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.
as long as you are in the world where bear traps exist, you can make the correct dc to craft a bear trap on to armor, and have the special training to use bear trap armor...besides that it is a cinch!
as long as you are in the world where bear traps exist, you can make the correct dc to craft a bear trap on to armor, and have the special training to use bear trap armor...besides that it is a cinch!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.
In fact, if your society has bear traps, and enough people use them, then their use will become the norm. This will make them a martial weapon addition instead of an exotic weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, if your society has bear traps, and enough people use them, then their use will become the norm. This will make them a martial weapon addition instead of an exotic weapon.as long as you are in the world where bear traps exist, you can make the correct dc to craft a bear trap on to armor, and have the special training to use bear trap armor...besides that it is a cinch!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.
not if the werebear Resistance has anything to say about it!
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.
No. It is a BAD balancing point and a bad idea. This goes all the way back to AD&D and having fighters drop their swords on a natural 1. If you have a complication 5% out of all your attacks it means you are are a royal screw up who has a complication in nearly every fight or ever other fight. You are an incompetent, or in this case relying on something incompetent, who is putting your party at risk. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now. Write the weapon so it isn't too good with out retarded backfire rules or create a balancing point that doesn't get people killed or else your weapon is irredeemably dumb.
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.
Again, why are you bothering whith such fiddly-ness? What meaningful thing is being added to the game. The balancing point of a cannon can seriously just be the fact that it takes a while to reload and require multiple people at that. Backfire rules are a fossil left from Gygax's masturbatory DMing style.
Point 3:
Weapons re-sizingIf the bear traps are part of the weapon, and the weapon gets re-sized, then the entire weapon gets resized not just select parts.
No. The base weapon stats scale, the trap is bonus damage and not only doesn't scale, but doesn't multiply on a crit.
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.
You're damage with the maul, whether you are enlarged and power attacking or not, while only increase an average of 7 points, ONE TIME, before you must spend a full round action to reset the trap, provoking an attack of opportunity. All of the damage you are panicking about is coming from just the greatclub. The normal greatclub. You could do more damage with a greatsword.
Now, in this case, if I was not being clear about this than that is my fault and I apologize. But that was always my intent. Solving the stupid oversize abuse issue was the reason I made the weapon the way I did.
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.No. It is a BAD balancing point and a bad idea. This goes all the way back to AD&D and having fighters drop their swords on a natural 1. If you have a complication 5% out of all your attacks it means you are are a royal screw up who has a complication in nearly every fight or ever other fight. You are an incompetent, or in this case relying on something incompetent, who is putting your party at risk. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now. Write the weapon so it isn't too good with out retarded backfire rules or create a balancing point that doesn't get people killed or else your weapon is irredeemably dumb.
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.Again, why are you bothering whith such fiddly-ness? What meaningful thing is being added to the game. The balancing point of a cannon can seriously just be the fact that it takes a while to reload and require multiple people at that. Backfire rules are a fossil left from Gygax's masturbatory DMing style.
Point 3:
Weapons re-sizingIf the bear traps are part of the weapon, and the weapon gets re-sized, then the entire weapon gets resized not just select parts.
No. The base weapon stats scale, the trap is bonus damage and not only doesn't scale, but doesn't multiply on a crit.
...
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
(1) OK, we're not talking about a fighter dropping his sword on a 1. We're talking about someone trying to set a bear trap in the middle of a melee fight having a significant chance of something going wrong there. That is a balancing point which flows pretty naturally to me from the item.
(2) Tangential point. Trying to keep this on topic.
(3) Why don't traps resize? They get an attack roll. They have weapon damage dice. They should resize just like any other weapon. And if we are talking about arbitrary restrictions, yours there seems like more of one than mine. You are taking weapon damage (which does scale with size and multiply) and arbitrarily declaring it non-scaling bonus damage which doesn't multiply. Pour qua?
(4) It's not about the damage. It's about the reach grapple attempt with a stiff weapon which continues to deal damage as 2H weapon as the grapple is maintained. Even if it's not a reach weapon, it's still a grapple attempt with a 2H weapon which continues to deal 2H weapon damage during the grapple.
Any response to my explanation of my "arbitrary" penalties? They honestly were not an attempt to make the weapon unusable, just an attempt to reflect the difficulties of using a bear trap stuck to the end of a huge stick and also maintain parity between weapons.
