Mercurial Weapons -- good idea or bad idea?

[KnowTheToe]

Improved Critical and X4 dmg on a D12 is more than silly, It is stupid. I would not have these as available weapons. Possibly use the same feature as an enchantment, similar to keen.

Bad

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Alright, I'm still a relative newbie, so I'll bite.

Why are mercurial weapons dumb/stupid/bad? I don't want a game mechanic answer - I think the obsession with making everything "balanced" (whatever that means) in 3e is pointless anyway.

I'm asking why the concept is a problem. It doesn't bother me personally.

 

[Bob5th]

I don't see a prob with either version of the Merc Greatsword. It takes a feat and IMO if you want to spend a feat on it go ahead.

Huge Golden MercGreatswords unerrated and being used Keen and with Improved Crit by a minotaur are what gets kinda mean. 4d8 18-20/x4

 

[arwink]

Why are mercurial weapons dumb/stupid/bad? I don't want a game mechanic answer - I think the obsession with making everything "balanced" (whatever that means) in 3e is pointless anyway.

I'm asking why the concept is a problem. It doesn't bother me personally.

Speaking personally, it is the game mechanics and not the concept that bothers me, and that's probably going to be the same for most of the people here.

I think a large majority of the weapons in S&F were badly thought out - something that's largely borne out by the number of them that have been errata'd.

My first instinct, it terms of evaluating anything that goes into a game, is to look at the mechanics first and the flavor stuff second. To me, Mercurial weapons are the equivelent of 2nd level arcane spells that do the same as fireball - they throw the balance off that little bit too far.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Many thanks arwink for a swift and reasoned reply. I must confess that, since only a couple of my gaming group are long term, serious gamers, flavour always rules over mechanics for us. But, given that some weapons are better than others - in terms of damage, or crit capability, and the fact that mercurial weapons require separate EWP to wield, how do they throw out the balance?

 

[Gargoyle]

I don't really like them as implemented. I think the only benefit of a mercurial weapon should be when performing a coup de grace. Otherwise, it should have the normal stats of a longsword or greatsword. But as long as you're using the erratted version, it's not a big deal.

 

[arwink]

Many thanks arwink for a swift and reasoned reply. I must confess that, since only a couple of my gaming group are long term, serious gamers, flavour always rules over mechanics for us. But, given that some weapons are better than others - in terms of damage, or crit capability, and the fact that mercurial weapons require separate EWP to wield, how do they throw out the balance?

When I try to guage an exotic weapon, my immediate question is "why would I take the other exotic weapons if this one was around?"

With the mercurial weapons, some of the big hitters of the past like the dwarven waraxe and the bastard sword become out and out things of the past. They just have no use anymore, as a mercurial weapon will have the same crit-range and still hit harder when the crit succeeds. I had a similar objection to bladed guantlets - they were just too superior to anything else in terms of crit range, even with the fact it required a EWP to get it.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The concept seems kind of silly for a standard Greyhawk campaign. All IMHO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Alright, I'm still a relative newbie, so I'll bite.

Why are mercurial weapons dumb/stupid/bad? I don't want a game mechanic answer - I think the obsession with making everything "balanced" (whatever that means) in 3e is pointless anyway.

I'm asking why the concept is a problem. It doesn't bother me personally.

From a conceptual viewpoint, here's why it bothers me:

First, sword blades are not very thick. This severely limits the amount of mercury that could be put into one of them, which in turn means that it's not likely to have much effect on the force of the swing.

Second, hollowing out your sword blade makes it weaker - mercurial weapons should have far lower hardness and hit points than normal weapons of their type.

Third (assuming you find a way around one and two), the idea is fine for a baseball bat or an executioner's sword (which is what Terminus Est was), where you have to worry about one forceful hit and then nothing else. For a weapon that you're going to want to pull back into a defensive stance so that you can parry the blades coming at you, it's suicide - your swings are going to overextend you every time, leaving you wide open to be clobbered by any halfway competent opponent.

J

 

[Vaxalon]

For a weapon that you're going to want to pull back into a defensive stance so that you can parry the blades coming at you, it's suicide - your swings are going to overextend you every time, leaving you wide open to be clobbered by any halfway competent opponent.

Given that the balance point for mercurial weapons would be similar to those of axes, clubs, flails, glaives, guisarmes, halberds, hammers, maces, morningstars, picks, and scythes, why is it a problem for mercurial weapons and not for similarly-balanced mundane weapons, especially considering that the mercurial weapon requires a feat to wield competently?