PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Weapon from Hellboy 2



Boci
2008-09-07, 12:51 PM
Name: Elven Tarjul
Cost: 130gp
Weight: 8 lbs

Version one: One Handed exotic weapon
Damage (medium) : 1d4
Critical: 19-20/x2
Damage type: Piercing/Slashing


Version 2: Two handed exotic weapon
Damage: 1d8**** (1d6/1d4)*****
Critical: 20/x3 (20/x2 / 20/x2)
Damage: Piercing (Blougeing/Slashing)

****=reach weapon
*****=double weapon

Appearance:
Version 1:
A short blade on the end of a very long hide bound hilt. It has all the stacticstics of a dagger, expect the unproportional size of the hilt changes it into a one handed weapon and requires special training to use properly.

Version 2:
As part of a move equivilant action, the wielder of an Elven Tarjul can exstend the hilt into a long, hollow shaft. Well placed supporting pieces of metal maintain its strength, and the wielder now has two options:
1. He may use it as a long spear
2. Use it as a quarter staff with one end as a blade with deals less damage but of the slashing sub type.
Edit: The wielder of the Tarjul may choose at the beginning of his turn which form of the weapon to use. Changing is a free action, reverting the Tarjul to its shorter form is a standard action, but it doesn't prevoke an attack of opertunity.

History: Made as a versatile weapon for the traditional sport of the Nadrandik Elven Aristocracy, the Tarjul is a versatile weapon that is great for a fighting style aimed to please crowds, but can also be a deadly tool in the hands of a warrior familiar with its weight and balance.

Special: The wielder of a Tarjul may treat his weapon as a dagger, spear, or quarterstaff for the purpose of using feats and class abilities. For example, a fighter could gain the benefits of both weapon focus (dagger) and Quick staff, no matter which version of the weapon they was using.

So what you think?

Aneantir
2008-09-07, 03:10 PM
Version 2: Two handed exotic weapon
Damage: 1d84

That would hurt.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-09-07, 03:34 PM
That would hurt.

Especially the 1d6 divided by 1d4 and then multiplied by five.

Hmmmmm.

1d84

1d6 1d4

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-09-07, 03:36 PM
Well, there went my rolls.
1d84
1d6
1d4

EDIT: Does the roller not work on this board?

Edit 2: Okay, on Invisible Castle,I got 40, 5, and 4.
5 divided by 4 is 1.25. Multiply by five and we get 6.25.......This weapon is confusing.

tyckspoon
2008-09-07, 04:05 PM
EDIT: Does the roller not work on this board?
.

No, actually; it's not enabled for the discussion forums. The roller is only activated for the play-by-post forums.

Boci
2008-09-07, 04:40 PM
When I had this written up in microsoft the 4 and the 5 were in supertext. That was lost I pasted it into here and I only realised that once it was too late. Surely that wasn't that unobious. I'm guessing the people who replied don't know D&D rules so it would be hard for them to understand.

Thurbane
2008-09-07, 04:45 PM
I think there's a weapon in the MiC that shifts between a shortspear, spear and longspear. Add the abiltity to do slashing damage as well as piercing, and you're just about there...

Shades of Gray
2008-09-07, 04:48 PM
You might be thinking of the swordbow.

swordbow: longsword to longbow
light swordbow: Short Sword to Shortbow
Great Swordbow: Greatsword to Composite Longbow

Boci
2008-09-07, 05:00 PM
I think there's a weapon in the MiC that shifts between a shortspear, spear and longspear. Add the abiltity to do slashing damage as well as piercing, and you're just about there...

Depends. Is that weapon amgical? Is so then its no good, I want this to be mundane. Secondly, can you use that as a double weapon? Again, if no then its no good.

Kizara
2008-09-07, 05:03 PM
1) This belongs in the homebrew forum.

2) Replace the 'superscript' numbers for asterixes like this.

1=*
2=**
3=***
Etc. Its not as good as numbers, but its considerably more readable when you don't have superscript functionality.