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 never said anything about the quality of FF8 because its quality wasn't relevent. Thanks for paying attention. My go-to examples for a good fantasy setting would be Myst, A Song of Ice and Fire, The Longest Journey, Malazan, Discworld, and yes even many of the Final Fantasy worlds (Spira in particualar). But now that we've covered that strawman I think we can move on.
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)
So the way in which you want to prove that it is not arbitrary is to make up an arbitrary weight and then claim that it is arbitrarily unwieldy and not balanced...arbitrarily. A greatclub is 8 lbs. A bear trap has no listed weight (unless I've missed something). But I can say with confidence that bear traps don't weigh more than greatswords, which weigh 8lbs. So we can at least draw the conclusion that the great club maul weighs less than 16 lbs. Earth breakers weigh 14 lbs and yet there isn't a -4 penalty to hit with them. That's because you're -4 is nothing but arbitrary.
For the strength check to fix the bear trap portion, that is just taken straight from the bear trap itself.
Please reread the bear trap. The only strength check is the one to break free, not to set the trap. A DC 25 strength check is seriously something trolls only have a 5% chance to succeed at. Are you honestly trying to suggest that any humanoid has ever bothered to use a trap that requires you to have at least a 20 strength to have a 5% chance to use? And then you say you want to raise that number to a DC 35? Well congratulations now cloud giants are too weak to ever set one. Nice.
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 never said anything about the quality of FF8 because its quality wasn't relevent. Thanks for paying attention. My go-to examples for a good fantasy setting would be Myst, A Song of Ice and Fire, The Longest Journey, Malazan, Discworld, and yes even many of the Final Fantasy worlds (Spira in particualar). But now that we've covered that strawman I think we can move on.
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)
So the way in which you want to prove that it is not arbitrary is to make up an arbitrary weight and then claim that it is arbitrarily unwieldy and not balanced...arbitrarily. A greatclub is 8 lbs. A bear trap has no listed weight (unless I've missed something). But I can say with confidence that bear traps don't weigh more than greatswords, which weigh 8lbs. So we can at least draw the conclusion that the great club maul weighs less than 16 lbs. Earth breakers weigh 14 lbs and yet there isn't a -4 penalty to hit with them. That's because you're -4 is nothing but arbitrary.
...
For the strength check to fix the bear trap portion, that is just
The weight came from taking a bear trap (10 lbs) and attaching it to a warhammer (5 lbs) and then making them both large (X2 weight) for 30 lbs. Which is more than double an earthbreaker. That's where the -4 comes from. The -4 ALSO comes from the only precedent we have for 1 weapon hitting twice with one attack roll, which is the double crossbow.
As for setting the trap, if you have time to set up a crank mechanism and wind it all the way, then yeah, you can set the trap with relative security and a lower strength check. But that's not what 's going on here. You can't crank a bear trap open in 6 seconds, even if the fragile crank mechanism is permanently installed in such a way as to not interfere with the trap going off.
Instead, what you would have to do is plop the trap down on the ground and try and wrench the claws apart by brute force, cause that's the only way to do it fast enough. That's why I started with the Str check to escape. It's the same process. I upped the Str check beyond that because the check to escape is just to get the claws open enough to slip out. To set it you need to get them all the way open, and they get harder to push as you go and the spring gets tighter. I upped it again for making the trap large, which would lead to a larger (more energy, harder to wind) spring.
Is it stupidly difficult? Yeah. Yeah it is. Feature, not a bug.
(1) OK, we're not talking about a fighter dropping his sword on a 1. We're talking about someone trying to set a bear trap in the middle of a melee fight having a significant chance of something going wrong there. That is a balancing point which flows pretty naturally to me from the item.
It isn't needed. Its bad design. I'm not opposed to having additional balancing point IF, and only if, they aren't backfire rules or arbitrary rules.
(2) Tangential point. Trying to keep this on topic.
When a point is made an idea is put forward a logical question is to ask yourself whether there is any need for it. This is on topic because it cannot be otherwise as it is directly retailed to a proposition being given by my opposition in the debate.
(3) Why don't traps resize? They get an attack roll. They have weapon damage dice. They should resize just like any other weapon. And if we are talking about arbitrary restrictions, yours there seems like more of one than mine. You are taking weapon damage (which does scale with size and multiply) and arbitrarily declaring it non-scaling bonus damage which doesn't multiply. Pour qua?
