The ring blade.PEACH

[Mystic Muse]

weapon pictured here (http://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Eiserne_Drossel)

The Ringblade is an exotic weapon that relies on Dexterity more than strength. It deals a base of 2d6 damage and critical hits on a roll of 19-20 and is a two handed weapon. The main advantage of this weapon is that it deals extra damage equal to your dexterity modifier instead of strength and can be used in conjunction with the feat weapon finesse.

the idea is to make builds that rely on dexterity a more attractive idea. This is intended to make the weapon finesse feat a much better idea. However, I'm not confident I implemented it correctly. So, please evaluate and critque honestly.

[Deathdarken]

sweet sounds cool

[Pink]

Okay, so first things first. You say that the purpose of this weapon is to make taking weapon finesse more worthwhile (which seems a little silly in itself, any rogue or two-handed fighter probably takes weapon finesse asap. It is quite good). However, that weapon, by being two-handed, can't actually be used with weapon finesse.

Personally, I don't see how you could use most two-handed weapons in such a way as to actually get dex to dmg. However that aside, besides flavour, I don't see anybody taking a feat to use this weapon. It is in most ways like a greatsword, and as a two-handed weapon, lends itself to a str build instead of a dex build.

[arguskos]

@ Pink: Two-handed weapons can be used with Weapon Finesse. There are at least 2 printed examples I am aware of (Spiked Chain, Elven Greatblade). Since it uses Dex to damage over strength, it actually DOES aid a Dex-based fighter a good deal.

@Kyuubi: However, this weapon already exists (save the Dex replacing Str bit) in the Elven Greatblade, from Races of the Wild. Not much need to reinvent the wheel. Better to make a feat for the Elven Greatblade that grants you Dex to damage in addition or instead of (at the brewer's option) to Str to damage.

[Mystic Muse]

@Kyuubi: However, this weapon already exists (save the Dex replacing Str bit) in the Elven Greatblade, from Races of the Wild. Not much need to reinvent the wheel. Better to make a feat for the Elven Greatblade that grants you Dex to damage in addition or instead of (at the brewer's option) to Str to damage.

aww. But the Ring blade is so awesome!

[Deathdarken]

aww. But the Ring blade is so awesome!hay I looked behind me I think I see you hi(I'm waving at you) this is still a cool weapon

[arguskos]

aww. But the Ring blade is so awesome!
It is, but I was merely pointing out that such a thing already exists. Refluff an Elven Greatblade, perhaps?

[Drolyt]

weapon pictured here (http://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Eiserne_Drossel)

The Ringblade is an exotic weapon that relies on Dexterity more than strength. It deals a base of 2d6 damage and critical hits on a roll of 19-20 and is a two handed weapon. The main advantage of this weapon is that it deals extra damage equal to your dexterity modifier instead of strength.

the idea is to make builds that rely on dexterity a more attractive idea. This is intended to make the weapon finesse feat a much better idea. However, I'm not confident I implemented it correctly. So, please evaluate and critque honestly.

Specify that it can be used with Weapon Finesse (normally only light weapons can). Other than that I see no problem with it. As has been pointed out Weapon Finesse is already useful for certain builds (Rogue's and non-Ranger's that use two weapons) but this is still a pretty cool weapon. Quite powerful for an unarmored Fighter (shoot your dex through the stratosphere).

[DaTedinator]

Not much need to reinvent the wheel.

*chuckle*

I feel like it wouldn't be *too* repetitive if you got rid of the shared focus of the Elven Greatblade (it has that, right?) and made this a monk weapon, in addition to the Dexterity to damage. That'd be different enough, methinks, especially if you gave this thing its own feat (like how hook swords got their own feat, in Secrets of Sarlona. Flying Tiger?).

[Jack of Spades]

aww. But the Ring blade is so awesome!

There's always the option of using the stats for the Elven Greatblade and just referring to it as a ringblade. Wouldn't be too hard, and I don't see any reason a DM wouldn't approve it.

[Pink]

@ Pink: Two-handed weapons can be used with Weapon Finesse. There are at least 2 printed examples I am aware of (Spiked Chain, Elven Greatblade). Since it uses Dex to damage over strength, it actually DOES aid a Dex-based fighter a good deal.