Aneantir
2008-09-08, 12:46 AM
When I had this written up in microsoft the 4 and the 5 were in supertext. That was lost I pasted it into here and I only realised that once it was too late. Surely that wasn't that unobious. I'm guessing the people who replied don't know D&D rules so it would be hard for them to understand.

We were having a little fun at the typo. It's just a joke, man, don't take it so seriously.

Thurbane
2008-09-08, 01:41 AM
You might be thinking of the swordbow.

swordbow: longsword to longbow
light swordbow: Short Sword to Shortbow
Great Swordbow: Greatsword to Composite Longbow
Nope...Changeling weapon property, page 31. Seems not to be what the OP was after, however...

For my game, I'd stat it as a +1 Changeling Keen Wounding Spear...

RTGoodman
2008-09-08, 01:48 AM
Its not as good as numbers, but its considerably more readable when you don't have superscript functionality.

But... we DO have superscript functionality.See?

The code is Your Text Here = Your Text Here


On topic, maybe call them "Tarjul" and "Greater Tarjul" or something like that makes it sound better than just calling them different versions.

For the greater version, the wording is a little weird. I'd just say it does 1d8 piercing/1d6 bludgeoning damage and you can choose which end to use if you're only using one attack. The damage DECREASING if you choose to attack twice makes no sense to me, and it's probably not overpowered to leave it at 1d8 (especially as an exotic weapon and one designed for, I assume, using the usually-suboptimal TWF to use both ends). As for reach, I'd either give it reach all the time or say you can switch between reach and not as a swift action (like you would if you had the Short Haft feat). It's all up to you, though.

Boci
2008-09-08, 03:46 AM
We were having a little fun at the typo. It's just a joke, man, don't take it so seriously.

Fair enough, your post was okay, but the subsequent 2 posts by Fiendish_Dire_Moose were uneccissary.

Boci
2008-09-08, 03:48 AM
But... we DO have superscript functionality.See?

The code is Your Text Here = Your Text Here


On topic, maybe call them "Tarjul" and "Greater Tarjul" or something like that makes it sound better than just calling them different versions.

For the greater version, the wording is a little weird. I'd just say it does 1d8 piercing/1d6 bludgeoning damage and you can choose which end to use if you're only using one attack. The damage DECREASING if you choose to attack twice makes no sense to me, and it's probably not overpowered to leave it at 1d8 (especially as an exotic weapon and one designed for, I assume, using the usually-suboptimal TWF to use both ends). As for reach, I'd either give it reach all the time or say you can switch between reach and not as a swift action (like you would if you had the Short Haft feat). It's all up to you, though.

There aren't 2 weapons here, theres just the Tarjul. Its wielder has 3 options with the weapon.

RTGoodman
2008-09-08, 01:49 PM
There aren't 2 weapons here, theres just the Tarjul. Its wielder has 3 options with the weapon.

Oh. Well. Nevermind, then. :smallredface:

BardicDuelist
2008-09-08, 01:56 PM
Your mechanic is clunky. A magical weapon would make more sense.

Also, stuff like this goes in Homebrew.

Burley
2008-09-08, 03:27 PM
The cost would be for both weapons, masterworked, added together.

The type would be exotic.

The player would be crazy.

Also, when in it's extended form, it'd take a -x to hardness. It's now hollow and easy as crap to sunder.

Boci
2008-09-09, 05:52 AM
The cost would be for both weapons, masterworked, added together.

The type would be exotic.

The player would be crazy.

Also, when in it's extended form, it'd take a -x to hardness. It's now hollow and easy as crap to sunder.

The type is exotic and waht do you mean the player would be crazy? It isnt a very good weapon?

Burley
2008-09-09, 08:25 AM
I personally don't think it's a very good weapon. I, as a player, wouldn't use it because I'm sure I could just get one of each weapon, and have a much better time. I've played the Weapon Master kinda character, and I don't have much fun with them.

As a DM, I wouldn't allow it. If a one of my players wanted one, I'd assume two things: A) They're basing their characters around the weapon, and 2) They've got cheese planned. If anything happened to the weapon, they'd be really angry and blame me, but they shouldn't have been using a hollow spear to hold open a stone door.

