Proposal Adventurers Vault

covaithe · Jan 2, 2009

Atanatotatos said:
My proposal is getting rid of the defensive property of double weapons, so that they give you only one benefit (one-handed weapon dmg on the off-hand) just like the other superior weapons; and making the double sword a heavy blade, so a fighter wielding it is like a fighter wielding two rapiers, except it's a heavy blade. Seems balanced enough to me.

I like this.

Lord Sessadore · Jan 2, 2009

I like that too.

On Puget Sound · Jan 3, 2009

Yes, double sword should NOT be a light blade. The whole idea of rogue attacks requiring a light blade is based on speed, finesse, even misdirection and concealability. No 2-meter long hunk of iron should qualify.

Dunamin · Jan 3, 2009

Still trying to wrap my head around all this, but I certainly think the Adventurer's Vault has plenty of interesting and balanced goodies we should plunder.

I'm not keen on double-weapons after having read through the provided arguments, but I think its fine if people use two weapons mechanically and flavor them as a double weapon.

By the same line of thought, assuming it gets approved, any problem for us fighter spear fighters to use a trident mechanically but flavor it as a plain old spear? I have some trouble visualizing a trident flying better than a spear through the air.

JoeNotCharles · Jan 4, 2009

My interpretation of the double sword (invalidated by Wizards) was that one end counts as a Heavy Blade and the other counts as Off-Hand, Light Blade - that is, even though it's symmetrical, you make strong slashing attacks with your stronger hand and light, defensive movements with your off hand, so whichever end you happen to be holding in your off hand is a Light Blade.

BTW, I saw a house rule on the Homebrew forum here that I quite like - for players that want to become masters of the Quarterstaff, ban all double weapons and then add a feat that turns the Quarterstaff into a d8/d8 double weapon. d8/d8 isn't too unbalancing, and losing all the other double weapons makes this use of the Quarterstaff pretty unique and cool. (Which is good because I understand it doesn't get much love in AV or Martial Power, and it's an iconic weapon!!)

If we do end up banning double weapons, I'll probably propose this as a house rule. Do we have a policy on proposing house rules that aren't in published products?

Phoenix8008 · Jan 6, 2009

Anyone have any problems with the rules on pages 198-199 for enchanting items and moving magic via the Transfer Enchantment ritual? These are very needed parts of the magic item system IMO. They also seem very simple and without need for modification. Any other discussion or issues with this section of the book?

Lord Sessadore · Jan 6, 2009

Phoenix8008 said:
Anyone have any problems with the rules on pages 198-199 for enchanting items and moving magic via the Transfer Enchantment ritual? These are very needed parts of the magic item system IMO. They also seem very simple and without need for modification. Any other discussion or issues with this section of the book?

I think those rules are fantastic. To be honest, I would have the part about upgrading an item with the Enchant Item ritual as part of the system by default for any game I DM, but I'm glad they spelled it out. The only thing which may need some thought is how to handle the mention of upgrading an item property to a similar one (the example they use is thundering to thunderburst) in the 3rd paragraph. There would definitely have to be involvement from the judge of the adventure as well as the DM to approve an upgrade like that.

I also think the Transfer Enchantment ritual is wonderful, especially in an environment like this, where there's a lot more potential for a given enchantment to be useful to someone.

In summary: I really like those rules, and see no problem with them.

Dunamin · Jan 6, 2009

I agree, those rules are very nice. In my opinion, they broaden and expand options in a way that makes the game more fun and flexible, without disturbing balance even remotely.

The note of upgrading an item to one with similar properties is explicitly given as a possible option that needs DM approval, while the general rule is that you cannot convert one property into another. This is as it should be, in my opinion. I'll second that for our part it will be alright if both DM and judge agree on a particular case.

covaithe · Jan 6, 2009

Yes, I was surprised to find that something like that wasn't already in place. It's certainly fine with me.

I was also intrigued by the guidelines a page or two earlier about scaling magic items by level, particularly the part about having weapons improve as the result of some defining dramatic event. There isn't really any crunch there; just some interesting flavor options for DMs to work with, but it took my fancy.