yougi
2013-02-12, 01:15 PM
My original post was not really directing the conversation in a direction that was useful to anyone, so I edited it to give it some structure.
Original post spoilered:
I'm really starting to miss these old schools weapons which got extra bonuses against certain enemies, as in the title. Yes, we have bane weapons, but (1) aside from ammunition, it's overpriced (not compared to its power, but to how often its useless), and (2) it's a bit restrictive in how its handled.
I had a 1E fighter who had a +2 warhammer, +4 against scaly humanoids. It led to many fun moments where we joked about if various humanoids were scaly. The famous Frostband and Fireband were +3 swords, +6 against fire/ice creatures (mainly elementals, giants and dragons). This kind of things is undoable as per RAW, and a custom item like that would be unpriceable as per the rules.
It also allowed us to get some cool weapons in between +1s and +2s. If lv3 is when you're supposed to get +1s, and lv7 is when you're supposed to get +2s, well that's a large gap where your weaponry won't improve much. Unless you can get your hand on a +1 dagger, +2 vs orcs (omg, Sting!).
It also allowed you a certain variety in how precise you wanted to make the enchantment: bane weapons have neatly defined "classes", but back in 1E, you could make that +1 sword a +2 against all dragon class creatures, or against all true dragons, or against all chromatic dragons, or against all red dragons, or against all great wyrm red dragons. You had that possibility.
Finally, there was this item I remember having which is probably one of the greatest times I've had with an item: I'm pretty sure it was homebrewed, and it was called something like a Learning Sword (or a Growing Sword). I could activate it twice per day on killing an enemy: when doing so, it gained a "point" against that race, and whenever it had 5 points against a race, it gained a +1 against it. After it had 5 +1s, it became a complete +1, and then I started over again to get it to +2. It was an incredible feeling of power over my equipment, and started a few sidequests to get my sword various bonuses.
So, now that I've ranted on and on and convinced you all that those items are mucho awesome-o, I need to know your input on how they could be priced and brought back into the game.
So here's the thing: I don't like bane weapons. I mean, I like the concept, but not how they're handled in 3.5, where aside from ammunition, they're rather unpopular because of how much better other choices are. Back in the day (I'm too young to use that kind of language), we had weapons that went like "+1 sword, +2 against trolls", or "+2 warhammer, +3 against scaly humanoids". The advantages were as follow (structured sum up of what is in the spoilered text):
1- They allow for some upgrade to your weaponry between the moment you should get +1s and +2s (or +2 equivalents), as they're not as powerful as a full +1 (or between +2 and +3, or +3 and +4).
2- They allow for variety in the level of precision. You could have an aberrationbane sword in 3.5, but the rules don't "allow" (I mean, rule 0 would, but you know what I mean) a beholderbane sword. Why is that important you ask? Well, it's not important per se, but it's just a nice additional feature.
3- They allow for overlap. Bane weapons focus on a creature's type. Back in 1E/2E, creatures did not have a type, so you were forced to define a creature otherwise: by its abilities, its shape, its color, its intelligence, its environment, and so on. As such, if you were to fight a red dragon, you could use your sword against fire using creatures, against dragons, against large creatures, against flying creatures, against creatures with a breath weapons, against reptilian creatures, against intelligent creatures, and many more.
4- The shift in power level was not as major. In 3.5, an +1 undeadbane greatsword is a +2 equivalent weapon. That means that when you get it, you should have a +2 weapon, but you only have a +1 weapon. However, when you use it against undead, your weapon becomes +3 (basically the same concept, so that makes sense) but also deals an extra 2d6 damage! A Collision weapon (+2 equivalent) deals an extra 5: 2d6 is 7 on average (can we argue a +3, since +2*7/5=2.8, rounded up). That means your sword goes from a +1 against non-undead enemies, to a +6 (or +5.8 if the round up annoys you) equivalent (+1 base +2 vs undead +3 super-collision) against undead. This power swing is HUGE: that's an epic weapon at level 6-7ish.
5- The extent of this shift in power makes its value uncertain. As people have said, a giantbane weapon is overpowered in a game focused on giants, but underpowered in a dragon hunting game. Because the price of an Xbane is the same as that of a +1d6 elemental or a keen, it is a large investment that might not pay off: as a DM, you have to balance how many of these enemies you put into your game to avoid (rightfully) frustrating your players; as a player, you have to think about the kind of enemies your adventures hold to know if it's worth it. With the old school way, it's not a choice between a dragonbane and a flaming sword: it's a choice between a +2 sword, and a +2 sword, +3 against dragons. Sure, I'll take that, if I face only a single dragon in my entire career, it's a bonus!