The book keeping involved would be profound, and I (and a lot of people) would end up just writing the stats for the three different weapons, as though they had the three different weapons, which would be cheaper.

Also, your mechanics are terrible. Extending is a Move Action, Changing is a free action, Shortening is a Swift action? What? Do you know what actions you're talking about?
Extending should be part of a move action, just like drawing a weapon.
Shortening should be a full round action, unless there is a complex mechanism (no rules for this, just a turn of phrase), which could shorten it to a standard action to shorten. But, it should provoke an attack of opportunity anyways.

This weapon isn't magical. You don't even show that it must be masterwork. A Mundane weapon shouldn't let you have "three weapons in one" and let you switch amongst them faster than another PC with the regular three.

Basically, it's just extra book keeping with no reward, and it provokes AoO whenever you change forms (which having three weapons wouldn't).

A player wouldn't have to be "crazy", because that was hyperbole, and I'm sorry if it offended you. But, the player would end up having a better character if they just had all three weapons.

Jayabalard
2008-09-09, 08:57 AM
1) This belongs in the homebrew forum.

2) Replace the 'superscript' numbers for asterixes like this.

1=*
2=**
3=***
Etc. Its not as good as numbers, but its considerably more readable when you don't have superscript functionality.you have superscript functionalty on this board

text1
text2
text3

You use Text1 = Text1

It just doesn't get automatically translated when you paste from word.

Boci
2008-09-09, 09:58 AM
I personally don't think it's a very good weapon. I, as a player, wouldn't use it because I'm sure I could just get one of each weapon, and have a much better time. I've played the Weapon Master kinda character, and I don't have much fun with them.

You could get each weapon. That would give you cvertain advantages and certain disadvantages.


As a DM, I wouldn't allow it. If a one of my players wanted one, I'd assume two things: A) They're basing their characters around the weapon, and 2) They've got cheese planned. If anything happened to the weapon, they'd be really angry and blame me, but they shouldn't have been using a hollow spear to hold open a stone door.

1. Sometimes good PCs can be based off something seem in the mvies. As long as a PC acknowledges that Prince Nuada will begin as a 1st level, just like the other PCs, and will have a standard class, just like the other PCs, whats the problem?

2. What would happen to the weapon? Sundered? That can happen to any weapon, and its the only real way weapons break. Any PC is annoyed by sundering, so why is that problem unique to this weapon?


The book keeping involved would be profound, and I (and a lot of people) would end up just writing the stats for the three different weapons, as though they had the three different weapons, which would be cheaper.

What would be cheaper? Having three seperate weapons? Book keepings a fair point, but I wouldn't have any problem with it. Like 3 different spells for a wizard.


Also, your mechanics are terrible. Extending is a Move Action, Changing is a free action, Shortening is a Swift action? What? Do you know what actions you're talking about?
Extending should be part of a move action, just like drawing a weapon.
Shortening should be a full round action, unless there is a complex mechanism (no rules for this, just a turn of phrase), which could shorten it to a standard action to shorten. But, it should provoke an attack of opportunity anyways.

I made it a move action because when Prince Nuada lengthened it he needed to spin it around alot and didn't move whilst he did so. He never seemed to expend much time shortening it and I could imagine it being done in a short amount of time, just push it shut.


This weapon isn't magical. You don't even show that it must be masterwork. A Mundane weapon shouldn't let you have "three weapons in one" and let you switch amongst them faster than another PC with the regular three.

This is supose to be a base weapon, so it shouldn't need to be masterwork. Saying mundane weapon "shouldn't grant three weapons in one" is like saying a mundane weapon shouldn't have the returning ability on it, but the boomerang does. Both are exoptic weapons and therefor special.


Basically, it's just extra book keeping with no reward, and it provokes AoO whenever you change forms (which having three weapons wouldn't).

Hey hey hey, you cannot propse a change, then attack my creation based on the rule you propsed. I doesnt provoke an attack of opertunity each time it changes form, that a suggestion by you, which I wont adopt.


