
I'm using the great club as a basis here.
1d10 20/x2 Bludgeoning 2-handed Exotic
A bear trap is mounted on the end of a maul or greatclub. While the trap is closed the weapon deals damage normally. There is a crank behind the head of the weapon that is used to set the trap. Setting the trap is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. The bear trap is designed to be slightly harder to set off than normal and requires that at the weapon deal at least 5 point of damage to trigger.
Once triggered the maul deals an additional 2d6 points of piercing damage and the wielder gets an immediate grapple attempt with a +2 bonus to this check. The wielder must maintain a firm grip on the hammer to maintain the grapple and he can deal damage with the weapon by shaking, twisting, and otherwise further digging the teeth into the grappled opponent (this uses the weapon's normal statistics but is considered piercing damage rather than bludgeoning). Once the grapple has ended you must reset the trap before using it again in this way. You cannot use the Bear Trap Maul in a grapple unless you initiate the grapple using the trap.
This isn't exactly clearest writing I could have used but there it is. A cool item that's worth a feat, makes sense, doesn't have unneeded drawbacks and stupid "blow-up-in-your-face" rules, and, most importantly, doesn't break your game in half.
This may just be the coolest idea for a weapon ever. Where can the full write up be found?
Also, something to consider. Awesome things shouldn't be banned. Like...ever. Instead, a compromise can be made to make the awesome thing not broken. Rather than impose a hugely arbitrary -4 penalty to hit or some other crap, use the limitation that is literally built into the item. Bear traps clasp onto the target. Make that a feature of the item. For example...
** spoiler omitted **
But this is horribly overpowered and game breaking. Compare it to a piston maul, which also uses a greatclub as a basis. The piston maul, for the price of a thunderstone, does +4 damage on sunder attempts for 1 day.
Your bear trap hammer, for no price, does +2d6 piercing damage (meaning it can now get past even more DR), and also gains a property better than the grapple property. If you want to see how good that is, check out how weak the weapons that have grapple are (garotte and mancatcher). AND when it is grappling, it can deal piercing damage as a 2-handed weapon with a grapple check, where ordinarily only light and natural weapons can be used to deal damage in a grapple.
The bear trap hammer is a terrible idea and needs significant balances to keep from being stupidly overpowered.
Give it the Fragile quality from UC but make it tied to the trap. Or possible give it a higher auto fail rate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your bear trap hammer...does +2d6 piercing damage (meaning it can now get past even more DR),
At the cost of a full round action. Sure you can make take the initial action out of combat but that is actually the only time you would ever want to. Its highly likely that no one will ever take the full round action to reset the trap during combat except on very rare occasions. Over coming an extremely rare DR type that you can overcome anyway with ease isn't something I even care about.
...for no price...
Non sequitur. Not listing a price on a rough draft of an item doesn't mean I think its free or that it should be.
If you want to see how good that is, check out how weak the weapons that have grapple are (garotte and mancatcher). AND when it is grappling, it can deal piercing damage as a 2-handed weapon with a grapple check, where ordinarily only light and natural weapons can be used to deal damage in a grapple.
Garrotes have the choke property and are better than my bear trap maul due to suffocation. Mancatchers only require a touch attack, have reach, and allow you to move. In any case Garrotes and mancatchers are repeatedly useable without having to spend a full round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. The action cost to reset this trap means that it will, for most people, be a minor but nifty boost once per combat. Call me unimpressed.
The bear trap hammer is a terrible idea
We will never agree on this. I love creativity too much.
All i can see is this weapon with the called shot rules.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may just be the coolest idea for a weapon ever. Where can the full write up be found?
Also, something to consider. Awesome things shouldn't be banned. Like...ever. Instead, a compromise can be made to make the awesome thing not broken. Rather than impose a hugely arbitrary -4 penalty to hit or some other crap, use the limitation that is literally built into the item. Bear traps clasp onto the target. Make that a feature of the item. For example...
** spoiler omitted **
You can't just add weapons to other weapons, that isn't creativity it is just crazy.
But if we want to slam the crazy button then here are a few suggestions.
A repeating bear trap crossbow, so that you get both arrow damage and bear trap damage.
A Great sword with a peg at the base of the blade so that you can attach two long swords to it. 2d6 + 2d8 + 1.5 * str.
You could even make it launch the long swords as projectiles. Like in the video shown below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvuBY97cD4
How about a wand of Magic Missile Bear Trap 50 charges. 1d4+1 + 2d6+3.
