Re-thinking Brutal Weapons

[Keenberg]

So I am planning on giving the fighter in my party a +1 Execution Axe. I think a normal Execution Axe is a pretty powerful weapon in it's own right. A d12 weapon, it has the property "Brutal 2" which means when the player beats the AC check, they re-roll 1's and 2's on their damage dice. So in effect it never deals less than 3 damage. The Execution Axe it is also a high crit weapon. So on a critical it is 2[W] otherwise known as 2d12. DAMN.

I'm thinking that the "Brutal" mechanic is a bit rough around the edges though. It just means a 1 in 6 chance of more rolling, which slows down the game... so I have developed two possible solutions.

• Solution 1: 1's and 2's on the damage dice count as 3's, no re-roll. Since it is a +1 Execution Axe, the +1 will still apply to attack/damage rolls.

• Solution 2: d10+2. This is effectively the same thing as the classic Brutal 2 mechanic, as far as I can tell (and if any mathematicians out there would like to let me know it is not, please do! I love math. ) The benefit is is means no re-rolls, less time, more fun!

(In the case of the item I'm giving though, the +1 masterwork bonus would
give +1, so it would be +1 to attack rolls and 1d10+3 for damage rolls.)

So how do these solutions sound? Which one do you think is better? Any other ideas for Brutal weapons?

 

[renau1g]

I'd suggest option 1 over option 2 as it would speed things up as there's less math involved. Personally though, I understand it slows things down a bit, but that takes away a huge damage potential of teh weapon which is really the only thing going for it over a fullblade (which has +1 to hit over the axe)

 

[keterys]

I pretty much always use 1d10+2 (avg 7.5) for executioner's axes. Faster, same math.

1s and 2s become 3s is strictly worse (avg 6.75, barely better than a greataxe), so I'd advise against that. If you did like that mechanic, though, you could make it 1-5 count as 6. (Avg 7.75, just .25 more than normal) or 1-4 count as 5 (Avg 7 1/3, just 1/6 less than normal).

 

[IanB]

The weapon isn't really worth the extra feat to learn it with option 1, so I would definitely go with option 2.

 

[Keenberg]

I'd suggest option 1 over option 2 as it would speed things up as there's less math involved. Personally though, I understand it slows things down a bit, but that takes away a huge damage potential of teh weapon which is really the only thing going for it over a fullblade (which has +1 to hit over the axe)

I'm not worried about the math in option 2... I doubt anyone in the group would even think of "add 3" as math because it is so simple. As for damage potential, you seem to have the ideas backwards. As Keterys has shown: option 1 affects damage potential adversely, and option 2 doesn't affect it at all.

I pretty much always use 1d10+2 (avg 7.5) for executioner's axes. Faster, same math.

I'm glad my assumption was correct... Thank you!

1s and 2s become 3s is strictly worse (avg 6.75, barely better than a greataxe), so I'd advise against that. If you did like that mechanic, though, you could make it 1-5 count as 6. (Avg 7.75, just .25 more than normal) or 1-4 count as 5 (Avg 7 1/3, just 1/6 less than normal).

Mmmmmm... math A bit confusing to implement, though. I'll be going with solution 2.

 

[Keenberg]

The weapon isn't really worth the extra feat to learn it with option 1, so I would definitely go with option 2.

This weapon requires a feat to use? I don't see how, at least not for the fighter I plan to give it out to... Can you elaborate on that?

 

[Storminator]

This weapon requires a feat to use? I don't see how, at least not for the fighter I plan to give it out to... Can you elaborate on that?

It's a superior weapon, not a military one. So unless he's already take Dwarven Weapon Training, he'll need a feat.

PS

edit: You've already picked, but option 2 is the clear winner.

 

[Keenberg]

It's a superior weapon, not a military one. So unless he's already take Dwarven Weapon Training, he'll need a feat.

Ah, I see. I'm a little more lenient with feats than the RAW, though. If a character role-plays the process of mastering something, I'll gladly reward their efforts... within reason. I've been know to grant skill training in intelligence skills, for example, to a character who spends long hours pouring over her tomes. I'd likely grant Weapon Proficiency to this character, a Great Weapon Fighter, after a bit of practice with the weapon. Say an extended rest devoted to swinging it around and hitting targets, from which he'd gain no benefit of an extended rest. Although I would be reluctant to grant Dwarven Weapon Training without some formal training with axes... from a dwarf. I'd probably allow him to use any inferior axe though, should he experiment with it for a short rest, after teaching himself to use this hulking beast. Why he'd want to, though, I can't really postulate on.

 

[eriktheguy]

Well with the ample amounts of superior weapons, superior implements, and special training with weapons that effectively makes them superior (scimitars or slings for example) it's pretty much a feat tax. So kudos to you for letting them have that free if it fits character and RP.
Also, 1d10+2 is the same as 1d12 brutal 2, while option 1 is much less powerful. Go for option 2 if anything.
Is the brutal mechanic really that bad? I find that although it adds a few seconds to each turn, the player REALLY enjoys re-rolling a 1 or 2. It's more about the entertainment value than having the same math. So before you make the change, ask your player if they think that brutal damage is rough around the edges.

 

[Keenberg]

Well with the ample amounts of superior weapons, superior implements, and special training with weapons that effectively makes them superior (scimitars or slings for example) it's pretty much a feat tax. So kudos to you for letting them have that free if it fits character and RP.

I wouldn't be granting use of all superior weapons. That would be a lot to give out for just swinging around one axe, which doesn't make much sense in realistic terms. The Weapon Training feat doesn't go that far, from what I can tell. I'd let him have "Weapon Training - Execution Axe," so to speak.

Also, 1d10+2 is the same as 1d12 brutal 2, while option 1 is much less powerful. Go for option 2 if anything.
Is the brutal mechanic really that bad? I find that although it adds a few seconds to each turn, the player REALLY enjoys re-rolling a 1 or 2. It's more about the entertainment value than having the same math. So before you make the change, ask your player if they think that brutal damage is rough around the edges.

You're right about this, and it was one my mind at one point. Sometimes rolling is fun, and re-rolling can be even more fun than that.

Definitely something to be considered.