A player wouldn't have to be "crazy", because that was hyperbole, and I'm sorry if it offended you. But, the player would end up having a better character if they just had all three weapons.

Note however that for the purpose of applying feat benefits this weapon is better than 3 seperate ones. Plus its cheaper to enhance.


I can understand that as a player you wouldn't use this, my friend said the same. As for not allowing it as a DM, that up to you, but I think you're exxaggerating problems that would occure with it. The whole argument about this weapon being realitic is a dodgy one in D&D, since its not realitic to have your damage output sinificantly decreased when you grab a rock in your hands (20th level monk).

Burley
2008-09-09, 10:59 AM
The actions you described would not make sense. I didn't see Hellboy 2, so, I don't know, but I've actually got a lot of experience with sticks that extend, having worked with blind people in the past. They're easy as heck to make long, but very time consuming to collapse.

Sundering is not the only way things can break. Common sense breaks weapons, too. This thing is hollow, and without serious reinforcement, it's going to shatter really fast when it hits metal, stone, or solid wood.

A Boomerang only returns if it misses. It also only does one type of damage.
Your weapon changes when you want it do, does various types of damage, has different crit multipliers, and has all three types of damage. It can also be treated as a reach weapon or a double weapon. This is too powerful to be a cheap item.

It is cheaper to have three seperate weapons, because any sane DM would have you pay the masterwork cost of the three types of weapons involved (dagger, quarterstaff, longspear), plus extra for the extremely complex craftman ship to make an effective hollow shaft.

Being cheaper to enchant is not balanced. The magic item compendium has a weapon that turns from a +1 Longbow to a +1 Longsword (effectively). Guess what! It costs a lot of money. It's not the cost of a +1 weapon. It's the cost of two +1 weapons and some other cost for the Shapeshifter weapon addition. Saying something is mundane doesn't make it fair.

I'm not making up rules. I'm using rules already in place as guidelines, from any source books I can find with relevant information.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-09, 12:07 PM
My two favorite weapon properties are Morphing (+1, MIC) and Sizing (+5000gp, MIC). Combine the two and you can easily have a dagger that becomes a longspear, or a sword that transforms into a battleaxe. Turn up the cheese a little, and you can even use your weapon to make you bridges across huge chasms by turning your weapon into a Colossal Shillelagh. That's very "Journey to the West" now that I think about it.

Boci
2008-09-09, 04:04 PM
The actions you described would not make sense. I didn't see Hellboy 2, so, I don't know, but I've actually got a lot of experience with sticks that extend, having worked with blind people in the past. They're easy as heck to make long, but very time consuming to collapse.

I like it better my way, more fun.


Sundering is not the only way things can break. Common sense breaks weapons, too. This thing is hollow, and without serious reinforcement, it's going to shatter really fast when it hits metal, stone, or solid wood.

A scimitar's blade will also dull after a fighter uses it to hack apart an iron golem. Do you keep track of that aswell? No. Does the book in anyway give rules for a weapon breaking from normal use? No.


A Boomerang only returns if it misses. It also only does one type of damage.
Your weapon changes when you want it do, does various types of damage, has different crit multipliers, and has all three types of damage. It can also be treated as a reach weapon or a double weapon. This is too powerful to be a cheap item.

The only advantage this has over a spiked chain is that you can wield it as a double weapon (and the multiple feat ability). The spiked chain has many more advantages. Its not overpowered.


It is cheaper to have three seperate weapons, because any sane DM would have you pay the masterwork cost of the three types of weapons involved (dagger, quarterstaff, longspear), plus extra for the extremely complex craftman ship to make an effective hollow shaft.

3 weapons would be cheaper because you think its underpriced is what your basically saying.


Being cheaper to enchant is not balanced. The magic item compendium has a weapon that turns from a +1 Longbow to a +1 Longsword (effectively). Guess what! It costs a lot of money. It's not the cost of a +1 weapon. It's the cost of two +1 weapons and some other cost for the Shapeshifter weapon addition. Saying something is mundane doesn't make it fair.