A Bear Trap net so that when you throw it on someone they take damage from 6-8 bear traps because the blanket surrounds the target.
A great Axe with little axes attached to it.
A Spike chain with bear traps and caltrops on it to increase damage and provide wounding damage.
How about a Caltrop coated great club which cripples enemies because when they take caltrop damage they need their wounds mended before they can travel at full speed.
A multi-great Club with swords hammered into it, and a bear trap.
If you don't like the damage a construct does, make an animated bear trap, and add the bear trap damage to the construct.
OOh how about the sleepy ball spell, it first releases a fireball blast, and then casts sleep in the same spell. Or even better sleep first so that nobody gets a save then fireball. Fear the Sleepy Ball.
The point is that weapons have stats for a reason, adding more weapons to existing weapons isn't being creative it's just stupid, and the players should be punished for insisting on using heavily modified weapons like that.
Kusri-gama's and Gnome hook hammers must really bother you. And all the Gun/weapons in UC.
You can't just add weapons to other weapons, that isn't creativity it is just crazy.
But if we want to slam the crazy button then here are a few suggestions.
A repeating bear trap crossbow, so that you get both arrow damage and bear trap damage.A Great sword with a peg at the base of the blade so that you can attach two long swords to it. 2d6 + 2d8 + 1.5 * str.
You could even make it launch the long swords as projectiles. Like in the video shown below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvuBY97cD4How about a wand of Magic Missile Bear Trap 50 charges. 1d4+1 + 2d6+3.
A Bear Trap net so that when you throw it on someone they take damage from 6-8 bear traps because the blanket surrounds the target.
A great Axe with little axes attached to it.
A Spike chain with bear traps and caltrops on it to increase damage and provide wounding damage.
How about a Caltrop coated great club which cripples enemies because when they take caltrop damage they need their wounds mended before they can travel at full speed.
A multi-great Club with swords hammered into it, and a bear trap.
If you don't like the damage a construct does, make an animated bear trap, and add the bear trap damage to the construct.
OOh how about the sleepy ball spell, it first releases a fireball blast, and then casts sleep in the same spell. Or even better sleep first so that nobody gets a save then fireball. Fear the Sleepy Ball.
The point is that weapons have stats for a reason, adding more weapons to...
This was so funny it literally brought me to tears. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just thought of another one. How about a Double Great Sword Dagger.
1d4 + 2d6 + 2d6 + str This way it is a light weapon, so it is usable in a grapple and can be thrown, because it is still a dagger.
Yes, we will be forgetting about the fact that it would be too clumsy and awkward to use, along with being incredibly heavy, we will simply be taking the best properties of all weapons involved and combining them.
Perhaps a flame thrower powered by love, with damage inversely proportional to the divorce rate of your kingdom. No divorce rate = 10d6
50% divorce rate = 5d6. Save = None. You can't save yourself from love.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't just add weapons to other weapons, that isn't creativity it is just crazy.
No. In every way no. This goes against actually human history. Adding a battleaxe to the end of your rapier is retarded but adding a dagger at the end of your rifle is ingenious. Adding more weapons to weapons is something we actually do in reality. Like...a lot. Adding hooks to swords makes hook-swords. Adding axes to spears makes halberds. Adding daggers to guns makes bayonets. Adding a long chain to an Asian sickle makes a Kusari-gama. Spring loaded triple daggers and gun shields aren't a work of fiction.
Combining weapons is also a regularly occurring trope in fantasy. Adding a gun to a sword makes a weapon that makes Final Fantasy fans giggle like idiots. Adding a sword to a whip has help make Ivy a house hold name (her giant boobs helped too). The rifle mounted chainsaw is Gears of War's most iconic weapon. So Squall, Lightning, Ivy, and Marcus would all have words with you. And when their done Kratos, Renji, Wizards of the Coast, Wolfwood, Monte Cook, the Predator, Archer, and the Batman also might have something to say as well. For started.
TL;DR: Learn to weapon history and fantasy trope.
A bunch of absurd (if amusing) non-sense.
Wow. You really like logical fallacies. A Non Sequitur combo-ed with Reductio ad absurdum and just the lightest hint of condescension, in a long and pointless string of Strawman comparisons that basically just translates to "I don't like it". Well, boo hoo.
I want to throw in a crazy weapon. How about a sword whose blade is a beam of disintegrate. Just imagine a green glowing sword that you only need a touch attack to hit.
