[3.5] Maiming Weapon Property

[Thurbane]

The Maiming weapon property initially appeared in the Minatures Handbook, and worked this way: each time you score a crit, you roll a die to determine crit multipler. x2 = roll 1d4; x3 = roll 1d6; x4 = roll 1d8. +1 bonus equivalent.

It got hit with a giant nerf stick in MIC (like so many items), so the way Maiming works now is you get extra dice of damage on a crit, depending on the multiplier: x2 = 1d6, x3 = 2d6 and x4 = 3d6; which to me, really doesn't seem worth taking as +1 bonus equivalent.

Would it break the game to rule it as the MH version? Yes, you can get some very big crit multipliers (x8? Ouch!), but is that going to change or harm the game much?

Cheers - T

[ZamielVanWeber]

No, it should not cause a problem. My friend uses the MH version, and it has a chance of negating your crit or (in a weird and highly specific interaction) causing a crit to do no damage.

[The Viscount]

The MH version is fine. On average the die roll is only slightly better than the base multiplier, and the lower rolls even out the high. x8 is indeed vicious, but x1 is kind of a bummer.

x4 as a base isn't very common to begin with, and generally trades away normal damage output. Or Kaorti resin, but then they're spending the feat for EWP, so its not something for nothing.

[Biggus]

Could potentially be a problem in combination with other abilities. If you allow the Weapon Master/ Psychic Weapon Master classes you can get x4 crits on either 17-20 or 15-20 depending on how you stack them. I know there are some feats/items/etc which allow rerolls, I'm not sure if there are any that would apply to this but if so you could be getting x7/8 crits fairly regularly. And of course there are the various charging abilities which multiply damage, add those on and you could be getting x12 crits or something.

[Powerdork]

Opportunity cost matters. Maiming is in direct competition with the burst versions of flaming, frost, and shock weapons; the fact that maiming isn't typed helps it compared to the bursts, which run up against resistance.

Some creature that gets paralyzed needs perhaps a few hits fewer to be rendered dead; the character with the old maiming pick will definitely be on the edge of their seat when they throw the multiplier die, and when they could have taken the thing out if they'd just rolled better, dang; you're making the game more unpredictable.

[Emperor Tippy]

The Maiming weapon property initially appeared in the Minatures Handbook, and worked this way: each time you score a crit, you roll a die to determine crit multipler. x2 = roll 1d4; x3 = roll 1d6; x4 = roll 1d8. +1 bonus equivalent.

It got hit with a giant nerf stick in MIC (like so many items), so the way Maiming works now is you get extra dice of damage on a crit, depending on the multiplier: x2 = 1d6, x3 = 2d6 and x4 = 3d6; which to me, really doesn't seem worth taking as +1 bonus equivalent.

Would it break the game to rule it as the MH version? Yes, you can get some very big crit multipliers (x8? Ouch!), but is that going to change or harm the game much?

Cheers - T

MIC item descriptions don't actually override those item descriptions in other sources, per RAW at least (stupid D&D sourcing rules).

But no, the MH version is perfectly fine. It was just more work to run, and had a lot more variance in power.

[Powerdork]

MIC item descriptions don't actually override those item descriptions in other sources, per RAW at least (stupid D&D sourcing rules).

Doesn't the Magic Item Compendium assert itself, by its mere existence, as the primary source for magic items (that are outside the Dungeon Master's Guide)? Or do I have primary source rules all wrong?
Where's a link to the document that offers this guidance, again?

[Emperor Tippy]

Doesn't the Magic Item Compendium assert itself, by its mere existence, as the primary source for magic items (that are outside the Dungeon Master's Guide)? Or do I have primary source rules all wrong?
Where's a link to the document that offers this guidance, again?

Yes, but because of stupid WotC/D&D 3.5 sourcing policy, it can't actually do that.

RAW sourcing goes as follows:
1) Errata for the DMG/PHB/MM
2) For things covered by the DMG, the DMG.
3) For things covered by the PHB, the PHB.
4) For things covered by the MM, the MM1.

