Is this weapon ability too powerful?

[Ahnehnois]

This ability could get really overpowered in a high-level or high-magic game. 5 points of SR is a 25% swing on the SR check if the CL check and SR were in the same ballpark, and it could be a lot more than 5 SR per round. It would be fine if it allowed a save to negate the SR loss or something. Also note that there's no rules precedent for restoring lost SR before the 24-hour period. Ouch.

 

[two]

Work with me here

two, I disagree.The chance to turn an extremely difficult boss fight into a two-round encounter is so powerful, the opportunity cost and lengthened "mook fights" are totally insignificant. Remember that dealing with the mooks is seldom life-threatening; it may use up resources, but barring awful planning or unusual dice rolls, it doesn't actually cause PC deaths. (That's why it's just a mook fight, not the boss battle.)

Comparing this to ten uses of shapechange is a little misleading, because over-level scrolls are very strong to begin with, and if any 9th-level spell is overpowered it's shapechange. But even putting that aside, the scrolls are only a short-term benefit: they're usable in at most 10 encounters. That's if you succeed on every level check, no one ever targets you with a dispel magic, et cetera. After those ten fights, you're out of luck.

The EMC longbow is good for the rest of your career-- which could easily be a hundred encounters or more-- and it's usable in every single fight. Wielded by a fighter, it's worth three stackable Greater Spell Penetration feats for each spellcaster in the party, and all it costs is money (not feat slots). As soon as the party can afford one such weapon, SR just disappears as a significant factor in the game, which makes this clearly too strong for a +3 enhancement.

Ok work with me here. Because the more I think about it, the more balanced it seems. I don't mean "mook" as in "an easy fight" I simply mean, not the BBEG. PC's die in non-boss fights too, you know.

I'm on record as stating I think it's a bad idea to let this be applied to ranged weapon or ammo. 10 arrows of this would be too useful for the price. That said --

Is it balanced applied to a melee weapon?

Work with me. Tell me where my reasoning fails, because I think it's pretty straightforward.

Assumption 1: An EMC weapon is too expensive to keep in a golfbag exclusively for boss fights, at levels 15 and below. Levels above 15 are dealt with seperately.

Assumption2: An EMC weapon if owned will be used as a primary melee weapon (particularly since, barring player knowledge of monsters, most PC's won't be able to tell if a monster has SR or not).

Assumption3: An EMC weapon will be of the +1 EMC variety. It's far too expensive to buy a +5 weapon equivalent at levels below 15.

Assumption4: Most monsters with SR have damage reduction. A +1 EMC weapon will not get through alignment DR. Thus this requires an action on the part of the cleric to "align" the weapon pre-fight or, more likely, the +1 EMC weapon will be used as is.

Assumption5: A typical configuration for a +4 weapon that might be bought instead of the +1 EMC would be +1 Holy and X, where X is Fire, Sonic, Bane, Wounding, whatever. Holy grants the weapon the all-useful good alignment.

Assumption6: Most high SR monsters are evil. In fact, 95% of them are, and nearly all have DR/good or DR/good + X. Only major exception: DRAGONS (see below for special note on dragons) which have DR X/Magic.

Now, once these assumptions are accepted as reasonably typical, there are a lot of interesting results.

The +1 EMC weapon is really hurting against anything with DR. How is the +1 EMC used to get past DR 10/good? Have the cleric12 waste an action before every battle? The net result here is the +1 EMC fighter doing 10 or 15 less damage per hit due to DR, which if it is not penetrated would not trigger the SR drop (correct?)? If the Cleric does decide to align the weapon before each battle, more power to him. It's not worth having your cleric spending an action to achieve this, particularly as the levels go up.

As a result only of the DR penetration difficulties, the +1 Holy Wounding weapon, for example, if going to do significantly greater damage per hit, something on the order of 20 or 25 more per hit, depending on DR and other factors.

So the loss in damage/actions is significant (an action being getting the +1 EMC weapon aligned).

Add to this the following:

1) An EMC weapon is most useful at lower levels, when even SR15 is a hindrance. However, it's not affordable until levels 8-10, at which point SR15 monsters are not much of an issue.

2) At level 10, when a fighter might have an +1 EMC weapon, typical monster SR's are 15-20 (Hezrou is SR19, CR11, DR 10/good). It's not unlikely that wizards will penetrate "tough monster" SR's without any help, but they might fail. EMC slightly useful.

3) At levels 13+, SR seems to jump much more rapily than PC levels, and a +1 EMC weapon would be useful in lowering moster SR's to auto hit levels.