Those are specific exceptions to the rule. I didn't assume an exception to this weapon, because of it's otherwise stated special ability to apply dex to damage. If you're adding both, then doesn't this completely outclass the mentioned elven greatblade? (speaking of which, where is that found? I can see elven courtblade, but not greatblade)

That being said, are we assuming 1.5*Dex damage? It being a two-handed weapon and such.

Overall though, I still don't think this is very interesting. I suppose yes, if you wanted to be a lightly armored or unarmored fighter, this would be useful, but I can't see it being well used by many other classes. It seems to be an unbalanced choice compared to other exotic weapons, but it's not unbalanced on a power level as fighters can kinda use all the help they can get.

Really though, I think the concept expressed by this weapon's special ability, is the need for a more weapon versatile version of shadow blade.

[Knaight]

*chuckle*

I feel like it wouldn't be *too* repetitive if you got rid of the shared focus of the Elven Greatblade (it has that, right?) and made this a monk weapon, in addition to the Dexterity to damage. That'd be different enough, methinks, especially if you gave this thing its own feat (like how hook swords got their own feat, in Secrets of Sarlona. Flying Tiger?).

1) It is Elven Courtblade, not Elven Greatblade.

2) That is only dex to hit, not dex to damage anyways. And only if you have weapon finesse, so this is more useful, though Weapon Finesse is amazing anyways.

3) The ring blade is a terrible, terrible idea from even the slightest practical perspective.

[Drolyt]

3) The ring blade is a terrible, terrible idea from even the slightest practical perspective.

You mean realistically? Well, yeah, but it is still pretty awesome. Also a D&D Fighter is about 100x better than any real world warrior, so it is at least somewhat believable. And cool.

[erikun]

To be fair, the spiked chain is a terrible, terrible idea also, but it is quite a popular weapon.

I find it unusual that you could use Weapon Finesse and Power Attack with the same weapon, although apparently you can. It gives an interesting visual image with Leap Attack, for that matter. Beyond that, I don't see a problem with an exotic two-handed weapon that deals damage based on dexterity. Just one question: does is always deal damage based on DEX, or only with the Weapon Finesse feat?

[Mystic Muse]

you could ask your DM for one that's based on strength but I really can't think of any way that the damage the weapon would deal would be based off of strength that makes sense. So it's always dexterity.

[TheYoungKing]

*chuckle*
(like how hook swords got their own feat, in Secrets of Sarlona. Flying Tiger?).

How did they implement Hook Swords? I MUST KNOW.

[ForzaFiori]

Actually, looking at the ring blade, it is essentially a chakram, a weapon still used by the sikhs. It is essential a ring with a blade all the way around. They are worn almost as jewelry, down the arms, on the head, etc, and can be both thrown or used in melee.

The differences between the two (that I can see) would be that the ring blade is two handed (chakram are no bigger than a Frisbee, and some as small as a bracelet) and that chakram can be thrown.

Edit: Wiki article for chakram. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakram)

[arguskos]

Right, Courtblade. Duuuurp. I always forget the exact name.

Also, Forza, D&D already includes chakram as weapons, along with annulat (which are basically just slightly bigger chakram).

[ForzaFiori]

Right, Courtblade. Duuuurp. I always forget the exact name.

Also, Forza, D&D already includes chakram as weapons, along with annulat (which are basically just slightly bigger chakram).

I know. That was mainly directed at Knaight and Drolyt who said that it wasn't a good weapon realistically. I was simply pointing out that it is, in fact, a real weapon. If I could've found the stats for the chakram (I only remember seeing them somewhere) I would have posted them.

[Drolyt]

I know. That was mainly directed at Knaight and Drolyt who said that it wasn't a good weapon realistically. I was simply pointing out that it is, in fact, a real weapon. If I could've found the stats for the chakram (I only remember seeing them somewhere) I would have posted them.

Actually exists != practical. See Japanese ritual swords that make Sephiroth's Masumune look small. Some of them will snap if you swing them. Then again, 90% of melee weapons in D&D shouldn't logically be in common use as swords are known to be fare more effective realistically. For example, the cliche is that Dwarves use Axes and Hammers. Realistically, a Human kingdom with, say, some Bastard Swords (which are not exotic weapons in real life, wtf) would kick their ass. Pit two great warriors against each other, one with an English Longsword and one with some of those Chakram thingies, and guess who will win.

[Sydonai]

The guy that throws his weapon at the other guy, and still has another one.