Because those are the rules? Ask Paizo. I'm sure you could add trap resizing, it isn't illogical, but right now they don't. That isn't arbitrary, that's the rules.
As for non-scaling bonus damage, those are the rules for bonus damage. Again, I'm using the rules.
Before you respond to that, I got flippant at the end there. Rewriting that now. Apologies.
NEW ENDING TO MY ABOVE POST:
I intentionally made the trap almost impossible to reset during combat, because being able to bring this to bear (ha ha!) against even one person is ridiculously powerful. To be able to set a bear trap through brute strength in 6 seconds should be nearly impossibly difficult. It was a design feature. Maybe it was too harsh of one?
(1) OK, we're not talking about a fighter dropping his sword on a 1. We're talking about someone trying to set a bear trap in the middle of a melee fight having a significant chance of something going wrong there. That is a balancing point which flows pretty naturally to me from the item.It isn't needed. Its bad design. I'm not opposed to having additional balancing point IF, and only if, they aren't backfire rules or arbitrary rules.
(2) Tangential point. Trying to keep this on topic.When a point is made an idea is put forward a logical question is to ask yourself whether there is any need for it. This is on topic because it cannot be otherwise as it is directly retailed to a proposition being given by my opposition in the debate.
(3) Why don't traps resize? They get an attack roll. They have weapon damage dice. They should resize just like any other weapon. And if we are talking about arbitrary restrictions, yours there seems like more of one than mine. You are taking weapon damage (which does scale with size and multiply) and arbitrarily declaring it non-scaling bonus damage which doesn't multiply. Pour qua?Because those are the rules? Ask Paizo. I'm sure you could add trap resizing, it isn't illogical, but right now they don't. That isn't arbitrary, that's the rules.
As for non-scaling bonus damage, those are the rules for bonus damage. Again, I'm using the rules.
Good/bad design is a question of opinion. Personally, I really like guns backfiring. It adds really awesome tension when the gunslinger, who knows his gun is already jammed, has to decide between clearing it, but risk the fight going badly as he is giving up actions and/or grit, and firing the gun, but risk it going off in his face.
And even if it does go off in his face, it's not the end of the world. He repairs it later. Everyone takes a bit of damage. So too with this. If the trap goes off on you, you take 2d6 damage and take a pretty nasty status effect, but that's the same thing you are dishing out, and you know what they about being able to take what you are dishing out.
For trap resizing, those aren't the rules. There really aren't rules at all. We are given the stats for a bear trap. Why can't a person cast enlarge object on it and have it go up in size? It's a weapon. It should be able to enlarge. We are in uncharted territory here, and I don't think either of us has RAW on our side.
And I know that bonus damage doesn't get multiplied on a crit. My question was why is the bear trap bonus damage? It's weapon damage. If you step on a bear trap it can crit against you. Why can't this one? That strikes me as an arbitrary penalty.
The weight came from taking a bear trap (10 lbs) and attaching it to a warhammer (5 lbs) and then making them both large (X2 weight) for 30 lbs. Which is more than double an earthbreaker. That's where the -4 comes from. The -4 ALSO comes from the only precedent we have for 1 weapon hitting twice with one attack roll, which is the double crossbow.
So you compare a medium size weapon to a large size weapon and you think that makes any sense?
Anyway, there is something that has been confusing me, an assertion you have been making, that perhaps I am overlooking or ignorant of. But how are you wielding a large size weapon unless you are large? That isn't possible unless there is a weapon enhancement or something I don't know about. If I am in the dark about something, or have made a false assumption, or misread something somewhere, I will correct my mistakes.
As for setting the trap, if you have time to set up a crank mechanism and wind it all the way, then yeah, you can set the trap with relative security and a lower strength check. But that's not what 's going on here. You can't crank a bear trap open in 6 seconds, even if the fragile crank mechanism is permanently installed in such a way as to not interfere with the trap going off.
Okay, now this is a legitimate argument. Yes, it is impossible to set a bear trap in 6 seconds. If you want to change the time to 1 minute than that's fine. I'm okay with that. But, from the players perspective, it won't change much. He was likely never going to set the trap in combat to begin with.
Is it stupidly difficult? Yeah. Yeah it is. Feature, not a bug.