Yes, that it a weapon that can be used for both melee and range. Mind can't, now are many of them commonly used weapons (simple and not martial to begin with)


I'm not making up rules. I'm using rules already in place as guidelines, from any source books I can find with relevant information.

You are making up rules. Sorry.

Burley
2008-09-10, 08:13 AM
You are making up rules. Sorry.

Don't ask for opinions and shoot them down. I stated that these were my opinions and I gave how I would run it in one of my games.

The relevant information I'm using is the PHB crap for drawing weapons and the rules for the Wristblade weapon from the Dawnforge Campaign setting (retractable gauntlet blades).

I'm done with this thread.

Boci
2008-09-10, 09:09 AM
Don't ask for opinions and shoot them down. I stated that these were my opinions and I gave how I would run it in one of my games.

The relevant information I'm using is the PHB crap for drawing weapons and the rules for the Wristblade weapon from the Dawnforge Campaign setting (retractable gauntlet blades).

I'm done with this thread.

So your opinion is that it should be alot more expensive and break very soon? Forgive me for not taking it too well.

Toliudar
2008-09-10, 10:24 AM
Given the complexity of the mechanism you're describing, I would also bump the initial cost into the 75-100gp range.

What material do you envision as the haft of the Tarjul? You mention bound with hide, and reinforced by metal. Does that mean that there's a third material in there, or just the metal and leather?

Since the one-handed version of this weapon does piercing damage, it might make more sense for the pointy part of the double weapon version to also do piercing damage.

I would also suggest making it at least a standard action to collapse the weapon again (it would need to be something more than a simple twist and push, or else the weapon would be useless as a spear).

On the whole, I would consider it a fun and flavourful weapon - not terribly overpowered, because at higher levels it would get very expensive to enchant effectively.

Reaper_Monkey
2008-09-10, 11:14 AM
I'm done with this thread.

I must say I have to agree with Burley Warlock here, this is a classic case of emulation rather than balanced construction.. yes the weapon in Hellboy 2 (which I have seen, very good movie) is very shiney, however, it is done that way for the film, if you were to make it in a game, along side weapons already made, it has to be balanced appropriately.

The weapon may not be magical, but the mechanical properties would make it at least count as a +1 weapon for construction and pricing. The hardness of the weapon would be dire in its extended version, as it would indeed be hollow, and although there are no written rules for that property other than for sundering, a good DM would point out the likelihood of its breaking when used in cirtain ways (perhaps even make a simple chart that puts a fort DC it has to take when used against hard things).

The crit multiplier also shouldn't be a x3 when its in its extended form used as a reach weapon IMO, as its still effectively going to be doing the same as it would be while in its dagger form.

Regardless of that however the damage type should be consistent, in the film it is used to both stab and slash while in dagger form, as while extended (which is logical) so it should be a Piercing/Slashing weapon while in dagger form and in "spear" form, while keeping it as a Slashing//Bludgeoning when used as a double weapon. Mind, I'd also address the damage die to be more consistent also, a 1d4 in dagger, 1d6 in spear and 1d6//1d4 in double form so as follows..

Version one: One Handed exotic weapon
Damage (medium) : 1d4
Critical: 19-20/x2
Damage type: Piercing/Slashing

Version 2: Two handed exotic weapon
Damage: 1d6 (1d6/1d4)
Critical: 20/x2 (20/x2 / 20/x2)
Damage: Piercing/Slashing (Slashing//Bludgeoning)


The required actions to change and extend etc really need to be looked at, in the film it does appear that it takes very little time, but there is a difference between what it takes and how its stated mechanically, whenever he shrinks it he does little else that "round" (6 seconds) other than move, with this in mind id say shortening it (if you were just trying to imitate the film) could easily be said to be a move action also, this would make it easier to remember and follow but also make it more balanced (slightly).

...but to be fair, the cost, complexity, and overlooked features that make it unbalanced (most of which have been mentioned by previous posters) make this weapon cheesey at best and a munchkin magnet at worse. However, as your taking any helpful critiquing so poorly I doubt this will make much of an impression, and in which case have fun with your uba-weapon.

