Creamsteak
Explorer
It is just game style, but at most tables I've played at a character can't just trade 20 magic longswords to have a weapon enhanced.
D&D 3E/3.5 Is the spiked chain too good? (3.5)
- Thread starter lifebane
- Start date
Beard in the Sky said:
Where ever. Either your characters are going to be way behind in the equivalent gear department, you are going to drop in specific items to help them out (but apparently not players who you dont like, like the mecurial sword guy), or they are going to have to find a way to trade things that are worthless for them for things that they can actually use.
If the only magical weapons I ever find are magical daggers, but I want to use two handed weapons and I am getting frustrated I will ask the dm what is up. Rarity is not a good balancing factor in d&d.
The game 'does' assume that the characters will be able to get useful gear to them. Otherwise the dm will have to adjust encounters accordingly to people who are weaker than they otherwise should be.
There are lots of ways to fix this (currently I am working on something that can transfer the magical 'worth' around.. possibly via gems and such, but that is beside the point, it is just a way to fix the problem).
For those who have pc's who can never get anything useful to them I would have to ask the dm, 'why?'. Just like your question above. Both are just as nonsensical in their own ways. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun, if a guy spends lots of feats and goes through the effort to do something then it should be possible, unless there is a really good reason to not allow it. So far as I can tell there is no reason to disallow it. Why not allow it then? the character jumped his hoops, throw them a bone.
Last edited:
Creamsteak
Explorer
If you play with the belief that the world is static, and the characters are interacting with the world (not that the world is created around the characters):
More martial weapons are created than exotic weapons by craftsmen.
More normal weapons are created than masterwork weapons.
More masterwork weapons are created than +1 weapons.
More +1 than +2, etc.
Therefore, you are less likely to "find" a magical +x exotic weapon.
Exotic weapon proficiencies require feats, most of the time.
Characters and creatures are less likely to use a weapon they lack proficiency with.
Most players do not kill everything they see.
Most players do not kill and rob everything they see.
The chances that a given party will kill and rob a character or creature using an exotic weapon is less than the chances that a given party will encounter, kill, and rob a creature using a martial weapon.
NPCs wealth accelerates much more slowly than PC wealth.
NPCs can only trade for items they can afford.
NPCs will only buy items they actually have an interest in.
Items cost grows with the level of PCs, as part of their wealth.
Selling a more expensive item is more difficult than selling a cheaper item.
Not every caster takes "craft magical arms and armor."
Not every caster is of the level necessary to craft a +x item.
Not every caster is willing to spend experience and the time necessary to craft a +x item.
It is more difficult to find a caster to upgrade an item to a higher level, exponentially.
_________
Because of this, a character that insists on being a 1 trick fighter with an exotic weapon (like a spiked chain) is going to have a more difficult time keeping upgrading said weapon. However, in 3.5 you really only need one spiked chain (preferrably a magical one made of a special material).
The character is not rendered less effective by their choices. However, they benefit more from some degree of diversity in their equipment. Most players hope to always have their best weapon be their weapon focus, but this isn't always possible. They can still work on their armor and other types of equipment.
Now, an exotic weapon specialist is not "behind in the equivalent gear department." They are not behind in any way with 3.5, since having a higher enhancement bonus is not an assumed quality of a high level character. They just might find the +4 greatsword and use it when necessity demands.
More martial weapons are created than exotic weapons by craftsmen.
More normal weapons are created than masterwork weapons.
More masterwork weapons are created than +1 weapons.
More +1 than +2, etc.
Therefore, you are less likely to "find" a magical +x exotic weapon.
Exotic weapon proficiencies require feats, most of the time.
Characters and creatures are less likely to use a weapon they lack proficiency with.
Most players do not kill everything they see.
Most players do not kill and rob everything they see.
The chances that a given party will kill and rob a character or creature using an exotic weapon is less than the chances that a given party will encounter, kill, and rob a creature using a martial weapon.
NPCs wealth accelerates much more slowly than PC wealth.
NPCs can only trade for items they can afford.
NPCs will only buy items they actually have an interest in.
Items cost grows with the level of PCs, as part of their wealth.
Selling a more expensive item is more difficult than selling a cheaper item.
Not every caster takes "craft magical arms and armor."
Not every caster is of the level necessary to craft a +x item.
