D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5e) Stacking Special Abilities on Weapons

[kitcik]

 

[Xakk]

Not that kind of card.
Well...

Burning Cinder Fury of Crimson Chaos Fire - This +1 Furious, Maiming, Flaming Burst Handaxe glows red with intense heat, shedding light as a torch. On a successful hit, it deals 5d4 fire damage and ignites the target on fire. (Reflex negates.) The Maiming enchantment on this weapon also applies both to the bonus damage from the Flaming Burst enchantment, and the normal critical damage. CL 8th, Craft MA&A, Combust, Fireball, MP: 101,000 gp.

Of course half of those words were so unrelated they didn't really need this treatment, jsut translation into an approximate individual enhancement. But the above is what I meant.
It can work even if you don't want to stack, really: A player who wants a real iconic weapon can throw a couple enhancements, or even just a damage value and type, at their DM; Who can mix them up like the above and throw back a market price, or toss it in the next loot pile if they feel generous. A +1d6 fire weapon is called a flaming weapon; A +3d6 fire weapon is called a Molten Steel Blade, frex.

 

[Empirate]

Generally speaking, I have no problem with multiple same-type enchantments on one weapon. A few exceptions might still be in order, though:

Smoking? How do you model two of those at once? Total concealment for the wielder would be much, much better than just concealment. Not improving the degree of concealment received is a bit on the weak side, OTOH. And does the smoke fill a larger area? Better not go there.
Sweeping/Disarming? I think those bonuses are untyped, and would stack with each other, but adding a bunch of the cheap sweeping enchantment sounds like an exceptionally cost-effective way of tripping even great wyrms.
Valorous? I can't stand this enchantment even when it's only applied once (damage multipliers are nasty all around). But a +1 ValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorous Lance sounds rather ridiculous, with x11 damage on a mounted charge (before class abilities).

There'll be others, I'm sure.

 

[kitcik]

Smoking? How do you model two of those at once?

Valorous? I can't stand this enchantment even when it's only applied once (damage multipliers are nasty all around). But a +1 ValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorousValorous Lance sounds rather ridiculous, with x11 damage on a mounted charge (before class abilities).

There'll be others, I'm sure.

This is the point I tried to make on page 1 of this thred. Thanks for coming up with a better example.

 

[HoboGod]

Oh god, valorous I'm just against all around. It's a godawful special ability that's worth way more than +1. It takes 3 feats and a horse to get what valorous does by itself and it STACKS with the damage multipliers of a lance and spirited charge?! I can shenanigans on anyone who goes for it. The one player I let have it, I told him it'll cost him +2, it only doubles his weapon's base damage, not bonus damage, and doesn't stack with anything that multiplies damage. He still gladly takes it, so that says something right there.

 

[GunbladeKnight]

My current DM houserules that you don't need +1 (or masterwork) before putting on special abilities on a weapon. In order to hit incorporeal, you need either at least +1 or a ghost touch. You can put on 10 vicious if you want.

Result? No one really puts more than 1 or 2 on a weapon anyways. We rarely use vicious (it's magic damage, so DR shouldn't apply). Merciful was only wanted by one of my characters (DM rarely rewards good characters or punish evil characters, so most head toward evil).

There are many more useful abilities (why not flaming burst?) that you would rarely want more than 2 of the same. Also, DM can copy or negate any special abilities he wants when making an encounter. (What's that Billy? you have a +2 4xWounding Longsword? Well guess what! It's Oozes tonight!)

 

[Empirate]

Sure enough the DM can give you oozes if he doesn't want you to make use of your extremely costly multi-wounding weapon. He can also just have your character killed by a high-level assassin in his sleep. The DM can do what he wants.

Question is: if that's necessary, is your character (or his gear, in this case) mechanically balanced? Really, if the DM has to resort to rule zero, something's fishy. So that point doesn't really relate to the debate at hand.

However, I'd not think twice about allowing a +2 4 x Wounding weapon in my game (at appropriately high levels, of course). I don't think it's really unbalanced, and I wouldn't give the PC only oozes to fight every night.

But +1 9 x Valorous? Not so sure about that...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Result? No one really puts more than 1 or 2 on a weapon anyways. We rarely use vicious (it's magic damage, so DR shouldn't apply). Merciful was only wanted by one of my characters (DM rarely rewards good characters or punish evil characters, so most head toward evil).

I wasn't thinking of merciful as good-aligned, but rather as damage that few monsters will have any resistance to. Stack it a few times and you've got a *LOT* of damage--so what if the guy is only unconscious rather than dead?

 

[Dandu]

If the other guy is Undead or a Construct, you are in for a world of hurt.

 

[GunbladeKnight]

I view Merciful as more of a good-aligned ability since ALL the damage becomes non-lethal when neutral/evil characters would rather just kill the person. And what Dandu said, UD and constructs are immune to non-lethal (what about oozes?), so you wouldn't do any damage to them. It'd be better to do more Vicious if you have the HP for it. 2d6 instead of 1d6 for the same price.