Is DC 17 for stunning on weapon strike seem op?

[CyberThread]

Just curious, does a DC 17 fort, on a successful weapon strike, for a magic weapon strike to stun the victim seem op?

[Zanos]

Depends on what it's valued at.

[CyberThread]

+2 enchantment cost

[BrokenChord]

+2 enchantment cost

To the contrary, that's quite weak for the costs. A flat 3000 gp increase seems more reasonable to me.

[Zaydos]

Duration and times per day? Or is it every attack?

[Averis Vol]

It kind of depends on what you consider OP. For the way my group plays, that would be passable for a +3, because much of our gameplay revolves around combat, but if combat is a lesser portion of your game, or you fight a lot of status immune enemies, I think it should be fine.

[BrokenChord]

Duration and times per day? Or is it every attack?

I think he means a weapon enchantment. So duration one round, as many times as you can swing a weapon per day, I would assume.

[ericgrau]

Then it should be worth about the same as 7 damage. Around CR 10 that's around 5% of their health so that's about a 5% chance of knocking someone out of the fight. If stunning is for only 1 round, you really need 2 rounds to cause someone serious trouble, so 10% stun chance should be good. At that level a creature has a +12 fort save giving them a 25% chance to be stunned. So that ability is way OP and worth more like a +4 or +5. Probably a +4 because many creatures are immune and/or because slightly more than 2 rounds might be a closer estimate.

It's a common mistake because +7 damage is not the same as 7 damage. +7 damage is a lot. 7 damage is crazy weak. A DC 17 spell or special ability that costs a standard action is weak. A regular attack, plus a DC 17 ability is quite strong.

For high optimization it could come cheaper, but keep in mind at +2 it is already double the power of what's normally found in the DMG. The +2 equivalent weapons that have saves tend to be DC 14 and are limited in effect.

[HunterOfJello]

A +2 weapon enhancement equivalent means that the lowest cost version of a weapon that could use that ability would cost 18,000g.

Assuming that a character is spending half of their wealth on their weapon, then the level a character would gain access to that expensive of a weapon would be level 9 (WBL 36k). If they are using closer to 3/4ths of their wealth on their weapon, then they could gain it at level 8 (WBL 27k). However, the earliest possible level to obtain a weapon of that price while following WBL is level 7 (WBL 19k).

Now we can take a look at the DC 17 Fortitude save and whether that's a difficult thing for a monster to make at a CR appropriate to those levels. I know there are a few versions of this type of document floating around out there, but I'll use the D20 SRD Monster Analyzer Output (http://tylerkamstra.com/rpgbot/d20srd_monster_analyzer/output.html).