EDITED: Tidied up weapon data

Boci
2008-09-10, 03:47 PM
and in which case have fun with your uba-weapon.


I'll respond to the other thing you said latter. For now:
lets just compare my uber-weapon to a spiked chain.

*Pretty much equal damage (2d4 versus 1d8) No points
*Better crit multiplier (3x versus 2x) One point for the Targul
*Both have reach, and both strike adjacent targets, but I'm going to give half a point to the spiked chain here because you have to use an inferior fighting style to strike an ajacent target with a Tarjul
*Tarjul can be a double weapon, spiked chain can't. Half a point to the Tarjul since two weapon fighting is sub-optimal power wise
*Tarjul can gain benefit of multiple feats. 1 points to the Tarjul
* Spiked chain can be used to to trip and disarm. 2 points for the Spiked chain

So each get 2.5 points whem compared. My uber weapon is only as good as the best weapon from the players handbook.

Reaper_Monkey
2008-09-10, 04:20 PM
So each get 2.5 points whem compared. My uber weapon is only as good as the best weapon from the players handbook.

Balance doesn't work that way, your 'point' system is utterly flawed, and your still ignoring half the comments made on this thread for the other reasons your weapon is unbalanced.

Oh, and even if your system of deducting which weapon is better, by your own words, it being 2.5 points better than the best (your opinion) weapon in the PHB, means your weapon is more powerful... which means its overpowered in comparison...

...which coupled with the cost of it and the availability for abuse.. oh, and the other list of features its broken on... means by your reckoning and ours, your weapon is too powerful, and needs to be balanced better

fractic
2008-09-10, 04:24 PM
So each get 2.5 points whem compared. My uber weapon is only as good as the best weapon from the players handbook.

2 of the points the spiked chain gets are from disarm and and trip. Disarm is often not an option and unless you make your build about tripping you aren't going to care. So unless you plan on tripping your weapon is superior.

Boci
2008-09-10, 04:44 PM
Balance doesn't work that way, your 'point' system is utterly flawed, and your still ignoring half the comments made on this thread for the other reasons your weapon is unbalanced.

Oh, and even if your system of deducting which weapon is better, by your own words, it being 2.5 points better than the best (your opinion) weapon in the PHB, means your weapon is more powerful... which means its overpowered in comparison...

...which coupled with the cost of it and the availability for abuse.. oh, and the other list of features its broken on... means by your reckoning and ours, your weapon is too powerful, and needs to be balanced better

Your not going to convince me like this. Show me a build. Show me a build that is broken/overpowered because it uses this weapon. Then I'll ne more willing to listen to claims that its overpowered.

Boci
2008-09-10, 04:45 PM
So unless you plan on tripping your weapon is superior.

And most people will plan on tripping. If not, their nerfing themselves and whilst there nothing wrong with that, they aren't good examples of the weapons relative power.

fractic
2008-09-10, 04:54 PM
And most people will plan on tripping. If not, their nerfing themselves and whilst there nothing wrong with that, they aren't good examples of the weapons relative power.

A lot of people also seem to enjoy charging for massive damage or using those fancy ToB classes. Even if tripping was the ultimate melee build that doesn't say anything about the strength of your weapon.

Boci
2008-09-10, 05:12 PM
A lot of people also seem to enjoy charging for massive damage or using those fancy ToB classes. Even if tripping was the ultimate melee build that doesn't say anything about the strength of your weapon.

People like the ToB classes because their fun and they like the charger builds because their impresive in the first round of combat. I'm not saying that trippings the ultimate melee build, just if you've got a spiked chain tripping is. If you have a spiked chain and you don't use it to trip, your not optomizing (okay there are exeptions but generally its true). Just like a 20th level fighter with 26 strength and 15 dex who decides to constantly use the double weapon form of a Tarjul isn't using the weapon to its best ability.

AstralFire
2008-09-10, 05:14 PM
If you have a spiked chain and you don't use it to trip, your not optomizing (okay there are exeptions but generally its true).