Now, what sorts of battles will make an EMC weapon shine?

Well, 90% of monsters have negligable or no SR at levels below 15. So EMC does nothing special in these cases.

When up against 5 (a small group) of moderate SR monsters, an EMC weapon helps lower the SR of one to nil. Perhaps two, but this is iffy. Useful, but possibly not as efficient as simply killing the SR monsers quickly with a better weapon. Depends.

1 high SR monster and 2 NPC monster pals. If the melee guy can get to the high SR monster fast, and the spellcasters can cast spells on it that they usually would not, very useful. Assumes the other monsters are not in the way/hurting the casters, etc. Could be a factor, or not.

1 solitary high SR monster.
EMC is great. Throw it at the monster, then the spellcasters pound.

Noteworthy here is Dragons. It seems to me that an EMC weapon is not particularly stellar vs. demons, devils, undead, creepy crawly things with DR/good, etc.

But it would be great against a dragon. One full round, drop that SR by 15, and boom...that's a big help.

Or is it?

Getting a full attack on a dragon is, well, asking for it. Lowering the dragon's SR does not, after all, do any real damage...it allows damage (possibly) to be done. Aren't there lots of spells that don't allow SR anyway? Doesn't a dragon have great saves even if SR is penetrated? Is this really a dragon killer? It's certainly an enabler...

To sum, at levels 15 and below, the EMC weapon does a lot less damage, has trouble penetrating alignment, and may never really "shine" unless the GM throws a lot of single high-DR foes at you. (which are rare/non-existant at levels below 10).

So, what about high levels?

By level 17, a wizard can get past uber SR if needed via no-SR spells, or the all-powerful Shapechange. The higher you go,the more options are available. Frankly, if you don't want to roll a SR check as a high level wizard/socerer, you don't have to -- and will still have excellent combat options. You won't be able to do your standard schtick, but...too bad. On those rare occasions when you find yourself confronted by a dragon, turn into a Beholder or something.

Epic? I don't know. I assume SR gets crazy high... but wizards can create no-SR spells...and cast more of them...Is this such a big deal?

Can't a party kill a high-SR monster anyway just be altering their spell selection a little?

(for the 1 combat in 50 when such a situation rears its head?)

 

[daTim]

^^^ Good analysis.

I like the idea of the weapon, but I might alter it if I was going to allow it IMC, to something along the lines of what I have below. Like the person above said, it is too good and spells a virtual death sentance for high level boses or monsters who rely on their SR to extend their life by several rounds. It is also too pricey for anyone to take it below level 14 or 15, which is where most campaigns take place. As I have altered it, it is cheap enough to be taken actually, but only come into play at dramatic moments. "Launch all spells now, the shields are down!" But you would have to capitalize it quickly.

Magic Rending (Not sure on the name, I dont like the one Monte provided)
+1 bonus. With each sucessful critical hit, you temporarly drain 1d8 SR from the target. This SR returns at one point per round until fully restored.

 

[AuraSeer]

Your assumptions are strongly biased toward your own side.

Putting the enhancement on a melee weapon is clearly suboptimal. Stick it on a bow instead (as I already suggested) and you can knock down the SR of any monster, even a dragon, from well outside its full attack range. Mook blockers won't help.

Assuming that the weapon will never penetrate DR is not warranted. Every 3.5 party with any sense will have at least one wand of align weapon, and some backup weapons for getting through material DR. If you force the fighter to wield only this weapon even when he'd be better off using his backup nonmagical silver one, you're forcing him to be stupid, so of course he's going to lose effectiveness.

Talking about non-SR spells is a red herring. All the save-or-lose spells allow SR. A non-SR damage spell will be either less effective, or one or two levels higher, than its SR-allowing equivalent.

You've got nothing supporting your conclusions here. Unless you can come up with some evidence you're not likely to convince anyone.

 

[two]

Your assumptions are strongly biased toward your own side.

Putting the enhancement on a melee weapon is clearly suboptimal. Stick it on a bow instead (as I already suggested) and you can knock down the SR of any monster, even a dragon, from well outside its full attack range. Mook blockers won't help.

Assuming that the weapon will never penetrate DR is not warranted. Every 3.5 party with any sense will have at least one wand of align weapon, and some backup weapons for getting through material DR. If you force the fighter to wield only this weapon even when he'd be better off using his backup nonmagical silver one, you're forcing him to be stupid, so of course he's going to lose effectiveness.

Talking about non-SR spells is a red herring. All the save-or-lose spells allow SR. A non-SR damage spell will be either less effective, or one or two levels higher, than its SR-allowing equivalent.