5) For everything else, the source that introduced it - cannot change the DMG/PHB/MM. It's errata overrules itself.

Later sources don't override in D&D 3.5; older sources override. Which, yes, is really stupid.

So technically, when the MIC printed all those items, it didn't override any of them; it copied them and changed the copies.

As for were it can be found, at the top of the PHB errata for one:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct.
One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's
Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class
descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the
Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is
the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item
descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for
monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

[Powerdork]

I did ask for a link, not a quote. I'd like to stop relying on forums some time soon.

[Emperor Tippy]

I did ask for a link, not a quote. I'd like to stop relying on forums some time soon.

...
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

The official WotC errata files.

[Thurbane]

FWIW, the MIC is considered the primary source at my table, so using the MH version would be an exception for us.

[Emperor Tippy]

FWIW, the MIC is considered the primary source at my table, so using the MH version would be an exception for us.

Then balance wise it really isn't that big a deal except maybe in the edge case where you have a character who goes all in on lots of attacks and lots of static damage bonuses.

What it does is make damage numbers a great deal more variable. But if you are ok with players getting the odd one shot of a supposedly tough foe because the dice gods were kind (Rolled the Crit, Confirmed it, Rolled one of the high multiples on Maiming, have a decent amount of static damage bonuses) then it's not a concern.

[Powerdork]

...
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

The official WotC errata files.

The archive has gone down twice and my searches don't turn it up as a result.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Note that maiming is, on average, a .5 increase to the critical multiplier on MH maiming. So on crit heavy builds the damage buff is pretty small and if you don't stack stack bonuses or have a high amount of dice to begin with is only marginally better than the MIC version. It would take some work to actually break it (no one at my tables has ever and everyone prefers the MH one because it's just more fun).

[Buufreak]

What are the limitations on either maiming? Any particular weapons it can't be put on?

Secondary, if applicable, what is the highest crit bow we can put it on? I'm asking because deepwood sniper can net a +2 to crit multiplier, and I might suddenly have an idea for a silly build. Critting for anywhere from x1 to x12 damage sounds funny.

[Thurbane]

What are the limitations on either maiming? Any particular weapons it can't be put on?

Neither version has any restrictions as to what weapons it can be put on, just a flat +1 weapon bonus equivalent.

[Telok]

The weapon/ammo stacking rules. I can't quickly find an easy answer but I'd assume that if both the bow and ammo have the same enchantment you'd roll twice and take the higher multiplier.

[Fizban]

The MiC version of Maiming is completely terrible. It's a +1 property that gives +1d6 (for the high crit weapons you'd regularly trigger it on). . . but only on a crit. It is literally worse than +1d6 damage properties, which I already tend to avoid- being non-resistable just means it gets compared to Collision and Psychokinetic instead. The only property that compares is Thundering, with its d8's of resistable sonic damage and oh no deafness, on crit.

A variable crit version, honestly I'd say it's just inappropriate to exist at all. Crits are already pretty random, making them even more random is not a great idea- too much predictability is bad, but unless you've already made crits super predictable (the goal of any crit build), maiming is random on top of random. I'm here to play DnD, not craps. Vorpal only sticks around because the 3.5 version only works on nat 20s and it's got some pedigree, but I'd probably never actually place or use it in a game.

To compare variable maiming to other crit damage properties, simply look at the amount of damage. Burst weapons add 1d10 per multiplier above 1. Variable maiming adds 0, 1, 2, or 3x the base weapon damage for a x2 weapon. And also enhancement, strength, and any other flat multiplicable bonuses they have. So while an 18-20 x2 burst weapon adds 5.5 damage on crits thanks to that burst property, VM adds a scaling amount which could range from <2 points (a +1 rapier) to 8 points (a +1 falcion with 18 str), to 11.3 (a +1 falcion with 18 str, enlarge, and +4 enhancement to str), and so on.

Whether or not that comparison matters is up to you, but if you consider normal burst properties fair, then variable maiming is probably overpowered for anyone who's not a low strength rogue. Of course, that's not actually what it deals- what it deals is a random crit multiplier, which means sometimes the crit does nothing, sometimes it is normal, and sometimes it's huge.

