Does this weapon ability sound right?

[Fat Daddy]

you feel its penalising him that he can does +1d4 vs ALL(nearly) monsters while the others do 1d6 vs 2/3 of the monsters.. and actually at higher levels.. they do more like 1d6 vs... 1/8 of the monsters

Well, not when you put it like that. But our encounters typically have involved the silence spell being used against us and that cancels out the Screaming quality. So I think (in our campaign anyway) they are balanced at +1d6 for all of 'em.

 

[KarinsDad]

I thought of that, but fire damage from a flaming sword can't be cancelled by a Silence spell either, sonic damage from a screaming weapon can be.

Arguably, a Flaming Sword cannot be used underwater whereas a Screaming Sword can.


But, the balance point here is that of facing opponents with certain abilities.

Sure, you could face an NPC Bard or Cleric who has a Silence spell. But, would they waste that on a PC with a Screaming Sword, or would they use it on a PC spell caster? Who is more of a threat?

Ditto for Protection From Energy Sonic. If an NPC spell caster has a chance to cast Protection From Energy, how often is it real useful to protect versus Sonic due to one PC with a Screaming Sword compared to the PC spell casters who most likely will not use Sonic damage, but rather Fire or some other form of damage?

Ditto for Monsters. The Screaming Sword always damages the vast majority of Energy Resistent monsters. The Flaming Sword may or may not.


I understand that Silence was added as a defense against the weapon, but this hardly changes the game at all. The vast majority (95%+) set of encounters (in most campaigns unless you are always fighting temple minions), NPCs will either not have (the highest percentage) or bother with a Silence spell for this circumstance. Even if an NPC has the Silence spell, the Screaming Sword should be the least of his worries.

And if a spell caster silences an opponent with a Screaming Sword, the opponent can move up to the spell caster and attack in a Silence field (hence, preventing most of the spell caster's spells). This could easily be more of a hindrance than a help.


The game rules should be consistent. Sonic attacks (almost always) do less damage than Flaming attacks precisely because there are so few defenses against them (btw, Silence protects against all other sonic attacks as well).

Balance-wise and consistency-wise, a Screaming weapon should be +1D4 (just like other Sonic attacks) and it should still be stopped by a Silence spell (just like other Sonic attacks) for +1.

 

[KarinsDad]

But our encounters typically have involved the silence spell being used against us

If the DM uses Silence against your PCs, your silent PCs should move up to the NPC spell casters and even the playing field.

Silence is not the be all end all spell that some people think it is. It is useful, but it is a two bladed sword than can often be used against the caster who cast it.

So, this part of your argument tends to be based on the PCs not reacting properly to NPC actions and is really not that pertinent to the balance issue. IMO.

 

[Nyeshet]

I can't imagine a screaming weapon being used from a ranged ambush, and in fact, I would houserule that using such a weapon would add a +20 to the hide check. Sort of like trying to hide in the dark with a glowing weapon.

BTW, in 3.5e did the rule about 1/3 - 1/2 of all magical items glowing (and all psionic items muttering) go away or is it still in effect. I generally require a Spellcraft check during the crafting of a magic item if the caster does not wish for it to glow (color determined by school of magic, brigthness by intensity of magic).

Getting back to the subject of the thread, sonic weapons are rare - in part due to the inability to use such from hiding or in ambush, and in part because I make them mutter / hum incoherently all the time (in addition to perhaps glowing). Would you want to carry around a weapon that is constantly producing not only torch bright light but also a voice-loud constantly changing shrill sound? Sheathing it only muffles the sound and light: a little can still be heard and seen unless the handle sticking out of the sheath is well covered.

Of course, I treat Thundering weapons as just that: 'thundering'. The sound upon impact is akin to a lightning strike upon the target. The target makes a save verse temporary deafness, while those near get a save based on their distance (5 ft = +5 to save, 10 ft = +10 to save, etc, no save needed at 25+ ft). Its an additional houserule, granted, but I tend to think that rarety and inconvenience should help balance out the sonic issue.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I've always wondered why there was this need to make exceptions for one ability instead of just making more sonic based/immune creatures. Even with a completely insane build, it would only average another 10-12 max points per round at high levels. And that is assuming that all the attacks of a hasted tempest girillion hit.

