Exotic weapon

[Nightfall]

Al,

If it makes you feel any better, no one in my games has used War Cleaver. Though I know have a ranger with great sword kurkis from PG: Fighters and Barbarians.

 

[RisnDevil]

Just for reference....what is this weapon supposed to be? And what are the stats on the War Cleaver (I am in Korea for a short while longer but for now can only really find Wizards books....)?

With the other items being unbalanced, that is how almost ALL mechanics are. Wizards may miss/nerf/mess-up alot of things, but in general there creations are balanced with their creations....Just my two cents....

 

[trentonjoe]

Basically as you go from simple>martial>exotic, you get an improvement for each level.

An improvement is an increase in damage, an increase in crit range OR multiplier or a special ability.

If:
"Increasing in size scales up the damage:

Shortsword > Longsword > Greatsword
D6 > D8 > 2D6

Hand Axe > Battle Axe > Greataxe
D6 > D8 > D12"

That is what I was asking.

a 1/4 staff is 1d6/1d6 20x2 and simple
a martial version would then be 1d8/1d8 20 x2
and an exotic version should then be 1d12/1d12 20 x2

right? .

That is only an increase in damage dice.

I was thinking the martial verison could be metal and the exotic version could be a "special" metal.

 

[Spatzimaus]

If:
"Increasing in size scales up the damage:

Shortsword > Longsword > Greatsword
D6 > D8 > 2D6

Hand Axe > Battle Axe > Greataxe
D6 > D8 > D12"

That is what I was asking.

a 1/4 staff is 1d6/1d6 20x2 and simple
a martial version would then be 1d8/1d8 20 x2
and an exotic version should then be 1d12/1d12 20 x2

right? .

No, you're confusing the numbers he gave for "increasing weapon size" with those for "improving to an exotic weapon". The step size isn't the same; you get far more benefit out of a size increase, once you get past Medium.

If a martial weapon does 1d8 damage (like a longsword), the exotic version should do 1d10 damage (like a bastard sword). So, your weapon could be 1d10/1d10 20x2 as an exotic weapon, although even that is questionable, since you're increasing the damage of BOTH heads. Jumping from 1d10 to either 1d12 or 2d6 would require another increase, and you don't have anything left to sacrifice. A Greatsword isn't one step above a longsword, it's two.

Also, using the quarterstaff as your baseline isn't a good idea. It's the exception to the rule in too many ways (as the only non-exotic double weapon), and existed long before the double-weapon rules did. Compare any weapon you come up with to the other double weapons (two-bladed sword, double axe, dire flail, gnome hooked hammer, dwarven urgrosh)

 

[trentonjoe]

So, your weapon could be 1d10/1d10 20x2 as an exotic weapon, although even that is questionable, since you're increasing the damage of BOTH heads.

Also, using the quarterstaff as your baseline isn't a good idea. It's the exception to the rule in too many ways (as the only non-exotic double weapon), and existed long before the double-weapon rules did. Compare any weapon you come up with to the other double weapons (two-bladed sword, double axe, dire flail, gnome hooked hammer, dwarven urgrosh)

Is 1d10/1d10 20 x2 better than 1d8/1d8 19 x2 (double sword)?

 

[CCamfield]

Is 1d10/1d10 20 x2 better than 1d8/1d8 19 x2 (double sword)?

Yes. Each hit will do, on average, 1 point more of damage. It will do fewer criticals, but the difference there is only 5% of attacks.

 

[Jens]

Is 1d10/1d10 20 x2 better than 1d8/1d8 19 x2 (double sword)?

No, each head (and thereby each hit) has a lower chance to crit and each head can therefore be given a higher base damage.

 

[trentonjoe]

No, each head (and thereby each hit) has a lower chance to crit and each head can therefore be given a higher base damage.

My math may be off but when you get close to a +5 damage bonus I think the 1d8 19-20 x2 becmes better.

 

[Geoff Watson]

My math may be off but when you get close to a +5 damage bonus I think the 1d8 19-20 x2 becmes better.

You actually need +17 for the double-sword to be better on average to the double-1d10, and that assumes that everything you fight is vulnerable to criticals.

The double-d10 is overpowered compared to other double weapons. Maybe give it a penalty to hit (-1 would be enough) due to it's excess weight, or something like that.

Geoff.

 

[trentonjoe]

You actually need +17 for the double-sword to be better on average to the double-1d10, and that assumes that everything you fight is vulnerable to criticals.

The double-d10 is overpowered compared to other double weapons. Maybe give it a penalty to hit (-1 would be enough) due to it's excess weight, or something like that.

Geoff.

Ummm yeah, i just redid my math at +17 damage it becomes even. I din't realize how good that was.

Thanks for all the help everyone!