...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2575918190_6b2a9d4e9f.jpg?v=0

FatJose
2008-09-10, 05:27 PM
Why are people mad about the item's power? Elves in Hellboy2 are much more powerful than standard elves and also, simply making the weapon elven means that it is more durable than something that would break so easily. We're talking about a world where all the characters are pretty up there in hypothetical level. I would say this weapon needs penalties, though it kinda already does.

The guy who used the weapon was very skilled and I say a first level would probably need a good number of feats just to use such a weapon properly. But that's all covered already. Feats taken for 2 weapon fighting, exotic proficiency if not an elf, Possibly Quick Draw feat to change the weapon faster in a fight. Also make it a masterwork weapon as far as cost goes simply because such a weapon would take, well, a master to craft properly. I think all elven armor and weapons are considered masterwork, right?The weapon also may function as any ordinary 3 weapons but the 3in1 factor cuts down on weight and I imagine it would be a light weapon since the elf was a finesse fighter.

AstralFire
2008-09-10, 05:37 PM
Why are people mad about the item's power? Elves in Hellboy2 are much more powerful than standard elves and also, simply making the weapon elven means that it is more durable than something that would break so easily. We're talking about a world where all the characters are pretty up there in hypothetical level. I would say this weapon needs penalties, though it kinda already does.

An item's inspirational source isn't a good reason to make it more powerful without costing more.

My only real problems with the weapon are that:
1) It could be simplified a bit
2) Each of the two ends, as standard, has to be enchanted separately unless you're making a flat change to double weapons. Heaven knows double weapons could use some improvement on the whole, though that's probably not it.

FatJose
2008-09-10, 05:45 PM
An item's inspirational source isn't a good reason to make it more powerful without costing more.

Hey, I never said it should cost little. Masterwork weapons and just about anything of elven make will have a heftier price. Which is evident in the core books.

EDIT: Also, I''m not sure it should be a martial weapon for elves...Even if it is their weapon, it seems too complex. I mean Orc Double-Axes aren't martial to orcs. Sure, Orcs are dumb but this weapon seems a bit more complex than even the most exotic of elven weapons and a dwarven axe doesnt even compare in complexity.

Boci
2008-09-10, 06:25 PM
Hey, I never said it should cost little. Masterwork weapons and just about anything of elven make will have a heftier price. Which is evident in the core books.

EDIT: Also, I''m not sure it should be a martial weapon for elves...Even if it is their weapon, it seems too complex. I mean Orc Double-Axes aren't martial to orcs. Sure, Orcs are dumb but this weapon seems a bit more complex than even the most exotic of elven weapons and a dwarven axe doesnt even compare in complexity.

I'm fine about removing the elf bit and I do not mind raising the price, however I really do not want to make a rule that this weapon has to be masterwork.

FatJose
2008-09-10, 08:23 PM
I'm fine about removing the elf bit and I do not mind raising the price, however I really do not want to make a rule that this weapon has to be masterwork.

Understood... well on price. Orc Double Axe is 60, Double Sword is 100, and Dwarven Ugrosh is 50, so for a weapon that is 3 in 1. Your weapon doesn't do as much damage as the other exotics but you can conceal it as a dagger, it works well as a staff or double weapon and can even be a longsword. That means that an elf who takes any of their most commonly taken classes (Ranger, Rogue, Wizard or most deadly with this weapon, Fighter) immediately has the perfect weapon. Gods have mercy on the enemy who faces a multi-classed elf.

The price should be "at least" 100gp. I would probably do 150gp. But then again, such a steep price doesn't affect my campaign too much since a sensible rp background covers funds in my games. I mean, if you make a elf noble or simply someone who had a relative who owned one in mint condition, I would just wave it as a free item or at most cut the price in half.

Also...eesh, I agree. No MasterWork. Because its a double weapon, the cost would be +600gp....not 600...+600. Here I thought it was just +300.

Boci
2008-09-11, 09:42 AM
Increased the price to 130 gold.

Allowed it to deal eithe slashing or piercing in its dagger form.

Made lengthening it a move equivilant action, and shortening it a standard action, but I don't want either to provoke an attack of opertunity.

Removed the "elves treat it as martial" part.