Hey, this sword of yours sounds awfully familiar......perhaps iconic even. Could this sword be called a saber?
I think I found a video of this weapon, but it isn't green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjCyZ2P9bCA
Could I perhaps attach a bear trap or two to this. Saber of yours?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets look at your examples one by one. Hooksword. A hooksword is not a sword with a hook on the end but with a blade shaped like a hook.
Which is a sword with a hook. Seriously what do you see in your head when you think of a bear trap on a weapon? Duct tape?
You would not combined damage from the hook and the damage you would take from a sword. That example is not valid.
Well its a good thing I didn't suggest that. The only reason that I did that with my bear trap maul is because it will be once per combat in most situations and it really won't matter. An axe-sword does not add deal sword damage plus axe damage. It deals axe-sword damage. And you know what? Its still two weapons combined into one. Like it or not, that example is perfectly valid.
Halberds. A halberd is a axe with a spear shaft on it. Is a halberd just as effective in close as an axe without the shaft? No. You also do not combine axe and spear damage with the weapon.
So what? I didn't make that argument. And yet it changes nothing because it is still two weapons combined into one.
Bayonets. Generally people do not stab someone and then shoot them at the same time.
Generally dragon's don't exist. What argument are you trying to refute? A statement was made that adding weapons to weapons is not creative. Which is factually wrong considering the definition of creativity. But rather than nitpick on his poor choice of words I gave example of weapons combined with weapons. Yet your attacking strawmen, most likely unintentionally, but you are not countering points that I have ever made.
Do you see where I am going with this?
No because it doesn't have anything to do with anything I said.
Also, your description of the hammer ignores what happens if the bear tap is sprung on a person.
Intentionally. I'm not going to bother with minor details during a rough draft of a weapon.
It should attach to the person it hits so how would it let go for the player to make another swing?
Abstracted into grapple. Done.
You just saying allow it and combine damage with no penalty to the use of the weapon is just stupid. All of Mogart's examples would work under your logic of saying allow it because it is creative and cool.
Did you even read my other posts? Because I never said that it shouldn't have a penalty. In fact, I gave it one. I gave it a bigger one, even than anyone else had suggested. What I DID say was that you shouldn't use nonsensical or arbitrary penalties. Let the penalties flow naturally from the concept. None of Mogart's example would work under my logic because my logic includes using actual pressure to set off bear traps. Even suggesting a net or wand is Reductio ad absurdum and irreverent to anything I had put forward.
Note to self, find fantasy equivalent for duct tape.
dragonsword111 wrote:
It should attach to the person it hits so how would it let go for the player to make another swing?
Abstracted into grapple. Done.
-----------------
It sounds like you are giving the hammer a free grapple attack too. I have to say, not bad for a mundane exotic weapon.
As far as mage hand-ing bear traps into enemies, sure, why not. Remember that they can do the same to you... Don't think he would like it very much if he was caught in an oversized bear trap courtesy of the enemy wizard and so helpless for a coup de grace....Regards,
PolMage hand lifts 5 pounds
bear trap is 10 pounds.
Unseen servant on the other hand.....
Mithral Bear Traps weigh only 5 lbs. :)
|
I'm stunned at the lack of creativity. Why the hell hasn't he set this monstrocity on fire before use?
Flaming burst bear-trap greathammer of awesomeness +7
Seriously, I might allow the attempt, with the following restrictions.
You can NOT become proficient with this thing. It's beyond exotic.
Fumbles just expanded to natural 1-5. With no need to confirm.
Why not a double bear trap weapon?
;)
Hit with one end and then use the other end to do the same thing
reset both and repeat ;)
My bad that would be a double bear trap maul
Don't forget to attach caltrops to it to impair movement of your victim, err I mean opponent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where should I begin? First, I used your examples of weapons combined merged with other weapons to show that damage does not stack but it instead creates a new weapon.
Damage stacking isn't a claim I'm making, leave that poor strawman alone. Second, two weapons being combined to make a brand new weapons is still two weapons being combined to make brand new weapon. Guess what a bear trap maul is?
The only weapon you showed of weapons combined with other weapons was the bayonet.
Wrong. If my goal had been to demonstrate weapons that had been combined without creating new weapons or visa versa you would have ground to stand on. Right now your falling.
There is a difference then just throwing a bear trap onto something and calling it good. You did not give the weapon any penalty other then to say that it takes a full round to set the trap.
