Dancing Ability +4 Modifier???

[Scion]

yeah, weilded for all maneuvers and effects that target items

I dont think your strength mod targets items

 

[Endur]

Stacking Madness

The Dancing Ability is worth +4.

Keep in mind, that yes, you don't get the full benefits of all your stacking abilities (feats, strength, other stuff), only BAB. On the other hand, a warrior who only has BAB still gets the full dancing ability.

So, for some PCs, this may not be the most optimal solution. But there are many magical items that fall into that category.

Definitely better than the speed ability (if you want speed, buy boots or get a wizard to cast haste).

Also, dancing weapons tend to be amongst the most powerful weapons PCs encounter. i.e. they usually aren't +1 scimitars. Many dancing weapons are imbued with intelligence by the GM or also have other nasty abilities like vorpal or are artifacts.

 

[Scion]

So you are saying that because someone could loose one every round that it is worth the +4? or am I not understanding you properly?

Even then though, it would seem that most fighter types would be 'much' better off simply attacking rather than letting these weapons go. They do piddly damage, almost never hit, and require your standard action to let fly. At which point they only stay up for a few rounds.

 

[Ruvion]

yeah, weilded for all maneuvers and effects that target items

I dont think your strength mod targets items

So you are saying strength modifiers are not influenced by item/equipment/weapon choice? If you wield a two-handed weapon you gain 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage. A one-handed or light weapon you only gain damage bonus equal to Strength bonus. To me the wording is a little vague, but it seems to me that you can not use the dancing weapon to bull rush or spring attack cause it is not not a maneuver that "tragets items."

I am not yet convinced base attack bonus is all you get (the srd only mentions it for the extra attacks you may gain from dancing IMHO).

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

There are two possibilities - either the enchantment IS worth it so you keep the weapon, or it's NOT worth it and you hock it off.

Weapons not being worth the price you paid for them are only a problem if you actually paid the price in the first place...

Actually the Market Price is VERY VERY IMPORTANT. You've paid the price whether you actually paid a wizard or not. The market price of an item directly ties in with the character wealth per level guide in the DMG. PC's are supposed to have X amount of stuff per level. It's a DM tool. The game has been designed around characters with Y abilities & X stuff being able to defeat monster Z (Z being CR is this case). While DM's don't use the guide exactly, its a good rule of thumb to see if a PC is balanced. If I want to bring this PC into another game & the DM asks how much stuff he's got & and say 300,000 and a 12th lvl character should only have 150,000 the DM gonna have questions. A Dancing Weapon make s up a good chunck of any character of any level's total GP list.

Actually Market Price is misleading. They could have called it anything, say wuzzlies. The rules would say a first level character should have 5 wuzzlies, a 20th level 10,000 wuzzlies. If a Dancing Weapon is worth 2,000 wuzzlies, then it oughta dang well rock! Dancing item don't.

In summation, an over-inflated magic item's price hurts a charcter by imposing an unfair hit against his/her salary cap. Likewise an underpriced item gives a character an edge over other PC's of a similar level.

Plus, we ain't got anybody in the town who could AFFORD to pay for a +6 weapon (+2 enchantment, +4 Dancing).

Vraille Darkfang

 

[Scion]

Depending on how you wield a weapon it does indeed change how much str bonus you get.

But that has no bearing on the quote.

Str does not target the item. That is all that quote says.

I'll do it again though 'effects that target items'.

strength does not target items.

therefore, strength is not included

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Also, dancing weapons tend to be amongst the most powerful weapons PCs encounter. i.e. they usually aren't +1 scimitars. Many dancing weapons are imbued with intelligence by the GM or also have other nasty abilities like vorpal or are artifacts.

Umm, I don't know whether I'd like to play in your DM's game or not. Dancing's a +4 Modifier. That means it's a minumum of +5 right off the bat. Not a lot of room to pile on stuff to make them the most powerful weapons. Heck a +1 Dancing, Vorpal weapon would be +10 right there (+1 Enchantment, +4 Dancing, +5 Vorpal), for a MP of 200,000 gp. With Dancing being a +4 Modifier Dancing weapons HAVE to be either just +1 or +2, or artifiacts (or Epic Craft Weapons).

My whole deal is figuring out WHY its a +4 Modifier. I'm sure the folks at WotC had a reason why they made it +4. Some killer combo that made the R&D people go "We need to make sure this NEVER, NEVER happens again". I'm just not good enough at power-gaming to find it. That's part of the reason I posted here to get feedback from people who knew how to min/max & justify Dancing as a +4.

Thanks for all the input everybody
Vraille Darkfang

 

[Endur]

comments below.

