D&D (2024) Is Vicious the new Bloodclaw?

[Zardnaar]

I mean, I don't think that's the case at all.

It is still possible for spellcasters to be in general more powerful than martials...and for a thing that only really works for martial characters to be noticeably out of line.

Notice I've been bangingbon about this for a bit.

Spellcasers don't suck but the meta is have them teamwork with the martials.

You probably won't have twin Vicious weapons at level 6. By 12 it is possible depending on how the DM does things.

It's also wh I thought CME wasn't that bad until level 11 or 13 and that was theoretical.

Think only two of us here have seen Vicious weaponsvin action. ECOM3 was the first to abuse them. I'm using them to buff the weak options eg 2014 characters in 5.5 or weak 5.5 option eg sword and board champion has one (trident).

Power build woukd be something like a twin weapon EK, ranger or a GWM build probably topple or cleave.

Think a few enworld DMs were tight with magic weapons or whatever and bought into the nartials suck narrative.

Before current game they woukd probably have a rare item level 5ish and a legendary might drop around 7. Probably not a good one.

WotC adventures were handing out very rare and legendary items level 7-10. Flametongue spear big deal two handed weapon or bow in 5.0 was a problem.

Letting PCs buy specific items was a mistake in 3E and 4E. There's always going to be combos and something that's the best espicially with feats.

Power builds essentially encourages the DM to call the campaign sooner imho.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Vicious was in 3.5. Originated there. Even made it into the minis game.

Okay. I wasn't really talking about where Vicious originated. I was simply saying that Vicious, in 5e, is quite powerful and possibly out of line with the rest of the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Spellcasers don't suck but the meta is have them teamwork with the martials.

No. The designers' intent is that the spellcasters will act as team players and make the martial characters more effective, or take actions which contribute to the martial characters succeeding more. That's not what "the meta" means. "The meta" is what actual gamers have discovered as "these paths lead to great power", more or less; it is the in-practice stuff, not the theoretical ideal the designers are hoping for.

The problem, as with 3rd edition, is that the actual mathematical incentives, the things the game actually rewards with greater performance, do not actually jive with this "teamwork with the martials" description. Or, in simpler terms, the practical players looking at what the game itself actually rewards aren't going to just go along with doing what the designers intended. Some may, out of reasons other than (gameplay) practicality--but it's kinda bad to be, in effect, punishing those who put the joy and participation of their friends ahead of their own personal ability to contribute to the team's success.

Now, I will absolutely, 100% agree that the incentive structure is better than 3rd edition's incentive structure. But that's damning with faint praise, because 3rd edition's incentive structure was so utterly, horrifically, monstrously broken, it required either willful defiance on the casters' part (actively and intentionally choosing to be significantly less helpful than you could be to the team's collective efforts), or utter ignorance of the system itself and what its math does.

5e is not that bad. It doesn't require ignorance, whether blind or willful. But it doesn't take a lot of examination to see that spellcasting is significantly more optimal in a large number of situations, outside of relatively canned examples like a large, dispersed enemy force on a flat plane (meaning, AoE spells are ineffective). Save-or-suck is a lot weaker in 5e than it was in 3e, and save-or-die is quite rare now for both PCs and NPCs alike, but that hasn't totally removed spellcasting's significant edge, it's just not the literally nigh-infinite power that you could pull off in 3e anymore. But "not so bad that some classes can become nigh-infinitely powerful" is, again, damning with faint praise. It's not enough to merely be, to some degree, better than the supremely awful balance of 3e. A dish someone justifies its cooking quality (or lack thereof) by saying "it's better than starving to death" may be accurately described, and still have some pretty serious issues!

 

[Zardnaar]

No. The designers' intent is that the spellcasters will act as team players and make the martial characters more effective, or take actions which contribute to the martial characters succeeding more. That's not what "the meta" means. "The meta" is what actual gamers have discovered as "these paths lead to great power", more or less; it is the in-practice stuff, not the theoretical ideal the designers are hoping for.

The problem, as with 3rd edition, is that the actual mathematical incentives, the things the game actually rewards with greater performance, do not actually jive with this "teamwork with the martials" description. Or, in simpler terms, the practical players looking at what the game itself actually rewards aren't going to just go along with doing what the designers intended. Some may, out of reasons other than (gameplay) practicality--but it's kinda bad to be, in effect, punishing those who put the joy and participation of their friends ahead of their own personal ability to contribute to the team's success.

Now, I will absolutely, 100% agree that the incentive structure is better than 3rd edition's incentive structure. But that's damning with faint praise, because 3rd edition's incentive structure was so utterly, horrifically, monstrously broken, it required either willful defiance on the casters' part (actively and intentionally choosing to be significantly less helpful than you could be to the team's collective efforts), or utter ignorance of the system itself and what its math does.

5e is not that bad. It doesn't require ignorance, whether blind or willful. But it doesn't take a lot of examination to see that spellcasting is significantly more optimal in a large number of situations, outside of relatively canned examples like a large, dispersed enemy force on a flat plane (meaning, AoE spells are ineffective). Save-or-suck is a lot weaker in 5e than it was in 3e, and save-or-die is quite rare now for both PCs and NPCs alike, but that hasn't totally removed spellcasting's significant edge, it's just not the literally nigh-infinite power that you could pull off in 3e anymore. But "not so bad that some classes can become nigh-infinitely powerful" is, again, damning with faint praise. It's not enough to merely be, to some degree, better than the supremely awful balance of 3e. A dish someone justifies its cooking quality (or lack thereof) by saying "it's better than starving to death" may be accurately described, and still have some pretty serious issues!

Without save or dies and high hit point totals spellcasters are kinda weak at sealing the deal. 3.5 level damage if that except very low levels.

Buckets of hit points. Vicious in 3.5 was also 2d6 but mobsters had so much less HP. 5E magic item rarities are not good. Nor is attunement.

Pure martials probably need more attunement slots and better saves.

They keep nerfing them in effect from say 2E.

 

[evilbob]

I mean, I don't think that's the case at all.

FWIW my take on the post you replied to is that it was sarcastic. But this is the internet so who knows!

So what would you change about vicious weapons?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

FWIW my take on the post you replied to is that it was sarcastic. But this is the internet so who knows!

So what would you change about vicious weapons?

Since you asked:

I'd expect it to either get bumped up one rarity category, require attunement, get reduced to only +1d6 damage rather than +2d6 damage, or some combination of those things.

 

[Zardnaar]

Since you asked:

OP put a fairly unlikely scenario.

Depends on DM selling them and putting in a lot of cash.
. I've put 2 into my game. 1 required an infernal pact.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OP put a fairly unlikely scenario.

Depends on DM selling them and putting in a lot of cash.
. I've put 2 into my game. 1 required an infernal pact.

I dislike game rules that hard-require DM babysitting to not become a problem.

 

[evilbob]

All fair points!

Sorry I missed your earlier answer EzekielRaiden.

 

[Zardnaar]

I dislike game rules that hard-require DM babysitting to not become a problem.

Well the OP was a bit of a strawman.

There is a lot of variables to account for. Very few here seem to be playing 5.5.

One coukd argue with HP inflation the other magic weapons are underpowered.

You won't find vicious weapons in WotC modules. We are level 9 and have some better weapons from said WotC modules.

If they need a nerf +d6 or very rare is about right imho.

ENworld seems very cheap when it comes handing out magic weapons.

Generally I'll do +1s around level 3-5. Early tier 2 +1 with an extra ability or dice (d4 or d6) Generally.

Ymmv.