A -1 flaming burst sword

[DamionW]

I am viewing these as conscious decisions during the creation process. (again, that is just my flavor, others might do differently. The first hurdle was if they were balanced, and it appears they are.)

For the simple balance question, I guess I personally don't see a problem with it. You've made some good arguments that they can't be abused. My question next is, why are only magic weaponsmiths making the 'conscious choice' to include flaws. The overall premise you're presenting, as I understand it, is that for all purposes a flawed special ability item balances out with a standard bonus weapon. This makes it seem that for the benefit of extra special abilities you take the penalties as a reduction in costs. These reductions in cost, according to RAW, should make it easier to make. If that's the basic premise, including flaws as part of the process makes it easier to make an item with more abilities, why don't lots of items have flaws, not just weapons? Everyone likes ease of creation and would be willing to make sacrifices. Say I want to make a staff of fire that can cast fireballs and flaming spheres, but don't want to expend all of the XP and wealth to make one. Could I choose to make it deal cold damage to me when I use it so that it's easier to make? If not, why not? Like I said, if you just feel like using these weapons to fill out some gaps in your character magic items' power level, as a player I'd be asking for other items matched with penalties. The weapon creation mechanic makes this neat, but that's just a case of mechanics driving the story rather than being molded around it. *shrug* It's your game, but if I was playing in it, I'd sure find that fire staff a neat item and be asking for something like it.

 

[Coredump]

Say I want to make a staff of fire that can cast fireballs and flaming spheres, but don't want to expend all of the XP and wealth to make one. Could I choose to make it deal cold damage to me when I use it so that it's easier to make? If not, why not? Like I said, if you just feel like using these weapons to fill out some gaps in your character magic items' power level, as a player I'd be asking for other items matched with penalties. The weapon creation mechanic makes this neat, but that's just a case of mechanics driving the story rather than being molded around it. *shrug* It's your game, but if I was playing in it, I'd sure find that fire staff a neat item and be asking for something like it.

I meant the answer to this to be covered in my post above (number 29) Was there a part I missed? Or was it just unclear?

 

[wuyanei]

Others much more experienced (+8 CR ) than I have weighted in, and opinioned that the original method will not be unbalanced. I am still a bit skeptical -- it 'feels' wrong to give a 1st or 3rd level character access to so many special abilities -- but perhaps it is just because the old restrictions have instilled into me the habit of limiting special abilities until higher levels...

... anyways, I would really like to hear how this new rule works out in your game, Coredump. Then we will know for certain what adjustments need to be made -- if any adjustments are needed at all.

Good luck, and happy gaming!

 

[DamionW]

I meant the answer to this to be covered in my post above (number 29) Was there a part I missed? Or was it just unclear?

Sorry, missed the double post. Only saw post #30. Like I said, it's your game and as far as balance on the weapons, seems okay to me so use it. I just think that if there's a "messy paint job" method to create weapons, there should be for every kind of item, because people in general are lazy. Say you have a wizard player that comes up with a "messy" justification for a wand with flaws of some kind. How can you turn him down? The fact that the -X to theoretical +X from special abilities cancels out neatly shouldn't drive them being the only ones that creators are lazy about. That's just a case of rules creating a story and I'm not a fan of that, personally.

EDIT: I know I sound like a broken record on this thread, but it has to do with the whole suspension of disbelief in RPGs. If I saw just one or maybe two of these items in a game, I'd find them flavorful and different. If I saw it as a regular game mechanic, I'd stop finding magical items as interesting devices made by magical individuals and more just a number crunching engine.

 

[genshou]

They are currently just 4th level, and I thought it would be fun to give them a flaming sword, that was a bit unweildy. And when they crit... they will get another surprise. (burst) Lots of flavor, and some decisions, do they want to deal with the -1 to hit?
This mechanic lets me, or them, play with special abilities that they normally would not be able to, but keep things fairly balanced. I have yet to see much to show it would be unbalanced.

This reminds me of the mechanic from d20 Future for playing a Weren at 1st-level. Since they are LA +1, if you want to play one as a 1st-level character you have to take the effects of a negative level until you acquire 1,000 XP, and then the negative level is removed and you progress normally for a LA +1 character.

This would be a nice way to give low-level characters magic items as heirlooms (without as great a risk of unbalancing things), which can then grow in power with the character.

 

[genshou]

Sure, you can make a spell effect apply in reverse and thus apply a negative price modifier determined using the same formulas as the price for a normal version, but in some cases it can be abused, so modifiers to this formula require DM adjucation. For example, a penalty to a skill check should not be worth as much as an equal bonus, especially since you would need to apply the same universal amount to a penalty in any skill, and most PCs would just take a penalty to Profession checks in order to get a price break.

I wouldn't allow it for skills at all, in fact. Ability penalties, AC penalties, etc.? Sure.