That makes large size bear traps too powerful for huge size creatures to use. That doesn't make sense. A DC 25 strength check means that many HUGE sized creatures have only a 50% chance, give or take, to set a MEDIUM sized bear trap. In other words, since bear traps were so impractical to use in your world, they became about as common as a glass harmonica. They never caught on people never adopted to use the. Even people who want to trap bears.
Setting bear traps is harder to do in your world than breaking down an iron door with hold portal cast on it. Setting bear traps is now exactly as difficult as breaking through a masonry wall that is 1-foot thick. Setting a bear trap is now something people do not do at all, under any circumstance.
Before you respond to that, I got flippant at the end there. Rewriting that now. Apologies.
Not a problem. I am aware that on the internet it is hard to tell whether the person you are debating is even being rude or not. In my head, comments that often sound like witty and light-hearted jabs, come of as overly sarcastic and rude when read. This makes me come off as though I think pathfinder is SERIOUS BUSINESS, when I don't. This is a point of some shame for me as I am a writer and make my living trying to convey my point. I have to say, thank goodness for patient editors. And if I came off that way to you I offer the same Apologies.
The weight came from taking a bear trap (10 lbs) and attaching it to a warhammer (5 lbs) and then making them both large (X2 weight) for 30 lbs. Which is more than double an earthbreaker. That's where the -4 comes from. The -4 ALSO comes from the only precedent we have for 1 weapon hitting twice with one attack roll, which is the double crossbow.So you compare a medium size weapon to a large size weapon and you think that makes any sense?
Anyway, there is something that has been confusing me, an assertion you have been making, that perhaps I am overlooking or ignorant of. But how are you wielding a large size weapon unless you are large? That isn't possible unless there is a weapon enhancement or something I don't know about. If I am in the dark about something, or have made a false assumption, or misread something somewhere, I will correct my mistakes.
As for setting the trap, if you have time to set up a crank mechanism and wind it all the way, then yeah, you can set the trap with relative security and a lower strength check. But that's not what 's going on here. You can't crank a bear trap open in 6 seconds, even if the fragile crank mechanism is permanently installed in such a way as to not interfere with the trap going off.Okay, now this is a legitimate argument. Yes, it is impossible to set a bear trap in 6 seconds. If you want to change the time to 1 minute than that's fine. I'm okay with that. But, from the players perspective, it won't change much. He was likely never going to set the trap in combat to begin with.
That makes large size bear traps too powerful for huge size creatures to use. That doesn't make sense. A DC 25 strength check means that many HUGE sized creatures have only a 50% chance, give or take, to set a MEDIUM sized bear trap. In other words, since bear traps were so impractical to use in your world, they became about...
Is it stupidly difficult? Yeah. Yeah it is. Feature, not a bug.
I've been going off the OP's description of the weapon, adapted to fit what the rules allow. You can wield an improperly sized weapon with a penalty (-4, I believe?) and it shifts one step in weapon size. Thus, a medium creature can wield a large 1-H weapon as a 2-H weapon or a small 1-H weapon as a light weapon.
Since the OP was wielding a large sized hammer in 2-H, the logical base weapon for that would be the 1-H warhammer. That's where that came from.
Yes, the bear trap Strength check is absurdly high. So high that practically nobody could do it. That's because setting a bear trap by just prying the claws apart doesn't work. You are working against too much force. There is a crank which lets you do it a little bit easier, but it is a slower process. Let's consider my proposal amended to say that you can set the trap with a DC 10 Str check if you spend 1 minute doing it. You can take 10 on this check.
Setting bear traps the right way isn't hard. Setting bear traps through brute force in the middle of a fight is.
And we are now being way to cordial to each other. DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE INTERNET AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG YELL YELL SHOUT BALSKJGHAPUHAWR:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!
Good/bad design is a question of opinion. Personally, I really like guns backfiring. It adds really awesome tension when the gunslinger, who knows his gun is already jammed, has to decide between clearing it, but risk the fight going badly as he is giving up actions and/or grit, and firing the gun, but risk it going off in his face.
And even if it does go off in his face, it's not the end of the world. He repairs it later. Everyone takes a bit of damage. So too with this. If the trap goes off on you, you take 2d6 damage and take a pretty nasty status effect, but that's the same thing you are dishing out, and you know what they about being able to take what you are dishing out.
