Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1404909" data-attributes="member: 5777">20 points of natural armor? how many creatures does this really apply to? almost none?So against them it is a good choice, if they are made of living matter at least, which they may not be.It is exactly reciprocal to a person useing +5 plate and having a +5 shield. Both are 20 points of armor, but right now only one is ignored useing the weapon. Guess which one is the pc? (in most games at least).So it will work for the pc's as well as the npc's. Good. Where is the problem?  Where is the bad part? It makes some enemies easier to hit, which is all it does now. Once again, all my change does it make it more reciprocal for both pc's and npc's. Nothing you have said here changes that in any way.High level tank wearing lots of armor vs high level creature with lots of natural armor. Why is it pefectly fine for the weapon to be able to power attack one into 'oblivion' but not the other? Both are useing 'armor', both sets of armor are effectively 'nonliving' as well. Dragon scale (which provides the natural armor) is made into regular armor. So it is the exact same thing which is bypassed in one and not bypassed in the other.Again, the weapon should be useful to both pc's and npc's, instead of the way it currently is.There are no real power issues here, a few extra points of power attack if planned ahead for is fine. It takes a +5 item min that cannot be used on a large subset of creatures, requires being high level, requires spending at least one feat, and can still be outdone to some extent by a little preperation by the target.So far it sounds like a great plan, for dm's and players alike. More choices, harder choices, and the choices can pay off in the proper circumstances.In addition, high natural armor creatures tend to be high hp creatures. So a few extra points of damage for your trouble sounds like a good tradeoff. Umm.. Most sheathes are made of nonliving matter. The weapon passes right through that. The world is made of nonliving matter. The weapon passes right through that. Looks like it is written there to me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Now if you want to say that 'ignore' and 'passes through' are two seperate things then that is fine, what exactly is it doing when it 'ignores armor'?  Who said it was? Why does it have to be different? A drawback is a drawback, just because 'something else in the world has the same drawback' isnt saying that it isnt a drawback.Again, what sheathe? It ignores your sheathe.  So this change would effect almost nothing in your campaign really. What is the problem? I dont know any dm's that run with vorpal for actual campaigns. It is always seriously modified or just gotten rid of entirely. Bypassing the hp mechanic and save mechanic all in one fell swoop is what some people consider 'bad'. Now not everyone has a problem with it, but everyone I have ever played with save one guy does. That one guy wanted vorpal 'because' it invalidated both hp and saves.::shrugs:: to each their own of course. Ignoring natural armor would not imbalance anything in my campaign, it would actually put dragons into the range of 'hittable' with any sort of reliability. Going from an ac of 50+ (from your 41 dragon earlier, they can cast spells and use items after all) down to 30+ means that the fighter in the group would have a chance to use some of his feats (maybe even power attack! doing 800+ points of damage will take some time)It does seem to come down to a couple of things though.Is the enhancement worth it given its drawbacks?What should the enhancement be priced to make it worth it?These questions are somewhat campaign dependent, which is unfortunate. However, most questions are. If everything in your campaign takes extra damage from fire then firiery burst might need to be upped in price.So, at high levels campaigns I have been in have been:1/3 - 1/2 creatures who would be considered immune.1/3 - 1/2 creatures who are resistant (ie have natural armor)and whatever is left (yes, sometimes none) would be the ones wearing armor.In this instance brilliant might be worth a +1 (without the change), with the change it would go back to +4 (after all, it is exactly the same as if it ignored natural armor but did not ignore armor people are wearing)In a campaign where nearly everyone you might fight wears armor and is not immune for some reason, then my change will have no effect and it would work either way. It would also probably be worth a +5 with or without the change.In a campaign that has a sold mix of creatures that have armor and natural armor then I think it would be a valid change. It would make it be more desireable yes. However, it would actually be useful in a good amount of situations. Possibly enough to make it +5, but it is hard to say.I still think that negating natural armor would be best though. That way it would work in nearly every campaign setting, rather than just those who have people wearing large pieces of iron around. Being good for both pc's and npc's is a good thing. Plus with this option certain builds become a bit stronger, most of those were underused builds anyway.It being a high plus, along with being ignored with pretty much anything with con -, difficult to sheathe properly, shedding light all over the place, and it not ignoring natural ac? horrible. My way? tolerable, strong in some campaigns, completely indifferent in others, average in the rest. Sounds good to me.</blockquote>

Verification