Related, why are Burst weapons worth using in the first place? They ignore crit immunity- because crit immunity isn't crit immunity. When you threat and confirm against an undead, you still crit, but it ignores the extra damage because no anatomy. Bonus dice from weapon properties already don't multiply on crit, yet Burst adds bonus dice when you crit. Those bonus dice are not critical damage, they're weapon property damage that was triggered by a crit, regardless of whether or not the creature took extra damage from said crit. This makes them significantly more useful, at least for crit builds that aren't using wacky things to ignore crit immunity altogether. And if there's an FAQ ruling that says otherwise, I'll ignore it on this occasion.

This ruling means that variable maiming does have a downside compared to Burst weapons, but it's still too random and build-dependent for my taste.

Edit: Just to elaborate on the randomness problem, you've got three main obvious scenarios.

The one where the uber crit happens on a monster the DM thought would be tough, but wasn't really that important. The DM is sour, the players all have a laugh, and things are probably fine.
The one where the uber crit happens on an important foe that the game has been building to over time. The varible maimer probably find this hilarious, but the DM doesn't, and the other players are cheated out of a serious role in the climactic encounter of the last X sessions. Unless the DM specifically builds or modifies the foe to counter this, which acknowledges the problem.
The one where the uber crits happen only on random trash mobs. The variable maimer probably finds this funny the first couple times, until they start feeling cheated that this crapshoot they bought isn't paying out on anything important.
And additionally, each time the crit goes off and rolls a no-bonus crit, that's another feel bad.

No matter how many attack rolls and what the nebulous average result is, the actual game effects of each uber crit are one of those, all of of which have negative consequences for someone. Unlike the crapshoot of save-or-dies, which are at least deployed on purpose with a guaranteed yes/no result and a core immunity spell, extra random uber crits are similar to critical hit/fumble tables. Funny until they're not.

[RNightstalker]

If it makes you feel better, (or worse as the case may be) every weapon in prior editions were maiming weapons.

[Saintheart]

The Maiming weapon property initially appeared in the Minatures Handbook, and worked this way: each time you score a crit, you roll a die to determine crit multipler. x2 = roll 1d4; x3 = roll 1d6; x4 = roll 1d8. +1 bonus equivalent.

It got hit with a giant nerf stick in MIC (like so many items), so the way Maiming works now is you get extra dice of damage on a crit, depending on the multiplier: x2 = 1d6, x3 = 2d6 and x4 = 3d6; which to me, really doesn't seem worth taking as +1 bonus equivalent.

Would it break the game to rule it as the MH version? Yes, you can get some very big crit multipliers (x8? Ouch!), but is that going to change or harm the game much?

Cheers - T

Really even big critical multipliers don't heavily unbalance the game that much on their own.




Threat Range
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8


20
+5%
+10%
+15%
+20%
+25%
+30%
+35%


19-20
+10%
+20%
+30%
+40%
+50%
+60%
+70%


18-20
+15%
+30%
+45%
+60%
+75%
+90%
+105%


17-20
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
+100%
+120%
+140%



16-20
+25%
+50%
+75%
+100%
+125%
+150%
+175%



15-20
+30%
+60%
+90%
+120%
+150%
+180%
+210%



14-20
+35%
+70%
+105%
+140%
+175%
+210%
+245%


13-20
+40%
+80%
+120%
+160%
+200%
+240%
+280%


12-20
+45%
+90%
+135%
+180%
+225%
+270%
+315%


11-20
+50%
+100%
+150%
+200%
+250%
+300%
+350%


10-20
+55%
+110%
+165%
+220%
+275%
+330%
+385%


9-20
+60%
+120%
+180%
+240%
+300%
+360%
+420%


8-20
+65%
+130%
+195%
+260%
+325%
+390%
+455%


7-20
+70%
+140%
+210%
+280%
+350%
+420%
+490%


6-20
+75%
+150%
+225%
+300%
+375%
+450%
+525%


5-20
+80%
+160%
+240%
+320%
+400%
+480%
+560%


4-20
+85%
+170%
+255%
+340%
+425%
+510%
+595%


3-20
+90%
+180%
+270%
+360%
+450%
+540%
+630%


2-20
+95%
+190%
+285%
+380%
+475%
+570%
+665%



So assuming a weapon with a default 20 critical hit range, every increase in critical multiplier adds another 5% expected bonus damage over the life of the game. That's not much. Compare Power Attack adding a reliable, 100-200 percent damage on each hit, not each critical hit.