Fair enough. "I like it" is totally a legitimate claim as long as you grant me the option of saying "I don't"
For trap resizing, those aren't the rules. There really aren't rules at all. We are given the stats for a bear trap. Why can't a person cast enlarge object on it and have it go up in size? It's a weapon. It should be able to enlarge. We are in uncharted territory here, and I don't think either of us has RAW on our side.
Being technical, the RAW is on my side by remaining silent. Rules that don't exist are rules that don't exist. HOWEVER, I think I know what many of the dev's would say if asked. In fact, in my own games I would rule that they resize. But resizing traps, isn't really a major issue so I'm willing to meet you half-way and just say "whatever".
And I know that bonus damage doesn't get multiplied on a crit. My question was why is the bear trap bonus damage? It's weapon damage. If you step on a bear trap it can crit against you. Why can't this one? That strikes me as an arbitrary penalty.
Mistake on my part. Confusing a house rule with a pathfinder rule. I should mention that I play 3.5, PF, AE, and Tomes (as well as HERO, SR4, earthdawn, eclipse phase, After Dark, etc). I sometimes get the rules jumbled.
Another idea i came across would be the grapple special ability from UC let the grapple be on a crit and the weapon now does B & P damage.
Maybe include a rule for extra damage on the crit but it takes a certain action to reset the trap before it can grapple again.
I've been going off the OP's description of the weapon, adapted to fit what the rules allow. You can wield an improperly sized weapon with a penalty (-4, I believe?) and it shifts one step in weapon size. Thus, a medium creature can wield a large 1-H weapon as a 2-H weapon or a small 1-H weapon as a light weapon.
Since the OP was wielding a large sized hammer in 2-H, the logical base weapon for that would be the 1-H warhammer. That's where that came from.
Ah. Well since you were specifically addressing me I made the assumption you were targeting my version of the weapon. Which could only be wielded as a large weapon if you yourself were large. That was part of the compromise that I was talking about. In fact that's the specific problem I was attempting to address.
Yes, the bear trap Strength check is absurdly high. So high that practically nobody could do it. That's because setting a bear trap by just prying the claws apart doesn't work. You are working against too much force. There is a crank which lets you do it a little bit easier, but it is a slower process. Let's consider my proposal amended to say that you can set the trap with a DC 10 Str check if you spend 1 minute doing it. You can take 10 on this check.
No doubt it's difficult. But setting the DC to such colossal heights that actual colossal sized creatures struggle to set the trap is not a good way to represent that. It is easier to crush the bear trap in one hand than it is to set it. The minimum strength score required to have a 50% chance to succeed in opening a large sized bear trap under your proposal is 60. To put that into perspective Kord, the God of Strength, had a 55 strength(Deities and Demigods). A tarrasque has a strength score of 41 and must roll a 20 to succeed.
Actually, a Dire bear (NOT a normal bear) has a strength of 25, which would give him a +7 str mod to escape a normal sized trap. As the dire bear is large, and only has a 5% chance to escape a normal sized bear trap, I don't really see it as being a problem that a huge creature has only a 50% chance to escape a large sized bear trap. (As WPharolin wrote) In fact a 50% chance would seem a little underpowered, given what a medium sized bear trap can do to a large sized Dire Bear.
Actually, a Dire bear (NOT a normal bear) has a strength of 25, which would give him a +7 str mod to escape a normal sized trap. As the dire bear is large, and only has a 5% chance to escape a normal sized bear trap, I don't really see it as being a problem that a huge creature has only a 50% chance to escape a large sized bear trap. (As WPharolin wrote) In fact a 50% chance would seem a little underpowered, given what a medium sized bear trap can do to a large sized Dire Bear.
You are in error here. I think you may have misread me. Either way I will take the time to make my final case for why I think a DC 35 is insanity.
A huge size creature with a 35 Strength (+12 modifier)(cloud giant) has 35% chance of escaping from the MEDIUM bear trap. He has a 0% chance of escaping from a LARGE sized bear trap. That is, not even on a roll of 20 can they ever escape (ability checks don't auto succeed). This is despite having a strength score that is 10 higher than the creature that the large size bear trap is designed to hold. But yet they CAN tear it in half like (the break DC is 28 and the HP/hardness is laughable)...which of course means they will escape anyway. The tarrasque is a CR 25 colossal sized creature with a +15 modifier strength modifier and has only a 50% to succeed at escaping from the MEDIUM bear trap. He has to roll a natural 20 to break free from the large size trap.