Not every caster is willing to spend experience and the time necessary to craft a +x item.
It is more difficult to find a caster to upgrade an item to a higher level, exponentially.
_________
Because of this, a character that insists on being a 1 trick fighter with an exotic weapon (like a spiked chain) is going to have a more difficult time keeping upgrading said weapon. However, in 3.5 you really only need one spiked chain (preferrably a magical one made of a special material).
The character is not rendered less effective by their choices. However, they benefit more from some degree of diversity in their equipment. Most players hope to always have their best weapon be their weapon focus, but this isn't always possible. They can still work on their armor and other types of equipment.
Now, an exotic weapon specialist is not "behind in the equivalent gear department." They are not behind in any way with 3.5, since having a higher enhancement bonus is not an assumed quality of a high level character. They just might find the +4 greatsword and use it when necessity demands.
Beard in the Sky
First Post
Scion said:
If a character has a rarely used weapon, then they can pay to have it upgraded. This is not my opinion; I follow the DMG 100%. If they happen to find a more commonly used weapon and that is the weapon they use, then they can choose to use that. My point is that a player who takes Weapon Focus at 1st level in Spiked Chain and then Specialization as soon as he can, is taking a risk... one that can pay off if the player is willing to pay the cost. I don't drop in specific items for anyone, I give NPCs weapons that make sense for them, not for the PCs. As for trading, you can trade a +2 longsword to anyone who wants one that can also cast the spells needed to upgrade a weapon; I just don't see that there are that many of those, particularly since they expend their own XP to upgrade your weapon.
And where exactly did I say that I didn't like the "mecurial sword guy"? He happens to be one of my best friends... I don't really appreciate you insinuating who I like and don't like... I am trying to make a point about the game, not about the people with whom I play. You try to do the same.
Nothing directly insulting about it. The game assumes that you can get something that is useful, otherwise the character is behind. Things then have to be adjusted (namely exp gain)
Easy.
Rarity does not effect usefulness. If it did then the exotic weapons would have to be way better than they are right now.
As for the 'insulting part' though, the player made a choice for his character and it sounded like the dm went out of his way to make sure it wouldnt be useful rather than going out of his way to help the player have more fun ::shrugs:: to each their own of course, but it sounds like he was just punished on a whim. With the proper errata for the mecurial greatsword there is nothing wrong with a character having one. There shouldnt be any reason he couldnt find a way to get one as he wanted. frustration is bad, especially pointless frustration.
And creamsteak, while all that you say is well and good, it is still incredibly campaign dependent. Perhaps, in someones campaign, there is a whole race of people who only use a certain type of exotic weapon. Then it should be that in those sorts of regions it would be easy to get. ::shrugs::
Along with the fact that, if you have 200 magic daggers and nothing else then anyone who wants to use a weapon that isnt a dagger will be at a disadvantage. Better be ready to have some upset players (just going by the guidelines you stated, wizards cant use longswords most of the time so they would be more likely to make daggers and staves than anything else. If things can be comissioned then none of what was stated matters. Take your pick)
Easy.
Rarity does not effect usefulness. If it did then the exotic weapons would have to be way better than they are right now.
As for the 'insulting part' though, the player made a choice for his character and it sounded like the dm went out of his way to make sure it wouldnt be useful rather than going out of his way to help the player have more fun ::shrugs:: to each their own of course, but it sounds like he was just punished on a whim. With the proper errata for the mecurial greatsword there is nothing wrong with a character having one. There shouldnt be any reason he couldnt find a way to get one as he wanted. frustration is bad, especially pointless frustration.
And creamsteak, while all that you say is well and good, it is still incredibly campaign dependent. Perhaps, in someones campaign, there is a whole race of people who only use a certain type of exotic weapon. Then it should be that in those sorts of regions it would be easy to get. ::shrugs::
Along with the fact that, if you have 200 magic daggers and nothing else then anyone who wants to use a weapon that isnt a dagger will be at a disadvantage. Better be ready to have some upset players (just going by the guidelines you stated, wizards cant use longswords most of the time so they would be more likely to make daggers and staves than anything else. If things can be comissioned then none of what was stated matters. Take your pick)
none of this really matters though, rarity shouldnt be, and generally isnt, used to balance something.
Is spiked chain too powerful? nah. In a lot of ways it is too weak, but it definately has some strengths. It has a huge cost to use, and you get the benefit that you are going for.