Next thing, looking at the MH version of Maiming, is what critical multipliers you can usually expect. Statistically:
Average roll of a 1d4 = 2.5.
Average roll on a 1d6 = 3.5.
Average roll on a 1d8 = 4.5.

So whether it's a x2, x3, or x4 weapon, provided it only crits on a 20, on average it's only adding somewhere in the region of 2.5% bonus damage for that weapon over the life of the game. Sure, there will be times when that x8 bonus damage winds up as a kill shot on the ogre, but just as many times either that x8 will show up on a creature that only has 5 hitpoints ... or it'll be a x1 on the dragon when you could sure have used a x8.

It's when you start extending the weapon's critical hit range that the value of MH Maiming gets mathematically significant. If we assume a Keen rapier, for example, with a 15-20 range, then the difference a critical hit multiplier makes is much greater: every increase in multiplier adds 30% expected bonus damage over the life of the weapon. So a Maiming, Keen rapier can be expected to be doing about 45% in expected bonus damage ... because it gets its critical multiplier from a 1d4, and the average roll on a 1d4 is 2.5.

But once again, A Maiming, Keen rapier in statistical terms is not as likely to do as much damage over its life than a good old kaorti resin keen rapier, because kaorti resin provides a x4 multiplier and therefore an expected bonus 90% over the rapier's life, while the Maiming, Keen rapier will only put out an average of 45% extra.

Let's compare the MIC version, which provides a variable damage result on a critical hit, and which - for reasons other than Fizban's very eruditely put forward - I also agree is a massive nerf.

x2 = 1d6 = average roll of 3.5.
x3 = 2d6 = average roll of 7.
x4 = 3d6 = average roll of 10.5.

Now, my guess is that when they thought this was a good idea, WOTC still thought that the damage dice of a weapon was more important than the modifiers that come after it. That's where the problem arises. Basically, Maiming gives a bonus to the critical multiplier, and a critical multiplier uses STR bonus damage and the other flat-bonus stuff like Collision as its factor. If my STR (or DEX, if I have finagled DEX to damage) is 16+, I am literally better off with the old Maiming quality than this horrible thing no matter what weapon I wield, and that's leaving aside everything else that can be multiplied on a critical hit.

So, yeah. If you want to put a control on the MH version of Maiming, my suggestion is just to hard-limit the threat range at which it operates, and pick a threat range above.

[Tytalus]

What's the effect of Maiming alone on weapon damage?

As Saintheart rightly pointed out, the Maiming property adds a +0.5 to the multiplier on average (regardless of multiplier). This results in a +2.5% damage increase of the weapon per step of threat range - if all crit confirmations are successful. If they are only successful half the time (50% hit chance), the damage increase is just 1.25%. As that's more realistic, let's go with it.

That means that a club or scythe (20/x4) get +1.25% damage increase, a keen scythe (19-20/x4) gets 2.5%, a rapier (18-20/x2) gets +3.75% and a keen rapier (15-20/x2) gets +7.5%.

Yes, Maiming scales by threat range only. It is better on high-range weapons compared to high-multiplier weapons, as the latter usually have lower threat ranges.

How is the MIC version on Maiming?

MIC's version works the other way: higher multiplier gives a higher bonus. However, higher multiplier also typically comes with a lower threat range. In practice, these cancel each other out. Again, each step of threat range has a 2.5% chance to trigger the crit/effect, so for some examples:

Scythe + MIC Maiming: 2.5% chance of 3D6 = 10.5 extra damage = +0.2625 extra damage
Rapier + MIC Maiming: 3*2.5% chance of 1D6 = 3.5 extra damage = +0.2625 extra damage
Keen Scythe + MIC Maiming: 2*2.5% chance of 3D6 = 3.5 extra damage = +0.525 extra damage
Keen Rapier + MIC Maiming: 6*2.5% chance of 1D6 = 3.5 extra damage = +0.525 extra damage

That looks abysmal. Not even a full point of damage on average for a +1 enchantment.