You don't think having to spend a full round and provoke isn't a huge penalty? Are you even playing a turn based game?
In fact, when penalties were proposed by other people you said they were to harsh (such as the -4 to hit).
We seem to be having some english comprehension problems. Read my post again and you will find you are incorrect. What I said was that it was arbitrary.
Just because you think thowing one weapon onto another is creative does not make it so.
You're right it isn't because I say so. It's because that is the definition of the word. Do you think that I am claiming that its CLEVER? I said it is creative and by the definition of the word creative, which is the definition I care about, it is. Creating things is creative whether you like it or not.
When anyone points out a problem with your hammer you wrote up, you say it is just a rough draft
My original post says it is a rough draft. My exact words for the spoiler are "Bear Trap Maul rough idea". That means that it is a rough draft. Period.
...and try to use that to settle the issue. So in other words, if someone comes up with something refuting your opinion you ignore it.
No one is refuting things that I am actually saying. You're refuting things that you THINK I am saying because you aren't bothering to read. You are making assumptions about my position that aren't even true and then attacking me based on those lies. Whether you are doing it intentionally or not I don't know.
I am using your own words to show that the examples Mogart gave would work under your logic.
You don't even seem to understand the words that I have used. Again do you think creative means the same thing as Clever?
Talking about the pressure to set off a bear trap is fine but not when you ignore other drawbacks to having a bear trap on a hammer and say "I'm not going to bother with minor details during a rough draft of a weapon," when you are told you are ignoring what would happen when a bear trap would spring on a person.
Actually, that's a perfect reason to ignore it. It isn't relevant to the original point. I hand wave your criticism because it doesn't have anything to do with me or my position.
It is not a minor detail if causing a bear trap to spring on a person is the purpose of the weapon.
Yes it is. I addressed how to spring the trap in combat. How the trap can be sprung without making an attack, or handling odd circumstances isn't important to me right now.
You say to let the penalties flow naturally from the concept. But when it is purposed to do that you then call the penalty "arbitrary" and talk about how something "awesome" and "creative" should not have a penalty.
Go back and read that first post again. When you get to the word compromise open up a dictionary. I think that may be the root of your confusion about where I stand and what I mean when I say creative things should always be allowed.
Thank you, Thank you so much guys I posted this forum on my facebook!
You guys are using serious argument rules to argue the validity of a bear trap on a hammer. you people make my Fridays at work interesting.
ps I agree with WPpharolin.
a bear trap net is the best idea ever! btw
The problem is, that the original posting was simply adding the damage together. Yes, weapons have been combined for a number of years. Bombs + Cannon = Exploding cannon ball. The point is that there are drawbacks, in the case of the exploding cannon ball, they exploded when the crew used them.
There is something called a Dragon's breath shotgun blast that literally shoots flame from a shotgun, fun video to watch, but it also damages the shotguns that use it.
The very idea of taking a maul, making it over sized for extra damage and reach, then tossing on an over sized bear trap for good measure is not just power gaming, it is seeing if you can convince your DM that something that is insanely overpowered is a good idea. This thing could literally splatter CR 1-4 mobs in a single hit, with the only drawback being a full round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A full round action is used to summon monsters, but I have never seen a level 1 summoned monster do 38+ damage in one round, which is what a level 1 fighter could do with the bear trap maul.
Even in this same thread someone spoke of using bear traps as thrown weapons because he wanted the extra damage that they provide, so a thrown bear trap net isn't that far out of the realm of possibilities, especially given that the bear trap triggers have a fairly good pressure plate.
Just imagine if you gave your monsters this thing. What would your level 1 players say when you splat them in one hit on the first round of combat. It is more lethal than ghoul paralysis, at least you have a chance to save from that.
At one point I had a player with 35 strength (Don't ask how) argue that his hammer, which weighed as much as his light load carry capacity was a legitimate weapon. Using crushing boulders as a damage base the weapon did in the neighborhood of 40d6 +1.5* Strength modifier. The character was strong enough to swing a mountain and thought that he should be able to swing the "Hammer of Thor" He was told, no, not in a million years, no. Not just no but Hell NO.
The point is that you can't just add on or alter stats where you want to, because if you do the rule sets that make the game work, cease to function. Then again, there is no rule that says you can't add weapons to each other and obtain damage from every weapon you add. However, there is also no rule that says that you can't take actions when you are dead. Just some food for thought.
