Energy Enhancements are too good at +1 (math)
- Thread starter The Souljourner
- Start date
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Yes, the energy is slightly better for most combatants. But not enough to do anything about it.
There are still compelling reasons for some fighters to not take the energy weapon. Besides those reasons already mentioned, lance attacks, Spirited Charge, high crit multipliers, Sundering, or being adverse to missing entirely.
That last item is not a small thing. Average damage per round is not to be neglected but it is only scratching the surface when it comes to tactical effectiveness. Reducing the significance of luck tends to favor PC survival, as the DMG suggested. PCs in the hands of savvy players do not usually die because their average damage is too low; they die because the dice are giving them way below average damage output.
There are still compelling reasons for some fighters to not take the energy weapon. Besides those reasons already mentioned, lance attacks, Spirited Charge, high crit multipliers, Sundering, or being adverse to missing entirely.
That last item is not a small thing. Average damage per round is not to be neglected but it is only scratching the surface when it comes to tactical effectiveness. Reducing the significance of luck tends to favor PC survival, as the DMG suggested. PCs in the hands of savvy players do not usually die because their average damage is too low; they die because the dice are giving them way below average damage output.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Not at all, I consider it in character & I even expect a higher level fighter to know his optimal fighting skill. The real question is 'does it slow down play?' Only if that is the case would I stop such behaviour; excessively slow combat can invoke the veto even if it is a legitimate practice under my dming style.Nail said:I imagine if I was a player of yours, you'd stop this storta thing in a hurry.
I have optimal Power Attack tables for all our party's fighters. Telling me the AC would end our fights quicker.....in our favor, obviously.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Back on topic...
The loss of the extra +1 may be considered too much for a character built around sundering, disarming and the contested d20 rolls.
The loss of the extra +1 may be considered too much for a character built around sundering, disarming and the contested d20 rolls.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I suspect that this depends very much on the campaign.
I know my Living Greyhawk character has an ghost touch undead bane sword and he has a chance to use the bane maybe once every three modules. Evil Outsider bane wouldn't work much better for him.
I know a number of archer characters who are looking for a chance to get an elemental bane bow as well--in that case, it's not the frequency of fighting elementals that makes the enhancement attractive, but rather, the difficulty of damaging elementals otherwise. (Since they're not subject to crits, sneak attacks, or holy damage, frequently (50%) resist fire damage, and have DR 5/- or 10/- which cuts down the archer's normal damage quite dramatically).
However, for characters who just want to use one weapon and power attack more when they run into DR, bane weapons are not a very good choice (since they push up the cost of holy, wounding, and all the other enhancements characters tend to want on their weapons).
At +1, bane weapons are a cool enhancement to have around if you're the kind of character who carries more than one weapon. (About the only ones I can see being generally unbalancing is human-bane and Complete Arcane's Mage-bane property).
I know my Living Greyhawk character has an ghost touch undead bane sword and he has a chance to use the bane maybe once every three modules. Evil Outsider bane wouldn't work much better for him.
I know a number of archer characters who are looking for a chance to get an elemental bane bow as well--in that case, it's not the frequency of fighting elementals that makes the enhancement attractive, but rather, the difficulty of damaging elementals otherwise. (Since they're not subject to crits, sneak attacks, or holy damage, frequently (50%) resist fire damage, and have DR 5/- or 10/- which cuts down the archer's normal damage quite dramatically).
However, for characters who just want to use one weapon and power attack more when they run into DR, bane weapons are not a very good choice (since they push up the cost of holy, wounding, and all the other enhancements characters tend to want on their weapons).
At +1, bane weapons are a cool enhancement to have around if you're the kind of character who carries more than one weapon. (About the only ones I can see being generally unbalancing is human-bane and Complete Arcane's Mage-bane property).
Nail said:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Goolpsy said:
I figure they would. After all, if you had a bane evil outsiders and bane chaotic outsiders sword, it would get one bonus against devils or yugoloths, and one bonus against slaads; I don't see why it shouldn't get two bonusses against demons. In fact, to my mind, it seems cool that you could have a +4 holy, axiomatic, evil outsider bane, chaotic outsider bane cold iron sword that would be +8 and deal +8d6 damage against demons. That's the kind of sword you could build a campaign around. (And, as a +10 weapon, appropriately so). Demons would probably fear it more than a lot of epic weapons, but against other foes it might be good but it wouldn't be as dramatically effective. In fact, it seems to me that that's the kind of thing the bane enhancement is for.