Chakram are small and can be use in pairs and can be used at distance

[Drolyt]

The guy that throws his weapon at the other guy, and still has another one.

Chakram are small and can be use in pairs and can be used at distance

Uh... no just no. Thrown weapons aren't that effective in real life. They are hard to aim and have a hell of time with armor. If you want ranged advantage get a bow, which are much more effective in real life than in D&D. Also dual wielding sucks in real life. Human coordination just doesn't work that way, it's like looking left and right at the same time. Only a few styles that were only used by absolute masters ever involved dual wielding. Oh and small isn't very helpful in real life, a well built Longsword is just as fast and agile as any small weapon you can use and has greater reach.

[Sydonai]

Uh... no just no. Thrown weapons aren't that effective in real life. They are hard to aim and have a hell of time with armor. If you want ranged advantage get a bow, which are much more effective in real life than in D&D. Also dual wielding sucks in real life. Human coordination just doesn't work that way, it's like looking left and right at the same time. Only a few styles that were only used by absolute masters ever involved dual wielding. Oh and small isn't very helpful in real life, a well built Longsword is just as fast and agile as any small weapon you can use and has greater reach.

You didn't mention armor, and I ment "Throw one, then use the other in melee if the first didn't work". But you are right, I'll give up this round

[Cuaqchi]

Except there is more than just the weapon's traits to consider. A Ghurka armed with Kukri is still a realistic threat because of their skills in combat and stealth.

[Sydonai]

Are we talking about two skilled users of these specific weapons, or two random mooks we got to fight to the death for our amusement?

[Drolyt]

Except there is more than just the weapon's traits to consider. A Ghurka armed with Kukri is still a realistic threat because of their skills in combat and stealth.

True, but I was kind of assuming a sort of death match between two opponents, like in an arena or something. In a one on one fight, the kind often seen in D&D, it has been proven (more or less) that a sword (one of several kinds) is the best choice. Other effective weapons include staves, polearms, and similar weapons. Small weapons like Kukri's are less effective because of reach considerations. Heavy bludgeoning weapons might be considered if both combatants had High Medieval Plate Armor.


Are we talking about two skilled users of these specific weapons, or two random mooks we got to fight to the death for our amusement?
Skilled users. If we were talking random mooks off the street I'd say a polearm would be the best choice because you don't need advanced training to use one.

[Rainbownaga]

The idea that of the weapon being used in melee is weird- immediately thought of Yuffie (and rhinoa) from the final fantasy games.



Edit: Oh, the blade from Soul Calibre 4- That thing's HUGE, Personally I'd be hard pressed to see it being more of a 'finesse weapon'; Probably more of a 'can also be enchanted for defense' or some other special feature (and definitely a tactical feat).

Balance-wise, I can't see anything wrong with it: it makes strength irrelevant for the cost of two feats, but the classes that specialize in two handed weapons tend to have heavy armor and dump Dex anyway;Rogues and Rangers tend towards TWF. The swordsage would be the other idea, but since it doesn't fit a style, that is irrelevant.

[~Corvus~]

Uh... no just no. Thrown weapons aren't that effective in real life. They are hard to aim and have a hell of time with armor. If you want ranged advantage get a bow, which are much more effective in real life than in D&D. Also dual wielding sucks in real life. Human coordination just doesn't work that way, it's like looking left and right at the same time. Only a few styles that were only used by absolute masters ever involved dual wielding. Oh and small isn't very helpful in real life, a well built Longsword is just as fast and agile as any small weapon you can use and has greater reach.

:smallsigh: I disagree with your argument. I think the key words you use are "in real life". You are making a true statement, sure, but I believe your argument is missing the point. Perhaps, because a Ringblade would have a difficulty dealing damage to armored opponents, it relies upon Strength (the force of the throw) to hit and do damage?

You DO have a point: throwing items around in real life is fairly useless compared to a weapon in-hand. We can critique the use of throwing weapons in fantasy, like the way Paul Postuma does for Robert Jordan (http://www.personal.ars-informatica.ca/paul/wot/wot.php?page=throw_daggers) all day. I do not want to discredit his very solid ideas, but I think he walks over the concept of Suspension of Disbelief (http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html).

This is a world of fantasy! Why should we not accept a fun, fantastical defiance of physics? Isn't that what D&D is all about?