The problem is, that the original posting was simply adding the damage together. Yes, weapons have been combined for a number of years. Bombs + Cannon = Exploding cannon ball. The point is that there are drawbacks, in the case of the exploding cannon ball, they exploded when the crew used them.
There is something called a Dragon's breath shotgun blast that literally shoots flame from a shotgun, fun video to watch, but it also damages the shotguns that use it.
The very idea of taking a maul, making it over sized for extra damage and reach, then tossing on an over sized bear trap for good measure is not just power gaming, it is seeing if you can convince your DM that something that is insanely overpowered is a good idea. This thing could literally splatter CR 1-4 mobs in a single hit, with the only drawback being a full round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A full round action is used to summon monsters, but I have never seen a level 1 summoned monster do 38+ damage in one round, which is what a level 1 fighter could do with the bear trap maul.
Even in this same thread someone spoke of using bear traps as thrown weapons because he wanted the extra damage that they provide, so a thrown bear trap net isn't that far out of the realm of possibilities, especially given that the bear trap triggers have a fairly good pressure plate.
Just imagine if you gave your monsters this thing. What would your level 1 players say when you splat them in one hit on the first round of combat. It is more lethal than ghoul paralysis, at least you have a chance to save from that.
At one point I had a player with 35 strength (Don't ask how) argue that his hammer, which weighed as much as his light load carry capacity was a legitimate weapon. Using crushing boulders as a damage base the weapon did in the neighborhood of 40d6 +1.5* Strength modifier. The character was strong enough to swing a mountain and thought that he should be able to swing the "Hammer of Thor" He was told, no, not in a million...
Don't forget I may agree with the other guy but if you are the dm your word is law no means no. you could be in a world with out bear traps.
dont let your player walk all over you. you can say no the cheese all day long
The problem is, that the original posting was simply adding the damage together. Yes, weapons have been combined for a number of years. Bombs + Cannon = Exploding cannon ball. The point is that there are drawbacks, in the case of the exploding cannon ball, they exploded when the crew used them.
Yes it does. That's true. The reason I added the damage together (though my original instinct was to just switch from one damage to the other) was due to it already being horribly restrictive. As for exploding cannon balls, I'm not particularly interested in bothering with those kinds of details in a fantasy game. The restriction for cannons should be the long reload times. We don't need weapons that blow up because its "realistic".
There is something called a Dragon's breath shotgun blast that literally shoots flame from a shotgun, fun video to watch, but it also damages the shotguns that use it.
Again, why bother with that kind of fiddly-ness in a TTRPG? What does having "blow-up-in-your-face" rules add to the game outside of extra book keeping? There are better ways to limit this than telling the players that their weapons are going to have a decent chance of getting them all killed in a dire situation.
The very idea of taking a maul, making it over sized for extra damage and reach, then tossing on an over sized bear trap for good measure is not just power gaming, it is seeing if you can convince your DM that something that is insanely overpowered is a good idea.
You do realize that traps don't follow the weapon resizing rules right? The hole club gets bigger, but the only statistical difference is that the 1d10 damage will increase and you gain reach. You can just do that with a greatclub, though you'd be better off with a greatsword. You don't need this weapon for that.
This thing could literally splatter CR 1-4 mobs in a single hit, with the only drawback being a full round action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
If you just want to splatter CR 1-4's you don't even need my help. A normal greatclub or long spear is more than enough.
What would your level 1 players say when you splat them in one hit on the first round of combat. It is more lethal than ghoul paralysis, at least you have a chance to save from that.
Well, it just so happens I have one of my players here with me. So I went ahead and asked him what he would say if I used this against him. This is what he said: "So what? You can do that with a spoon and a light breeze. It's first level and cats can kill people."
At one point I had a player with 35 strength (Don't ask how) argue that his hammer, which weighed as much as his light load carry capacity was a legitimate weapon. Using crushing boulders as a damage base the weapon did in the neighborhood of 40d6 +1.5* Strength modifier. The character was strong enough to swing a mountain and thought that he should be able to swing the "Hammer of Thor" He was told, no, not in a million years, no. Not just no but Hell NO.
You know what I would have said to someone who told my character I couldn't wield the Hammer of Thor if that's what I wanted? This.
Ho boy, where to begin.
Point 1:
The fact that modded weapons can blow up is actually a balancing feature of the game. In fact there is a class called Arcane Gun Slinger or something like that that has special conditions if he rolls a 1 and his gun blows up. Removing that from the weapon makes it too good to not use.