How do the different versions of Maiming compare?

To achieve +0.2625 damage, the scythe with the old Maiming enchantment would need to do 21 points of base damage (21 * 1.25% = 0.2625). Anything over this value, and the old enchantment is better. Anything below and the new (MIC) one is better. Base damage = weapon damage + any bonuses that multiply in a crit.

For the rapier, the magic number is 7 base damage.
For the keen scythe, 21.
For the keen rapier, 7.

For the rapier, it's easy to get to a point where the old enchantment is better. For the scythe it's also not too hard, but also not trivial.

Again, if you like the old Maiming enchantment, go for a weapon with high crit range.

How does Maiming compare to other damage enchantments?

Collision costs +2, but adds a flat +5 damage.
Elemental enchantments struggle with resistances, but cost only +1 and add a nice +3.5 damage.
Keen costs +1 and adds 7.5% base damage for good martial weapons (18-20/x2 or 20/x4).

All of these seem better than the old Maiming enchantment.

How can we optimize the old maiming enchantment?

Now for a small thought exercise: how far can we push the Maiming enchantment? Assuming you tailor your build to max the Maiming roll through re-rolls + choose best (e.g., persistent Choose Destiny), it gets a little better:

x2: D4: average 2.5, best of two rolls average: 3.14. Compared to x2 base multiplier: +1.14 (+57%)
x3: D6: average 3.5, best of two rolls average: 4.47. Compared to x3 base multiplier: +1.47 (+49%)
x4: D8: average 4.5, best of two rolls average: 5.81. Compared to x4 base multiplier: +1.81 (+45.25%)

It's interesting that the delta is no longer a flat bonus compared to the original multiplier, but depends on the multiplier/die.

Given the chances to trigger a crit outlined above, this results in these damage values:

Scythe: +4.525%
Rapier: +8.475%
Keen Scythe:+9.05%
Keen Rapier: +16.95%

Now those are much nicer than before, but still not great. Even in the best case (keen rapier) and a rather high assumed base damage of 30, this is only 5.1 points of damage per hit on average - with a really big investment. Hardly game breaking :smallsmile:

[Buufreak]

Okay then. Stealing a term from 4e, what would the value of a "brutal" maiming weapon be? Brutal, in this case, being the keyword on select weapons that had a raised minimum damage, ie brutal 2 meant reroll any damage die that are 2 or less. So what if we made base crit value the bare minimum, not necessarily requiring reroll.

For example, on a x4 weapon, your rolls suddenly become 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Comes out to 5.25 average, an increase of 125%.

[Seto]

I don't think it would "break the game", but it definitely gives crits more a lot more swing. If you enjoy those dramatic moments and the fact that one hit has the potential to turn into a nuclear weapon thanks to the dice, go for it! I personally wouldn't use it, because:
1- I'm not a fan of that kind of unpredictability, especially if it might turn against PCs. Sure, statistically it balances out over many fights, but in the one fight where you eat a x8 critical ? Getting obliterated in one-hit just because of bad luck is not fun.
2- The MIC version is perfectly fine to me, and in line with other similarly priced effects. Is it a great, must-take enchantment? No. But is it worse than most +1 enchantments? I don't think so. Not every enchantment has to be exceptional. If you put it on the kind of weapon that benefits the most from it (scythe etc.), it's pretty decent for a +1 bonus, especially if you invest in crits (Keen scythe or Improved Critical). Compare with Flaming burst etc, which do elemental damage and offer less flexibility (the whole package is +2, you need to add an elemental property in order to be allowed to apply extra damage on a critical hit). I would probably choose a +1 Keen Maiming Scythe over a +1 Flaming Burst Scythe, for the same price, but they have about the same appeal for me, which tells me the power level is about right.