If we take a look at monsters of CR 9, then we see that their fort saves are pretty high and got boosted up from just a few levels earlier. The average Fort bonus for a CR 9 monster in the SRD is 12.6. If we are conservative in our estimate and consider it to be a 13, then the average monster of appropriate challenge level to our 1/2 WBL sword is 85% likely to successfully save against a DC 17 Fort save vs. Stun effect. (All it has to roll is a 4 or better.)

~~~~~~

Based on the information above I would say that the ability of that sword can be very useful at times, but is not overpowered at all if it is being used at appropriate WBL. Abilities that are dependent on Fort saves are often woefully underpowered after low levels and the ability will also not work on anything immune to the Stun effect (Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Plants, Oozes).

If your characters are constantly fighting spellcasters, then it could be a handy sword to have around. If they're already level 8+ and fighting monsters in the wilderness, then the sword could easily be next to useless.

[Slipperychicken]

Paralyzing (+2, BoED) gives a DC 17 Will save or be paralyzed 10 rounds, with a new save each round to escape.

Sudden Stunning (+2,000gp, DMG2) gives 1d4+1 rounds of stunning, 3x per day, at a Reflex save based on wielder's level and charisma.


Given that precedent, I'd say infinite stun attempts per day for more than one round each would work out to a +3 or so.

[OldTrees1]

A DC 17 is laughable like most of the static DCs given to warriors.

A reasonable DC on your weapon will be 10 + 1/2 * ECL + Primary Ability Modifier. Anything less needs to be offered at an increasing discount the further it is from this target number.

[Brookshw]

Agreed, by the time you can afford it the dc is pretty low. Not OP in my book.

[Killer Angel]

If you can enchant a bow with it, that would be Amazing. And worth no less than a +3 :smallwink:

[Darrin]

A DC 17 is laughable like most of the static DCs given to warriors.


Even if your opponent has an exceedingly high Fort save, there's still a 5% chance of success.


If you can enchant a bow with it, that would be Amazing. And worth no less than a +3 :smallwink:

Torturous: +1 enhancement for DC 12, +2 enhancement for DC 17. Ghostwalk p. 64. There is no restriction to "melee only", so I think it can be applied to ranged weapons.

[OldTrees1]

Even if your opponent has an exceedingly high Fort save, there's still a 5% chance of success.

Paying money and increasing the future cost of other abilities is not worth it for a mere <5% (less than since there are ways around nat 1s failing)

[Person_Man]

Stun is a very potent effect against some enemies, but completely useless against others.

Being Stunned makes the target drop everything that you're holding and prevents them from acting. So it is very powerful when you're fighting a small number of enemies (because if you can stun-lock the one boss enemy, you've basically won), especially when you're fighting a small number of humanoids and monstrous humanoid enemies that use weapons (which would be dropped).

On the flip side, plenty of enemies are immune to Stun, or have sky high Fort Saves.

So I'd say that it's a fair pricing and a balanced ability. If the DM feels that it's too OP, just throw more numerous enemies or more immune enemies at the party. If it seems like it's never being effective, let the PC stun-lock evil gladiator BBEG type enemies more often.

[SinsI]

A +2 weapon enhancement equivalent means that the lowest cost version of a weapon that could use that ability would cost 18,000g.

Assuming that a character is spending half of their wealth on their weapon, then the level a character would gain access to that expensive of a weapon would be level 9 (WBL 36k). If they are using closer to 3/4ths of their wealth on their weapon, then they could gain it at level 8 (WBL 27k). However, the earliest possible level to obtain a weapon of that price while following WBL is level 7 (WBL 19k).


I'd bump the target for such weapon to lvl 11 or 12. It is assumed your most expensive item is 1/4 of your WBL.

This means Fort save of 13.7 (in case they even need to save), so any roll of 4 or better means they make their save. I'd say it is a bit weak.

[Killer Angel]

This means Fort save of 13.7 (in case they even need to save), so any roll of 4 or better means they make their save. I'd say it is a bit weak.

Yes, but think about it, applied to a bow, used by an archer with all the useful feats.
We're talking bout A LOT of saves, and from a safety distance.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, but think about it, applied to a bow, used by an archer with all the useful feats.
We're talking bout A LOT of saves, and from a safety distance.

But A LOT is still almost an order of magnitude less than what the Wizard gets to do. Spellcasters use DCs higher than the 10+1/2*ECL+Primary Ability Mod I suggested.

[Killer Angel]

But A LOT is still almost an order of magnitude less than what the Wizard gets to do. Spellcasters use DCs higher than the 10+1/2*ECL+Primary Ability Mod I suggested.

So what? :smallconfused:
I agree that the DC should be scalable, but I'm not comparing meleers to casters, I'm comparing a standard archer Vs an archer with the possibility to force a save Vs stun with every hit.

[Invader]

Is this an actual enchantment from somewhere?

[Darrin]

Is this an actual enchantment from somewhere?




Torturous: +1 enhancement for DC 12, +2 enhancement for DC 17. Ghostwalk p. 64.

whitetextiswhite

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think the DMG II stuff is overpowered for the cost, and it is 3.0. I'd rather use Stunning Surge (MIC p.44) as a comparison.

It's usuable 1 + cha mod times per day. On a swift after hitting in melee, it forces a fort save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + cha mod) or be stunned for 1 round.

It is only a +1 cost. Probably on the REALLY good side for a cha-based melee person, but not too outrageous.

[Seerow]

I think the DMG II stuff is overpowered for the cost, and it is 3.0.

DMGII is not 3.0.

[StreamOfTheSky]

DMGII is not 3.0.

It's not? I thought it was... Guess I was mistaken. In any case, I think those weapon abilities are under-priced...

[Invader]

whitetextiswhite

Ahh, thank you. I saw that post but wasn't sure that was the ability in question.

It seems really situational, on some stuff it'll stun them quite a bit, on other stuff it'll be fairly useless. I'd say it's priced about right though.

[Seerow]

It's not? I thought it was... Guess I was mistaken. In any case, I think those weapon abilities are under-priced...

They are definitely some of the best weapon properties for their price. I consider that throwing a bone to classes that could use it rather than overpowered. (They also are all pretty much keyed off a mental stat, which limits their utility. But I love Sudden Stunning on Paladins and Bards).

[OldTrees1]

So what? :smallconfused:
I agree that the DC should be scalable, but I'm not comparing meleers to casters, I'm comparing a standard archer Vs an archer with the possibility to force a save Vs stun with every hit.

You were comparing archer with on hit effect to archer without on hit effect and were reacting negatively to the large numbers of the archer with on hit effects despite it being much smaller numbers than casters have for the same effect.

Normally this is a symptom of "mundanes can't have nice things" mentality but I did not want to accuse you of having that mentality. However I did want to give some perspective as to how small the "large numbers" you were reacting to actually are.

It is possible that I misread your reaction, hence I merely wanted to give clarifying perspective.

[Killer Angel]

You were comparing archer with on hit effect to archer without on hit effect and were reacting negatively to the large numbers of the archer with on hit effects despite it being much smaller numbers than casters have for the same effect.

Normally this is a symptom of "mundanes can't have nice things" mentality but I did not want to accuse you of having that mentality. However I did want to give some perspective as to how small the "large numbers" you were reacting to actually are.

It is possible that I misread your reaction, hence I merely wanted to give clarifying perspective.

Ah, now I see more clearly the reasons behind your previous post. Tnx.
Yep, on that I can say I agree.