Most characters wouldnt use it for several reasons, not the least of which is the feat cost.
But so far it seems that people either think it is broken (for things like reach, which is easily duplicated without spending a feat) or for the feats that can be used through it (which could be used through other weapons as well, so that seems like a wash).
Anything else though seems to be campaign specific concerns which shouldnt enter into it either (such as the, no such thing as buying/selling magic items, which is fine as a campaign way to go, but it does present certain difficulties which must be overcome).
So overall it definately seems to be ok. Compare it to other weapons and it comes out fairly equal.
Is spiked chain too powerful? nah. In a lot of ways it is too weak, but it definately has some strengths. It has a huge cost to use, and you get the benefit that you are going for.
Most characters wouldnt use it for several reasons, not the least of which is the feat cost.
But so far it seems that people either think it is broken (for things like reach, which is easily duplicated without spending a feat) or for the feats that can be used through it (which could be used through other weapons as well, so that seems like a wash).
Anything else though seems to be campaign specific concerns which shouldnt enter into it either (such as the, no such thing as buying/selling magic items, which is fine as a campaign way to go, but it does present certain difficulties which must be overcome).
So overall it definately seems to be ok. Compare it to other weapons and it comes out fairly equal.
Creamsteak
Explorer
Scion said:
Yep, that's true. And also certain exotics are martials in certain circumstances. This does go into the consideration of an item's "rarity." But when there is no exception, then the standards remain. So dwarves make dwarf weapons, and elves have more bows and swords. If you give lizardfolk weapon familiarity with spiked chains, then they are more likely to use spiked chains. This is all obvious stuff.
Rarity is not part of "balance" as you give it. However, the above stated that sometimes circumstances make it easier to be a sword and board character. This isn't mechanical balance, this is just something that players have to consider.
My statements did not state that wizards only make weapons for themselves. However, I did state that an exotic weapon is less likely to be commissioned than a martial weapon. A +5 weapon is less likely to be commissioned than a +1 weapon. So a wizard is less likely to have previously commissioned a +3 spiked chain, and that means that there are less in most circumstances. This doesn't say anything about whether or not someone CAN have one commisioned, or whether or not someone does have one at a given location.
Last edited:
Beard in the Sky
First Post
The DM should never "go out of his way"; that is my whole point... that is not his job. You can make all kind of "in certain sorts of campaign" sorts of statements, but I think everyone understands we are speaking of the core game as it should be assumed by the core books. Creamsteak made my argument so completely that I really have nothing else to add.
As for the other; you are implying (actually more than implying) that I "punished" the player "on a whim"...yes it is insulting. Why? Because you have NO IDEA what went on and you are filling in 99 of the 100 blanks left in the story with suppositions. At any rate, I was running the Adventure Path modules and I ran them (at least in regards to equipment) right out of the books, so I guess you could argue that Bruce Cordell and Skip Williams don't like my friend either. DMs are under no obligation to see that every choice a player makes feat-wise or otherwise is a good choice. By that logic, why even HAVE a choice. Why is Weapon Focus optional if there is no gamble involved in taking it... every fighter uses a weapon, why would some fighters choose NOT to focus in a particular weapon? Most would take weapon focus AFTER they found a weapon of appropriate power to justify it.
As for the other; you are implying (actually more than implying) that I "punished" the player "on a whim"...yes it is insulting. Why? Because you have NO IDEA what went on and you are filling in 99 of the 100 blanks left in the story with suppositions. At any rate, I was running the Adventure Path modules and I ran them (at least in regards to equipment) right out of the books, so I guess you could argue that Bruce Cordell and Skip Williams don't like my friend either. DMs are under no obligation to see that every choice a player makes feat-wise or otherwise is a good choice. By that logic, why even HAVE a choice. Why is Weapon Focus optional if there is no gamble involved in taking it... every fighter uses a weapon, why would some fighters choose NOT to focus in a particular weapon? Most would take weapon focus AFTER they found a weapon of appropriate power to justify it.
Beard in the Sky
First Post
Scion said:
As I stated in my original post, the only reason he chose to quit using it was because he didn't want to pay the gold required (as per the DMG) to upgrade it. So you are correct, there was no reason he couldn't have found a way to get one as he wanted, except that he wanted it giftwrapped.
Similar Threads