You've got nothing supporting your conclusions here. Unless you can come up with some evidence you're not likely to convince anyone.

I don't really have a case, a cause or a bee in my bonnet. I'm honestly interested.

We both agree allowing this on a bow or worse yet, arrows, is probably not the best thing. OK. Done.

I was looking at the effect of this ability if it was restricted to melee weapons (surely that's allowed, no?).

Question: is it balanced when placed on melee weapons?

My answer: yes.

Your objections: Use a wand of "align weapon." As I said, I think this is a pretty sub-optimal solution, given it requires a cleric or whatever to run over to the fighter, if in range, touch the weapon, align it, and then let the fighter run over and attack. That's using a very valuable cleric to cast a 2nd level spell, instead of X, Y, or Z. That's very suboptimal, and if you have to do that to make this enchantment work, it helps to balance it out.

I'm mostly talking about penetrating "good." Obviously you can have all kinds of backup silver, adamantine, etc. weapon, and not be stupid about it. But the fact is, nearly all high SR monsters have DR good/X, except dragons.

The weapon enchantment is too expensive to be used at levels <15, really, for the benefits, and (to repeat) once a wizard or druid gets shapechange, just do that stuff instead of casting a "defeat SR first" spell. Or other no-SR spells.

Yes, you can use save-or-die SR spells if the dragon has its SR dropped. At the levels we are talking about, I'm honestly not worried about the dragon so much as the poor fighter who has to wade into combat and survive a round to do a full attack the following round.

? If a spell can be brutal that does not allow SR, why not just use that against high SR foes? Doesn't the presence of these spells simply make the Sr-lowering weapon "yet another way to do the same thing?" Hey joe, bash that dragon a few times until you drop it's SR, if you survive. I want to try this "KILL HIM NOW" spell. Eh, forget it. I'll just Shapechange, you probably will survive that better anyhow.

I honestly thought I had a pretty good analysis of when such a weapon would be effective, and it's not very often, thus making me rule it "balanced" or at least not "broken."

Why don't you, instead of simply saying I don't have an argument, explain how this weapon enchantment would make a, for example, party <15 cakewalk over a foe that overwise would be incredibly tough? Or heck, even one >15.

To repeat, I won't be mad if you change my mind at all. I am asking you to do it, but I can't change my mind if you don't offer anythnig.

 

[niastri]

Sounds too powerful in a high level game as written to me.

Perhaps make the weapon beat the SR of the targeted enemy before the reduction in SR?

So a 15th level caster making the weapon would still effect a 25 SR monster, but only half the time. Then it is easier on the second hit, and so on...

Reduces the power of the ability where it would be playable at +3

Alternatively, have it only reduce SR on one strike per round, thus slowly wearing the baddie down instead of crushin him immediately.

 

[Shallown]

I had players in my game specifically buy one for a character due to the number of demons/devils they fought. In the Campaign they were the main bad guy so it did over balance things a little towards the good guys. At higher levels though the number of SR things increase significantly. I would probable allow it in my game but limit to working once per round.

5 SR is a lot in my experience. It seemed mostthe time spell slingers had a 50/50 chance of getting past SR with one wack thsi changed it to a 75% chance of penetrating. For most fighter types your going to get one solid hit a round so it is more or less automatic.

Also if there are fighters who aren't damage machines losing a little damage is no big deal. My players gave the weapon to the eleven bladesinger who could hit and was hard as heck to hit but he didn't do damage like the charge specialized dwarven greataxe weilder. So it depends on campaign and PCs.

later

 

[Nail]

Let's just say the enchantment is "out of balance", rather than "too powerful". Sure, the DM can compensate. But: does he want to?

It would be okay as a +1 or +2 power, that did substantially less "SR damage" per attack. -1 SR per hit sounds pretty good to me. Given CR appropriate encounters, that means each hit increases the wizard's chance by 5%.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's my position as well, I think. It's not that it's too powerful for the +3 enhancement, but rather that it does something that shouldn't be done. It changes the game too much at once.

I think Nail's proposed version is a lot better--not because it's weaker but because it changes the game less.

Let's just say the enchantment is "out of balance", rather than "too powerful". Sure, the DM can compensate. But: does he want to?

It would be okay as a +1 or +2 power, that did substantially less "SR damage" per attack. -1 SR per hit sounds pretty good to me. Given CR appropriate encounters, that means each hit increases the wizard's chance by 5%.

 

[Anabstercorian]

What if the only person who benefitted from the decrease in SR was the person wielding the weapon, so that only an Eldritch Knight could use it most effectively?