Think about that. His LIGHT LOAD is in excess of 35,000 pounds. That is his LIGHT load. And while he has enough strength to bend, tear, rip, crush, chew, mangle, and otherwise destroy the bear trap with ease, he only has a 50% chance to escape from the MEDIUM bear trap. He struggles to escape from the large size bear trap so much that he needs a natural 20 to succeed. Meanwhile he only has to apply mild, almost negligible pressure to crush it (which is effectively the same damn thing).
Let me give you some more food for thought. A bear trap in the real world can weigh as much as 100 lbs and typically weighs in the ballpark of 35 - 40 lbs. A bear trap can deal from 140 to 2 tons of pressure in a quick snap that can shatter your leg. Those are modern bear traps. Early bear traps weren't as powerful and used teeth to cause further injury to make them more reliable. And yet neither you nor I are too weak to open a closed bear trap. People HAVE accidentally set one off and gotten themselves loose. The reason bears can't break free as easily has less to do with strength and more to do with not having hands or leverage.
A bear trap needs only be strong enough to hold the type of bear you want to catch. If we wanted to make bear traps sane we would lower the DC but impose a -4 penalty to creatures without hands. That means that the medium sized bear trap should have a strength score of 21 meaning brown bears would need a natural 20 to escape and black bears cannot escape. And the large size bear trap should have a DC 24 meaning dire bears and polar bears can escape on a natural 20 and grizzly bears cannot escape (it also means that the tarrasque can escape in 2-3 tries). But a DC 35 is insanity.
I really don't feel like looking at your flick of an internet video of a bear trapped in a bear trap.
All I am saying is that you get Size bonuses for being large in grapple checks. I see nothing about a size benefit from getting out of a bear trap, though it does make sense given that a bear trap does grapple whoever it snaps on.
I also feel that the DC for escaping a bear trap verges on insanity (26 for a medium creature), that said =, I didn't write the rules.
This is one of the reasons that bear traps, as written are overpowered, and that players who want to power game use them as bonus damage on weapons.
|
Eberron had a x-bow hammer.
exotic, d8, 2 handed crit x3, when loaded it did an additional d8 piercing (didt multiply on a crit). reloaded as a light x-bow, and could take rapid reload.
re skin that to bear trap, give the trap the option of being made of a special material (maybe even let it be enhanced seperately, but the "to hit" wouldn't stack)so you could have a + 2 hammer with a +1 cold iron trap that deals d8+2+str+1/2 + d8+1 (cold iron)
maybe give it the grapple ability, or make it a feat to grapple with it.
Ok so here is the final idea.
Take a medium sized bear trap, and attach it to the trigger plate of the large bear trap. Then take the large bear trap, and place it onto the large hammer.
Statistics:
Time to reset the trap (Who cares), carry more than one of the weapon.
Damage that the bear traps alone do, 5d6+9, this is also damage during the grapple.
1 Large bear trap + 1 Medium bear trap, cast enlarge, and you have 1 huge bear trap, and 1 large bear trap, haven't figured out the damage but meh dead is dead, and then there is hammer damage.
All you need to do is install a magic button that resets both traps.
After all, the best thing to put on a bear trap, is a slightly smaller bear trap.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a great idea, take this Bear Trap Maul and give it to an giant, (sized up even more so it is still a 2handed reach weapon) then have this giant hit a dire bear with it. It then proceed to pick up the dire bear that is now firmly attached to this horrifically huge hammer. FINALLY he then attacks the players with it dealing bear damage and hammer damage at the same time!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a great idea, take this Bear Trap Maul and give it to an giant, (sized up even more so it is still a 2handed reach weapon) then have this giant hit a dire bear with it. It then proceed to pick up the dire bear that is now firmly attached to this horrifically huge hammer. FINALLY he then attacks the players with it dealing bear damage and hammer damage at the same time!
Aah, you mean the Katamari Club. It is a difficult weapon to stat, but we can give it a try. It will deal damage equal to the number of tears your DM has cried as you call him daily trying to get him to let you use the weapon. So far it is up to 70d6 + 20
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read much farther than the first post - all I needed to know really.
Boy would I have a great time. I'd totally allow that weapon. Unfortunately for that character, the first encounter would be deadly for his character.