Obviously, the price would differ according to how precise the definition of the "target" is. My proposition is to make categories of "precision", based on what bane has to offer, but which would not be centered only on monster class. Let's called these "tiers":
1- Categories are broader than bane's (any humanoids, flying creatures, large or larger creatures, water breathing creatures)
2- Categories are from bane, or of a similar level of precision (goblinoids, aberrations, dragon-class)
3- Categories are more specific than bane's (hobgoblins, beholders, true dragons, "true" giants, fire-using creatures)
4- Categories are very specific (red dragons, ogres, vampires)
I first thought of a Flat price, something like +1000, but then, a +1 sword, +2 vs Orcs is a much larger investment, while any +3 weapon and above would take as many of those bonuses as possible (they'd end up much cheaper than a "real" +4 weapon).
So we need something that would account for the exponential nature of weapon prices in 3.5:
((Target Bonus)^2 - (Base bonus)^2) * X
For example, if you sword is +1, +2 vs Orcs, then Target bonus is 2, and base bonus is 1; if you're looking for +3, +4 vs Orcs, then target bonus is 4, base bonus is 3.
X would be a variable based on the level of precision. If X is 2000, then that's an entire +1 bonus, not what I'm looking for. So what about X = 600 for a "tier 1" target, X = 350 for a tier 2, X = 250 for a tier 3, and X= 150 for a tier 4.
Concrete examples (considering the 300 for masterwork, but not price of base weapon (5-50gp))
- +1 sword, +2 vs orcs: 3350gp (tier 2 target, so (2^2 - 1^2) * 350 = 1050, 1050+2300 for +1)
- +1 sword, +2 vs all humanoids: 4100gp (tier 1 target, so (2^2 - 1^2) *600 = 1800, 1800+2300 for +1)
- +3 sword, +5 vs true dragons: 22300gp (tier 3 target, so (5^2 - 3^2) * 250 = 4000, 4000+18300 for +3)
What do you think?
Original post spoilered:
I'm really starting to miss these old schools weapons which got extra bonuses against certain enemies, as in the title. Yes, we have bane weapons, but (1) aside from ammunition, it's overpriced (not compared to its power, but to how often its useless), and (2) it's a bit restrictive in how its handled.
I had a 1E fighter who had a +2 warhammer, +4 against scaly humanoids. It led to many fun moments where we joked about if various humanoids were scaly. The famous Frostband and Fireband were +3 swords, +6 against fire/ice creatures (mainly elementals, giants and dragons). This kind of things is undoable as per RAW, and a custom item like that would be unpriceable as per the rules.
It also allowed us to get some cool weapons in between +1s and +2s. If lv3 is when you're supposed to get +1s, and lv7 is when you're supposed to get +2s, well that's a large gap where your weaponry won't improve much. Unless you can get your hand on a +1 dagger, +2 vs orcs (omg, Sting!).
It also allowed you a certain variety in how precise you wanted to make the enchantment: bane weapons have neatly defined "classes", but back in 1E, you could make that +1 sword a +2 against all dragon class creatures, or against all true dragons, or against all chromatic dragons, or against all red dragons, or against all great wyrm red dragons. You had that possibility.
Finally, there was this item I remember having which is probably one of the greatest times I've had with an item: I'm pretty sure it was homebrewed, and it was called something like a Learning Sword (or a Growing Sword). I could activate it twice per day on killing an enemy: when doing so, it gained a "point" against that race, and whenever it had 5 points against a race, it gained a +1 against it. After it had 5 +1s, it became a complete +1, and then I started over again to get it to +2. It was an incredible feeling of power over my equipment, and started a few sidequests to get my sword various bonuses.
So, now that I've ranted on and on and convinced you all that those items are mucho awesome-o, I need to know your input on how they could be priced and brought back into the game.