[~Corvus~]

True, but I was kind of assuming a sort of death match between two opponents, like in an arena or something. In a one on one fight, the kind often seen in D&D, it has been proven (more or less) that a sword (one of several kinds) is the best choice. Other effective weapons include staves, polearms, and similar weapons. Small weapons like Kukri's are less effective because of reach considerations. Heavy bludgeoning weapons might be considered if both combatants had High Medieval Plate Armor.

I guess your perspective influences a lot of how one thinks about this situation. In a party situation, I'd say the party wants strikers (like a Warblade or rogue or Barbarian) as well as tanks (the sword-and-shield user).

Heavy bludgeoning weapons are effective against heavy armor when we consider that it bashes armor in, breaks bones in the process, keeps the bones broken, and restrict movement. It uses heavy armor against the wearer. In D&D, however, we don't really take this into consideration.


Skilled users. If we were talking random mooks off the street I'd say a polearm would be the best choice because you don't need advanced training to use one.

Have you ever watched the History Channel's "Modern Marvels - Deadliest Weapons?"

[~Corvus~]

...now that I do some more research...
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080519041144/soulcalibur/images/3/30/Tira3DSC3.jpg
... I'm not sure Tira's weapon is meant to be Dexterity-based...

[Rainbownaga]

True, but I was kind of assuming a sort of death match between two opponents, like in an arena or something. In a one on one fight, the kind often seen in D&D, it has been proven (more or less) that a sword (one of several kinds) is the best choice. Other effective weapons include staves, polearms, and similar weapons. Small weapons like Kukri's are less effective because of reach considerations. Heavy bludgeoning weapons might be considered if both combatants had High Medieval Plate Armor.


Skilled users. If we were talking random mooks off the street I'd say a polearm would be the best choice because you don't need advanced training to use one.

Where are you getting this information from? Not being rude, just curious.

I assume that you are referring to characters with decent armor; lightly armoured attackers could be made less effective by thrown weapons with very little opportunity cost to the thrower. Sure, a thrown knife doesn't have much chance of sticking, but even if you get the butt end in your face, the half second that it distracts you could be lethal.

Also, all this talk of weapons that are effective and weak against armor is really irrelevant to d&d based purely on its granularity (which has already been mentioned).

Even more-so, the ring blade used in the game linked is a strictly melee weapon, making it even weirder, but making most of this discussion moot.

[Drolyt]

:smallsigh: I disagree with your argument. I think the key words you use are "in real life". You are making a true statement, sure, but I believe your argument is missing the point. Perhaps, because a Ringblade would have a difficulty dealing damage to armored opponents, it relies upon Strength (the force of the throw) to hit and do damage?

You DO have a point: throwing items around in real life is fairly useless compared to a weapon in-hand. We can critique the use of throwing weapons in fantasy, like the way Paul Postuma does for Robert Jordan (http://www.personal.ars-informatica.ca/paul/wot/wot.php?page=throw_daggers) all day. I do not want to discredit his very solid ideas, but I think he walks over the concept of Suspension of Disbelief (http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html).

This is a world of fantasy! Why should we not accept a fun, fantastical defiance of physics? Isn't that what D&D is all about?

Oh, I agree that that all that doesn't make any difference to the game. Using those weapons in an RPG is fine, as long as it is fun. I'm just responding to the guy that said those weapons are used in real life. My point is just because someone somewhere used them doesn't mean they are effective weapons of war.

Where are you getting this information from? Not being rude, just curious.

I assume that you are referring to characters with decent armor; lightly armoured attackers could be made less effective by thrown weapons with very little opportunity cost to the thrower. Sure, a thrown knife doesn't have much chance of sticking, but even if you get the butt end in your face, the half second that it distracts you could be lethal.

Also, all this talk of weapons that are effective and weak against armor is really irrelevant to d&d based purely on its granularity (which has already been mentioned).

Even more-so, the ring blade used in the game linked is a strictly melee weapon, making it even weirder, but making most of this discussion moot.

I'm somewhat of an enthusiast in pre-gunpowder weapons and military strategy. At any rate the weapon linked does not, to my knowledge, exist in the real world. It was pointed out that similar but smaller weapons do exist, a fact of which I was vaguely aware already. As for armor, even some hardened leather, some steel gloves, and a helmet is enough to make chucking things at someone a horrible idea, worse if they have a shield (bringing a buckler at the very least to a duel is not a bad idea). Obviously D&D ignores the effects of armor, because Plate Armor makes most weapons nearly useless.