See his enemy has an even cooler weapon than he himself:
It is basically the pole-arm version of an "ox-herd" morning star, i.e. a morning star with several heads. Each of the heads emits an explosive burst on impact. They also have several disintegration ray guns (each) mounted on the heads. And those ray guns have vibro-bayonets with chainsaw-blades attached. lashed to each vibro-blade are live snakes that attack enemies while you smite them. The thing will even make love to your wife while you're asleep!
Needless to say, the unit of damage for this weapon is "armies". The medium sized version does 2d6 armies damage (and you get your strength modifier).
So your trapped hammer wielder will be hit once and then he'll be dead. And so will everyone in his family and home village/city/planet, due to the devastating effect this weapon has. Among those who die will be everyone in the game world who ever even thought of a trapped hammer.
Normally I just veto b~*+%~% ideas (and players), but some instances require more drastic measures.
In the next campaign that I run, I will have someone with full on bear trap armor fight a main character NPC of the story. The main story character is going to throw a large object at the bear trap warrior, and the warrior will be permanently stapled to the object.
The main character will then just walk away. Ideally this will show the PCs that just adding bear traps to everything will have severe consequences. Doing this to a NPC will help vent my frustrations and provide a bit of comic relief.
I'm going to go against the grain here.
It's entirely possible that allowing such a weapon in your game could be quite fun, especially if followed to its logical extremity. It is ridiculous. Some campaigns can handle that.
It all depends on where your boundaries as a GM lie.
One thing I'll note, though, is that if you hit with a bear trap hammer, and the target is not killed, you're probably going to lose the hammer.
Allow it if it is fun for the player and GM.
what about this?
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bear_trap_fist
It just seems like allowing one player to outshine all other players in the damage category because he decided to make up a weapon by adding traps to his already statted weapon seems unfair.
It only gets more ridiculous, when the other players start requesting bear trap weaponry of their own. Then for a CR 1 encounter to last more than 1 round among 4 people with this hammer it has to have over 100 hit points, taking it out of the power word kill range. At an average damage of 38 damage per swing, I'd carry 2 or 3 of these hammers.
Though the bear trap fist is a fun weapon in a Fallout PC game, you must keep in mind that you are the only one playing that game, so you are the only one meant to shine. How many days would it take to cure the wounds incurred by getting hit by a 38 damage blast (Average damage) from this hammer. (Assuming that the person didn't die) It is easily a 3-4 day ordeal of dedicated healing.
If I can have an oversize (large) bear trap, can I fit a normal (medium) trap inside it, and a small one inside that?
I'm calling it the "triple threat".
I have a great idea, take this Bear Trap Maul and give it to an giant, (sized up even more so it is still a 2handed reach weapon) then have this giant hit a dire bear with it. It then proceed to pick up the dire bear that is now firmly attached to this horrifically huge hammer. FINALLY he then attacks the players with it dealing bear damage and hammer damage at the same time!
Thank you so much for this.
If I can have an oversize (large) bear trap, can I fit a normal (medium) trap inside it, and a small one inside that?
I'm calling it the "triple threat".
Why stop there? Add a dagger to the center of the small bear trap, and electricity or fire to the whole thing.
E-Electricity
D-Dagger
T-Tripple
B-Bear
T-Trap
H-Hammer
Energized Destroyer of The Big Tarasque Hammer.
EDTBTH
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a final addendum to this thread.
The player in question said the following phrase a few days ago in front of the DM, the hammer is no longer allowed in the campaign:
Player:
"Oh that weapon didn't come from a book. The hammer itself was an oversized Lucerne hammer and the bear trap was just added on because I wanted extra damage. I drew a picture of it for the DM in the hopes that he would let me use it, and I picked a Lucerne hammer because it started off with D10 damage and only got better as I enlarged it."
My response:
"So you just made up a weapon from existing weapons and then made up rules to go in your favor when the DM actually allowed it?"
Player:
"Well yea, I mean normally nobody in their right mind would let me just add bear traps to stuff but this guy let me so, shut up about it.
DM: (Apparently listening from around the corner, walked up behind the player in question.)
"The hammer will no longer be a part of my game, you told me you got it from a legitimate book."
Can a ranger trapper shot bear traps through his bow?
WPharolin please show me, in detail using only rules in published books, how a greatsword weilded by a Level 1 Fighter can do 37 damage in one swing with a non-magic greatsword.