So here's the thing: I don't like bane weapons. I mean, I like the concept, but not how they're handled in 3.5, where aside from ammunition, they're rather unpopular because of how much better other choices are. Back in the day (I'm too young to use that kind of language), we had weapons that went like "+1 sword, +2 against trolls", or "+2 warhammer, +3 against scaly humanoids". The advantages were as follow (structured sum up of what is in the spoilered text):
1- They allow for some upgrade to your weaponry between the moment you should get +1s and +2s (or +2 equivalents), as they're not as powerful as a full +1 (or between +2 and +3, or +3 and +4).
2- They allow for variety in the level of precision. You could have an aberrationbane sword in 3.5, but the rules don't "allow" (I mean, rule 0 would, but you know what I mean) a beholderbane sword. Why is that important you ask? Well, it's not important per se, but it's just a nice additional feature.
3- They allow for overlap. Bane weapons focus on a creature's type. Back in 1E/2E, creatures did not have a type, so you were forced to define a creature otherwise: by its abilities, its shape, its color, its intelligence, its environment, and so on. As such, if you were to fight a red dragon, you could use your sword against fire using creatures, against dragons, against large creatures, against flying creatures, against creatures with a breath weapons, against reptilian creatures, against intelligent creatures, and many more.
4- The shift in power level was not as major. In 3.5, an +1 undeadbane greatsword is a +2 equivalent weapon. That means that when you get it, you should have a +2 weapon, but you only have a +1 weapon. However, when you use it against undead, your weapon becomes +3 (basically the same concept, so that makes sense) but also deals an extra 2d6 damage! A Collision weapon (+2 equivalent) deals an extra 5: 2d6 is 7 on average (can we argue a +3, since +2*7/5=2.8, rounded up). That means your sword goes from a +1 against non-undead enemies, to a +6 (or +5.8 if the round up annoys you) equivalent (+1 base +2 vs undead +3 super-collision) against undead. This power swing is HUGE: that's an epic weapon at level 6-7ish.
5- The extent of this shift in power makes its value uncertain. As people have said, a giantbane weapon is overpowered in a game focused on giants, but underpowered in a dragon hunting game. Because the price of an Xbane is the same as that of a +1d6 elemental or a keen, it is a large investment that might not pay off: as a DM, you have to balance how many of these enemies you put into your game to avoid (rightfully) frustrating your players; as a player, you have to think about the kind of enemies your adventures hold to know if it's worth it. With the old school way, it's not a choice between a dragonbane and a flaming sword: it's a choice between a +2 sword, and a +2 sword, +3 against dragons. Sure, I'll take that, if I face only a single dragon in my entire career, it's a bonus!
Obviously, the price would differ according to how precise the definition of the "target" is. My proposition is to make categories of "precision", based on what bane has to offer, but which would not be centered only on monster class. Let's called these "tiers":
1- Categories are broader than bane's (any humanoids, flying creatures, large or larger creatures, water breathing creatures)
2- Categories are from bane, or of a similar level of precision (goblinoids, aberrations, dragon-class)
3- Categories are more specific than bane's (hobgoblins, beholders, true dragons, "true" giants, fire-using creatures)
4- Categories are very specific (red dragons, ogres, vampires)
I first thought of a Flat price, something like +1000, but then, a +1 sword, +2 vs Orcs is a much larger investment, while any +3 weapon and above would take as many of those bonuses as possible (they'd end up much cheaper than a "real" +4 weapon).
So we need something that would account for the exponential nature of weapon prices in 3.5:
((Target Bonus)^2 - (Base bonus)^2) * X
For example, if you sword is +1, +2 vs Orcs, then Target bonus is 2, and base bonus is 1; if you're looking for +3, +4 vs Orcs, then target bonus is 4, base bonus is 3.
X would be a variable based on the level of precision. If X is 2000, then that's an entire +1 bonus, not what I'm looking for. So what about X = 600 for a "tier 1" target, X = 350 for a tier 2, X = 250 for a tier 3, and X= 150 for a tier 4.
Concrete examples (considering the 300 for masterwork, but not price of base weapon (5-50gp))
- +1 sword, +2 vs orcs: 3350gp (tier 2 target, so (2^2 - 1^2) * 350 = 1050, 1050+2300 for +1)
- +1 sword, +2 vs all humanoids: 4100gp (tier 1 target, so (2^2 - 1^2) *600 = 1800, 1800+2300 for +1)
- +3 sword, +5 vs true dragons: 22300gp (tier 3 target, so (5^2 - 3^2) * 250 = 4000, 4000+18300 for +3)
What do you think?