|
Do weapons with the Vicious enchantment still deal damage to you when thrown?
Given the description, there is no reason why the attacker wouldn't take damage even if the weapon was thrown. I think it also honors game balance.
What about when damaging an object?
This one may be a bit of a grey area. The description refers to the ability damaging an opponent, but does not comment of objects. Since other attacks with energy damage may have varying success at damaging objects, it may be a GM call. If it was my call, I would allow vicious to affect creatures or objects.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
I'd say no. If you thrown your vicious long sword, the vicious part won't do damage to you.
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder.
As to the second part, I'd say yes. The object would be the "opponent" to you. I don't think the weapon would be able to tell the difference.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. But the weapon specifically states that it won't work on ranged weapons, so I'm also thinking that part will overrule the flavor text.
True. But if that's the case, why won't it work on ranged weapons (aka, why will it only work on melee weapons)?
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.
The magic property won't work on ranged weapons. Why? Is it because the negative energy burst is short ranged? How short? Will it worked on reach weapons? If yes, will a thrown weapon still cause the burst if it is thrown within 10 or 15 feet?
Or does the burst travel up the weapon itself, effecting the opponent a the moment they're hit, but also the wielder? If this is the case, then it won't work on ranged weapons because there is no wielder when the weapon strikes. Although, this would be a good reason to animate or dance the weapon so you don't have to hold it. :)
Have you seen the movie Immortals? Great fight scene with a melee trident. :)
I can definitely see that point of view. I guess you just have to determine how it works by flavor, and that will dictate how it works by the rules for your game.
|
Just make it simple.
If you don't take the damage, you don't get the bonus damage.
The fluff describes the intent as a "flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and wielder". If it's thrown, either it still activates in full at range, or doesn't activate at all at range. But you don't get to game an enchant that has a drawback for a larger payoff than an equivalent enchant.
You pay for a +1 enchant to get 2d6 damage with a 1d6 backlash. You would normally pay for a +1 enchant that gives you 1d6 with no backlash. You don't get the extra without the penalty just because you throw a melee weapon instead, that's pretty much the definition of cheeze. Gouda style.
Then, if they throw it, they don't take the damage, and don't get the bonus. If they stab with it, they take damage, and get bonus damage.
This; competely agree with everything.
RAW I see nothing preventing the bonus damage from happening. But RAW, I also see no reason why the "flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder" would have a range limit, either.
If I'm a high level druid wildshaped into a Huge Air Elemental using a Vicious longspear, for example, I can hit an enemy a full 30 ft away from me; further with the Lunge feat. The disruptive energy still reaches back to me even then, so why not through the air from range?
Just say "it's magic" and stop worrying about it. *shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you throw it, it is considered a ranged weapon for that attack, not a melee weapon. Any other interpretation simply opens up a big ol' can of worms when applied to other areas of the rules.
In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Just make it simple.
If you don't take the damage, you don't get the bonus damage.
The fluff describes the intent as a "flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and wielder". If it's thrown, either it still activates in full at range, or doesn't activate at all at range. But you don't get to game an enchant that has a drawback for a larger payoff than an equivalent enchant.
You pay for a +1 enchant to get 2d6 damage with a 1d6 backlash. You would normally pay for a +1 enchant that gives you 1d6 with no backlash. You don't get the extra without the penalty just because you throw a melee weapon instead, that's pretty much the definition of cheeze. Gouda style.
Then, if they throw it, they don't take the damage, and don't get the bonus. If they stab with it, they take damage, and get bonus damage.
This. And Immortals is a terrible movie but it looks pretty.