Consistency wise, ALL +1 damage enhancments should do +1D6, because they all already do, except the one that apperently unbalances the game, just because WoTC didin't have the imagination to make a few more diverse types of monsters.

Should Protection from elements protect 1/3 less damage from sonic to keep the spell balanced next to sonic weapons and the rare sonic creature's attacks? If a PC is going to enchant his weapon with a substandard bonus, he should get something in return...

 

[kreynolds]

BTW, in 3.5e did the rule about 1/3 - 1/2 of all magical items glowing (and all psionic items muttering) go away or is it still in effect.

If I remember correctly, the light generation only applied to melee weapons, but otherwise, yes, it is still there. It is on page 216 of the DMG.

 

[two]

If the DM uses Silence against your PCs, your silent PCs should move up to the NPC spell casters and even the playing field.

Silence is not the be all end all spell that some people think it is. It is useful, but it is a two bladed sword than can often be used against the caster who cast it.

So, this part of your argument tends to be based on the PCs not reacting properly to NPC actions and is really not that pertinent to the balance issue. IMO.

Actually, Silence kinda IS a be-all end-all spell.

A readied silence (to cast when an enemy starts casting his spell) stops 99% of all enemy spellcasting, cold, period, done, finished.

This is obviously a bit batty; a 5th level cohort with a wand of silence stopping every enemy spell except those that are "silent" (metamagic)?

(or lacking vocal components, very very rare)

In our game, while we don't use the silence tactic a lot (because it is very boring), it is nearly always brutally effective. Unless the enemy knows about our tactics in advance, or the GM metagames, there isn't any way to really counter it.

If you don't think silence is extremely powerful, I suspect your PC's are not using/abusing it very much.

(ps using it in this way, casting on a point in space, makes it impossible to "use against the PC" unless you force the PC into the silenced area, which is always nearly impossible)

 

[starwed]

FWIW, there's a psionic enhancement that deals an extra 1d4 force damage for a +1 cost. That's clearly superior to 1d4 sonic damage, but doesn't seem overpowered either.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Also of note is that a screaming weapon would be great for sundering attacks (as would acid weapons).

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, Silence kinda IS a be-all end-all spell.

A readied silence (to cast when an enemy starts casting his spell) stops 99% of all enemy spellcasting, cold, period, done, finished.

This is obviously a bit batty; a 5th level cohort with a wand of silence stopping every enemy spell except those that are "silent" (metamagic)?

(or lacking vocal components, very very rare)

In our game, while we don't use the silence tactic a lot (because it is very boring), it is nearly always brutally effective. Unless the enemy knows about our tactics in advance, or the GM metagames, there isn't any way to really counter it.

If you don't think silence is extremely powerful, I suspect your PC's are not using/abusing it very much.

(ps using it in this way, casting on a point in space, makes it impossible to "use against the PC" unless you force the PC into the silenced area, which is always nearly impossible)

What you say is true. For one round.

Then, the enemy gangs up on the cohort with the Wand.

Plus, this usually affects only one spell caster. In our group, we have 5 (3 PCs, 2 NPC cohorts) spellcasters out of 6 characters in the party (and one of them is a Psion/Wizard/Cerebremancer, so it would only work against his arcane spells).

So sure, this tactic would typically stop one PC (or NPC) from casting one spell. If you have more than one spell caster in a group (PCs or NPCs), the rest would move out of the Silence on a point in space unless this is done in a fairly cramped area. They could also retreat to a more open area or try other tactics.

Tactics go both ways. Silence is typically a great surprise spell to auto-dispel a single spell. But, it typically does not do much more than that.

And the problem with readying a Silence is that same problem as readying a counterspell: a) you may have to declare your target (DM dependent DMG page 25) and b) if you are counterspelling / silencing, you are not doing anything else productive, and c) if you ready to do this once, you typically will not get a second one to work too often, at least if the opposing spell casters are smart.


Btw, there are other spells which are nearly as good at auto-dispel and much better at preventing counter tactics such as Web (entangled and blocks line of effect) and Stinking Cloud (nauseated and blocks line of sight). Readying these will often do a lot more than readying a Silence spell.

Silence is nice as a one round surprise, but Web and Stinking Cloud are often better, especially as multi-round prevent or minimizing spell casting spells (and battlefield control as well).