Weapon Enhancement...Force

[Nifft]

If it cuts through DR X/+6, it needs to be priced like an Epic weapon.

Sure Striking is not a Core property -- and even if a DM allowed it, it won't work in an antimagic field.

Seems to me that the Force property would be better implemented as an exotic material, like adamantium.

-- Nifft

 

[kreynolds]

If it cuts through DR X/+6, it needs to be priced like an Epic weapon.

Hmm. Good point.

Sure Striking is not a Core property...

I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're already talking about a house rule, so what does sure striking not being core have to do with anything? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure why you brought up the "core" bit.

...and even if a DM allowed it...

I'm the DM, so its a mute point.

...it won't work in an antimagic field.

That's true, but this isn't sure striking. I was just using it as a comparison. Your point about +6 DR is a good one, so I think you've turned me around a bit.

Besides, the DR bit will be far less of an issue in about 3 to 4 months anyway.

Seems to me that the Force property would be better implemented as an exotic material, like adamantium.

That's not a bad idea, actually. I'll have to think on that one.

I think I'll just up the market price of the enhancement instead, mostly because I'm having a hard time imagining a weapon of pure force not dealing force damage.

 

[Anubis]

+3? Even +5 is far to little for this!

First off, Sure Striking ONLY works up to +5 DR. This works on ALL. Second, IIRC, Ghost Touch does not effect ethereal creatures, only incorporeal, and this is thus better. Third, this is force damage AND it's NOT dispelled in an antimagic field either, which is SUPER powerful.

I would price this at AT LEAST +15, if not more. Perhaps UK could offer his thoughts?

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I would price this at AT LEAST +15, if not more. Perhaps UK could offer his thoughts?

Plus.... fifteen.

Riiiiiight.

kreynolds, if you aren't planning on including this in a game with epic damage reduction stuff anyhow, I'd go with your original +3 or so. If there is supposed to be, uh, "normally impervious" DR, you might want to kick it up to +4 or +5.

 

[Nifft]

To make it consistant with the Wall of Force idea, it would be able to hit incorporeal and ethereal creatures, NOT be dispellable, NOT be subject to Sundering (or any other kind of object damage) and continue working in an anti-magic zone.

However -- Wall of Force says nothing what so ever about overcoming DR. The above properties are hardly worthless, but I'd allow the "material" to have some natural enhancement bonus -- say +3 -- for 10 times the price of Adamantium. Throw in the "weightless" property (item weighs 1/10 what a normal item would) as icing.

Then you'd have a non-Epic material which is still very cool, but not insanely overpowered.

-- Nifft

 

[Cougar]

I like the quality as well, seems like a great upgrade from ghost touch. I do have one problem with the description. It isn't readily apparent that the blade would ACT as a wall of force in an antimagic field. I wasn't under the impression that spells that were used in the creation of magic weapons did anything other than allow them to be created. Basically, what I am saying is though it may be obvious to you (and that's ok, it's your game), it isn't to me and possibly others from the description. Great idea though, and I like the idea of the sword staying up in an antimagic field too!

 

[Shayuri]

This seems vaguely familiar.

I actually proposed a "force weapon" enhancement once a long time back. It didn't hit as a spell effect though. The force designator acted more like an exotic building material than anything else. Indestructible (save for Disintegrate) and able to hit ethereal/incorporeals...but otherwise requiring plusses like anything else for countering DR. That wound up being +3, I believe...

As far as this idea for a forceblade goes, it has potential. I'd suggest avoiding the temptation to "mix and match" between having it strike as a spell, or as a weapon. Comparable spells to look at would include:

Flame Blade (strikes as a spell effect - no DR, no Str mod, SR applies, touch attack)

Moon Blade (ditto)

Mord's Sword (strikes as a weapon of +3 enhancement...DR applies, and it's not a touch attack...I believe SR still applies)

So if you *really* wanna have it deal "force damage" and strike as a spell, take the bad with the good. No Strength bonus to damage. Melee touch. SR applies (to each hit). Etc.

Probably be worth more than +3 that way though. Hmm.

 

[Khaalis]

Since there is so much contraversy surrounding what a Force Weapon based on the Wall of Force spell does... what about comparing it to Forged in Magic's version?

Concusive {+1 Enhancement}: +1d6 Force Damage
Concusive Burst {+2 Enhancement}: +1d10 Force Damage on a Critical Hit (+2d10 for x3 weapons, +3d10 for x4 weapons)

Just a thought. This way you get your Force designated damage that ignores all DR (except DR/-) and can strike incorporeal creatures, etc.

 

[hong]

The fiddling with damage dice doesn't strike me as particularly important. Average damage in nearly all cases remains unchanged, although variance is reduced.

I'd require the force weapon to penetrate SR, with each individual hit being rolled for separately. That would be an easy way to balance it out.

 

[kreynolds]

However -- Wall of Force says nothing what so ever about overcoming DR.

Wall of Force --> Force Damage. Not much of a stretch, really. I admit though that the easy solution would be to just drop the force damage bit and have it deal normal damage. That would surely drop the market price modifier substantially. What do you guys think? Just drop the force damage bit?