Umm, I don't know whether I'd like to play in your DM's game or not.

Actually, its not "my DM's game". I'm referring to the fact that if you look at most dancing weapons you encounter in novels (Elric's Stormbringer) or in published modules, you'll see dancing weapons are high end weapons with lots of abilities. It has been this way in D&D for 30 years.

My whole deal is figuring out WHY its a +4 Modifier. I'm sure the folks at WotC had a reason why they made it +4. Some killer combo that made the R&D people go "We need to make sure this NEVER, NEVER happens again". I'm just not good enough at power-gaming to find it. That's part of the reason I posted here to get feedback from people who knew how to min/max & justify Dancing as a +4.

You are missing the point. The bonuses for most weapon abilities are not based off min/maxing and stacking of abilities. They are based on taking one ability and comparing it to another.

Dancing allows you to double your attacks, therefore its a powerful ability compared to speed, flaming, etc.. Regardless of whether you get to stack other abilities. The people who wrote the DMG did not want to have to write rules on pricing that took into account how powerful the PC was and how many stacking abilities he had beyond BAB.

If you don't like these dancing weapon rules, make your own rules. I'm not defending these rules, simply giving some background on why they might be the way they are.

The comment "Market prices is important" are wrong. There will always be magic items in the DMG that some people think are extremely useful and other people think are completely useless. Market price in the DMG simply tells you what a particular NPC magic shop thinks an appropriate price is. That's all. If you don't like it, don't buy it for that price. If you think the item is worth more than that, then don't sell it to the NPC for that price.

Don't get yourself overworked regarding item prices. There is no right or wrong price for an item.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I'm referring to the fact that if you look at most dancing weapons you encounter in novels (Elric's Stormbringer) or in published modules, you'll see dancing weapons are high end weapons with lots of abilities. It has been this way in D&D for 30 years.

Stormbringer's a Dancing Weapon? I've only read some of the stories, but it never Danced in any of them. Neat. Umm, I'eve been playing D&D since 2nd editon came out. The only Dancing Weapon I remember is from the 2nd Ed DMG and is a +1 Scimitar that fights on its own each round & it's "plus" rises each round, +2 2nd rd, +3 3rd rd, +4 4th rd. Then it stops dancing & has to rest for awhile. Of course there might have been a lot of artifacts & stuff that attacked on their own. (I might dig out my old Encyclopedia Magica series & read thru it). Off hand, I can't remeber that many D&D type legends that had Dancing Weapons, Sentient weapons yes, Dancing, no.

Note: I'm not doubting you. I don't have a degree in literature & am not as widely read as I would like to be. I'm chocking this up to my own ignorance.

You are missing the point. The bonuses for most weapon abilities are not based off min/maxing and stacking of abilities. They are based on taking one ability and comparing it to another.

I'm not defending these rules, simply giving some background on why they might be the way they are.

That's just it. I am comparing it to other abilities. I'm saying it doesn't rate with the other +4 and higher abilities. And that's why I posted. I WANT to know why the rules are the way they are. Let's face it, the D&D R&D team know more about the rules than I ever will, they play-test them and get more feedback than I ever will. That's why I don't just want to go silly with my own house rules. I want to know WHY they made it, see if that matches with my Gaming Style & go from there.

The comment "Market prices is important" are wrong. There will always be magic items in the DMG that some people think are extremely useful and other people think are completely useless.

And therein lies my problem. Market Price is important for several reasons.

One: "Well, the Dragon dead. Let's see you get the +2 Dancing Scimitar. Then.... It's worth HOW MUCH. OK, you get this sorta useful weapon. We get everything else." I don't agree with it, but Market Price often influences treasure division after an adventure. I've moved my group away from this a little bit, but Market Price still matters when treasure division is done.

I also don't play in any RPGA events, but I think Market Price might become VERY important in both creating your character & what your character will get in any adventure he plays in.

In effect, I agree with what your saying, but... If my 12th lvl fighter thinks "hey, nice weapon, that attacks on its own thing will come in handy every now & again" But the "gods that control our actions" (the players) go WOW, that item cost a lot. Either sell it or you get no treasure for a few sessions. What am I to do? My character would never think of selling it (largely cause he can't get another one), and, well teh Market Price thing just becomes an metagaming problem. One I'm not use to dealing with.

It is the illusion of value teh DMG Market Price guides lead to that is my true problem here. Not the actual Market Price itself.

Vraille Darkfang

 

[Savage Wombat]

Forgive me if I seem slow, but why are you assuming that the sword doesn't get to attack on the round you loose it? I don't see that explained in the text anywhere.