Point 2:
See the above, as well as many rules for black powder weapons in table top games. The short version is, yes black powder weapons will blow apart if something goes wrong.
Point 3:
Weapons re-sizing
If the bear traps are part of the weapon, and the weapon gets re-sized, then the entire weapon gets resized not just select parts.
Point 4:
When I say that a weapon will splatter a CR 1-4 mob or character that is level 1-4. I don't mean simply taking them down to zero, I mean killing them 2 or 3 times over. It can be the primary attack weapon for every orc, because orcs carry the biggest baddest weapons around. Round 1 of combat will be a splatterfest, and then round 2 they will take out the far less lethal Great Axe, Great Sword, or the Double Axe. I hope you roll high on your initiative.
It is the equivalent to having a wizard cast fireball for every attack against a party of level 1 characters. Put simply it isn't balanced. Put in a more complex way, it is a one shot wonder that does fireball damage with every swing, I would be more than willing to take a round to reset the trap, hell make it two rounds. I'll carry 2 of these huge mauls on me for combat, ready to spring, that way I get 2 strikes.
can i put bear traps on my full plate armor so anyone who punches me is hit by a bear trap and grappled?
By the current reasoning being used, why not, sure go for it. Don't forget to oversize it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so putting aside the whole side track you guys have gone off on on power gaming and thor's hammers and Squall and what not (seriously, though... FFVIII is your go-to example for good fantasy settings? Sorry, sorry, tangent.)
I wanted to explain to WPharolin my "arbitrary" penalties.
For the -4 to hit: first, there is the hugely unwieldy nature of this behemoth. It's 30 lbs with none of that weight properly balanced or counter-balanced. It will take a tremendous effort to swing this thing around, and it is a weapon which hits with 2 weapons at once. That sounds like the double crossbow to me, and the double crossbow imposes a -4 to hit even with proficiency. Non proficiency is -8. It's not arbitrary. It's the penalty for hitting with 2 weapons at once (which, you might notice, is the same penalty you take for 2 weapon fighting... huh, imagine that, multiple disparate methods of dealing damage balanced against each other)
For the strength check to fix the bear trap portion, that is just taken straight from the bear trap itself. I increased the check because the trap is being made larger, which means a larger coil and heavier draw. Thus, it will be harder to set (just like a smaller wolf trap is easier to set than the larger bear trap). The bad stuff happens on a critical failure (fail by 10 or more) is an extension of the fumble rules, and seems logical. You are drawing two spiked levers back against an incredibly heavy spring. To do this, you stick your hands down in there. If you get them halfway down and then slip (a critical failure), then they WILL close on your hands.
Full round action that provokes to reset I think we can both agree on. Considering yourself unarmed while setting the trap is a reflection of the fact that your weapon is currently on the ground and you are doing "repairs" to it. If you want the penalties to flow even more from the weapon, you could demand a Con/BAB based concentration check (instead of casting stat/CL) if you take damage during the act of setting the trap, but that seemed too prohibitive.
Giving up a full round action in combat to get this thing going again is NOT that big of a deal. Because this thing is brutal. It's a grapple check at reach. Any enhancements on it will also be conferred to the grapple check. Hit somebody with it and they are grappled at range from you, and you can deal 2d6 to them every round, while they can't hit you back, because they can only attack with light weapons WHICH DON'T HAVE REACH. You are immune to them hitting you.
So that is where my penalties came from. They aren't arbitrary. They are based on the rules which we have presented to us, other similar weapons as precedent, and the natural ramifications of using this stupid thing.
I like your style Bascaria, it makes an awful lot of sense.
(seriously, though... FFVIII is your go-to example for good fantasy settings? Sorry, sorry, tangent.)
Actually, it's an excellent example of a fantasy setting that contains technology mixed in. It really is, the tech and magic is balanced against each other so neither is overpowering the other across the board.
FFVII is another good example of a world where magic and tech are working side by side without one stepping on the other.
Neither is a good example of classical western fantasy however. FFIX would be a decent example of a classical fantasy world, where there's little tech and mostly just magic.
FFXII would be a decent example of a classical fantasy world where magic has been advanced as if it were technology (all the flying ships are powered by magic, not tech, same with guns). So it's a good example of magic evolved into routine use that rivals the industrial revolution.
Most of the earlier Final Fantasies (not putting out numbers, due to the confusions over Japanese vs US release numbers) would mostly be very good examples of classical western fantasy worlds.