2d6 + 7 (str) + 3 (PA) = 12-22 damage.
Critical damage= 24-44.Entirely possible, though uncommon.
If oversized b-sword:
2d8+7+3 = 12-26
Critical damage: 24-52
Likely.
For a level one orc barbarian:
2d8 + 10 (str) + 3 (PA) = 15-29 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I can have an oversize (large) bear trap, can I fit a normal (medium) trap inside it, and a small one inside that?
I'm calling it the "triple threat".
Why stop there? Add a dagger to the center of the small bear trap, and electricity or fire to the whole thing.
WHOA! A DAGGER!?
Dude, you just went TOO FAR.
|
All those posts and nobody actually considered the fact that the traps damage is like the rent in New York - too damn high!
I could see a lot of damage coming from stepping on such a thing unexpectedly, but being hit with it? Probably not. If, for no other reason, your body would be inside the hinges of the device itself. The maximum force is only at the tip of the jaws.
Anyway, nerf bear traps and this whole problem goes away.
Bear traps are fine and the damage is appropriate, if used correctly and for their intended purpose.
Its when the cheezemonkeys make ludicrous weapon suggestions it all begins to go pear shaped.
You could needlesly nerf bear traps, but you'd only be dealing with symptoms. Instead I'd recommend brushing off the crazies who come up with bear trap hammers.
All those posts and nobody actually considered the fact that the traps damage is like the rent in New York - too damn high!
I could see a lot of damage coming from stepping on such a thing unexpectedly, but being hit with it? Probably not. If, for no other reason, your body would be inside the hinges of the device itself. The maximum force is only at the tip of the jaws.
Anyway, nerf bear traps and this whole problem goes away.
Even better design all traps better so they are less expensive and better balanced.
The sad fact is Bear trap is only affordable trap ever for what it does.
Why did we cast Animate Dead on this one
Now THATS thinking outside the box!
An Animated bear trap that resets itself between swings! Genius!
Why did we cast Animate Dead on this one
Because Mogart was providing us with closure. DM caught the player in question admitting he was cheezing the game and toasted him for it. Bravo!
Mogart, good job! I only just found this thread and read it thru in one sitting. Oh, and my players will soon loathe animated bear traps - perhaps almost as much as they loathe kobolds with phalanx fighting and tower shields...
In my opinion, I think this weapon is at least feasible as a concept, but it should be treated carefully. If a player created it for theorycrafting/OP purposes, I would be less inclined to allow such a thing, but there is a level of creativity here that I would like to explore. First let's go through the construction process, step by step.
Let's take a 2h weapon as a base: d10x2 B damage
Add exotic for weight distribution and other similar factors: -4 or a feat
Add a second attack roll (or maybe a reflex save) if the club hits: second roll
Reduce the bear trap size b/c a normal trap could not be mounted on a medium sized club: d10?
Add a full round AoO provoking action to reset: one practical use per fight
Add a free grapple attempt if the weapon hits AND the bear trap is set off.
Add to the cost because this is a rare and powerful weapon and very difficult to construct
So we get: Bear Trap maul 2.0
Exotic 2h weapon
300 GP- d10+d10 x2 damage. weight: 20 lbs. B and P damage
A mechanical device is part of the striking mechanism of this greatclub. In order to use this weapon normally, it must be set as a fullround action provoking AoO, otherwise it is treated as an improved weapon and does damage accordingly. If you successfully hit while this weapon's mechanism is set, your target must make a DC 15 reflex save or the jaws of the mechanism quickly close on it. The target takes 1d10 piercing damage, and you may make a grapple check as a free action. This grapple may be resolved normally, or through the use of a successful DC 20 disable device check. If the grapple continues, this weapon's wielder may twist and turn the Bear Trap Maul, causing 1d4 damage to the grappled creature.
To me, this does not seem game-breaking. Comments?
|
|
Needless to say, the unit of damage for this weapon is "armies". The medium sized version does 2d6 armies damage (and you get your strength modifier).
And I there I lost it.
As if "bear damage" wasn't enough.
If you wore a bear pelt while grappling, would the damage rolls be enhanced by this bear damage? Or is the damage type restricted bearably to bear traps bearing bears and bear druids coming bearing bear fists? On that note, why would anyone consider other wildshape forms than bears? Unless...
...tigers do cat damage?!?