|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 4:56PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
The first one would be fine, as would the halberd. I would not allow the dwarf-reskinned-to-human.
I agree with Smiteasaur.
(Watches the Four Horsemen ride by)
What Seeker says explains it pretty well, though it's really a case-by-case basis.
Detour
Show
[FONT="Times New Roman"]I would say that a Dungeon Master should be extremely careful with almost all attempts by players to reflavour things themselves: it is usually an attempt either to circumvent the social mores of the game (humans may be more socially acceptable than dwarves in some places) or to inject some ridiculous elements from another genre (perhaps anime or the modern era).[/FONT]
There's nothing wrong with Anime, nor nothing inherently "ridiculous" about it compared to the abilities most Characters already have. Anime simply attempts to make things feel more dynamic than, say, a Tolkein-esque Campaign would. In that Campaign, a Magic Missile is a glittery burst of Arcane Energy that hits a guy in the chest. In an Anime-esque Campaign, the Magic Missile is a crimson-red bolt that tears off a guy's arm. There's nothing inherently ridiculous about either example; one simply attempts to pander to Suspension of Disbelief a bit more, while the other allows for as dynamic and stunning FX as the Player's mind can handle.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 5:05PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
Again the point of all this wasn't to re-fight the glaive argument. Since it was my game, I just house ruled it to a +3 proficiency bonus to fit with the other heavy blades and called it a day (yes, I made her keep rolling the d4's, I'm mean like that).
Which, btw - I (personally) find perfectly acceptable - it's a glaive - in fact - I wouldn't mind if you restatted it to be exactly like a halberd (keeping the heavyblade, as opposed to axe powers, however) . Nothing wrong with a +3 d10 glaive, in my book.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 6:04PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
|
Either a +3 to hit or a 1d10 damage.
This came up because a player in one of my games had a cleric of the Raven Queen that wanted to use a curved glaive (intended to look scythe-like-as you can see there was a little re-flavoring going on already, but within the confines a what a glaive "is"). After a couple of sessions, she came to me and pointed out the halberd had the same accuracy and more damage for no apparent good reason. The general consensus on the boards as I understand is that heavy blade opportunity and pole arm gamble are such a good combo that the lower accuracy compared to other heavy blades is necessary to counteract it (I have my own opinions on the matter, but they're not really germane here). Since this character was a cleric with a DEX of 8, HBO was not really an option, so she was paying a mechanical penalty to use a particular weapon that suited her character but had no other in-game benefit. It wasn't a big penalty, I think rolling 2 d4's annoyed her more than the average 1 less damage compared to a halberd she was doing, but there was no reason for it. It was just unfair.
I was railing in a thread at how I thought that the glaive was underpowered for no good reason and the response I got was "use a halberd and pretend it's a glaive", which definitely would solve the mechanical issue, but for me, that's beyond the scope I really want to re-flavor things.
Again the point of all this wasn't to re-fight the glaive argument. Since it was my game, I just house ruled it to a +3 proficiency bonus to fit with the other heavy blades and called it a day (yes, I made her keep rolling the d4's, I'm mean like that).
You're the DM. Reflavour to your heart's content.
Wiggy
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 6:11PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
Not really, when you consider that you are not able to use heavy blade powers with it. Similarly, the powers available to axes are NOT available to the glaive.
Which doesnt really matter in game considering no one in the campaign setting knows about "heavy blade feat X" because its a metagame term. No one in the world is going to see the character waving his glaive around and think that he's doing something impossible because it doesn't have an axe-head. You are thinking very much in metagame terms instead of in-game terms.
I wouldn't mind if you restatted it to be exactly like a halberd (keeping the heavyblade, as opposed to axe powers, however) . Nothing wrong with a +3 d10 glaive, in my book.
This is exactly why reflavoring is often safer than messing around with the rules. The glaive is +2 because it has a strong property and is only martial, not to mention that Heavy Blades get one of the best weapon feats (HBO) which becomes borderline overpowered when combined with various elements that require polearms (Polearm momentum + PG + at-will pushing/sliding powers). Giving an extra +1 to hit and a die upgrade while keeping it martial is too strong for an already good weapon (now i get an +1 to trip anyone who tries to get near me!).
Reflavoring stuff is fine, but this goes to show that messing around the mechanics is a dangerous proposition.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 6:35PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
|
Reflavoring stuff is fine, but this goes to show that messing around the mechanics is a dangerous proposition.
Only dangerous is someone actually brings a real polearm to the gaming tale. Wiggy
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 6:52PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
This is exactly why reflavoring is often safer than messing around with the rules. The glaive is +2 because it has a strong property and is only martial, not to mention that Heavy Blades get one of the best weapon feats (HBO) which becomes borderline overpowered when combined with various elements that require polearms (Polearm momentum + PG + at-will pushing/sliding powers). Giving an extra +1 to hit and a die upgrade while keeping it martial is too strong for an already good weapon (now i get an +1 to trip anyone who tries to get near me!).
Reflavoring stuff is fine, but this goes to show that messing around the mechanics is a dangerous proposition.
I said I wasn't going to, but here it is. I think it is far more likely that the glaive was an oversight owing to them accidentally leaving all of the two handed heavy blades a little underpowered compared to axes and hammers.
Spoiler:
Show
Each 1 hand weapon...
longsword +3/1d8
scimitar +2/1d8 high crit
battle axe +2/1d10
war hammer +2/1d10
As you can see, 1 point of accuracy, 1 die step of damage, and the high crit property are each considered equal.
For the axe and the hammer, going from 1 to 2 hands upgraded the weapon 2 steps...
great axe damage die upgrades to 1d12, and it gains the high crit property
maul the damage die upgrades two steps, to 2d6
For the great sword, going from 1 to 2 hands only upgraded the weapon 1 step
great sword damage die upgrades 1 step, to 1d10,
Reach is worth 2 points in the weapon building matrix, so the great axe loses the high crit and 1 die step of damage to become the halberd. The great sword loses one point of accuracy and one die step of damage to become the glaive. But since the great sword started out behind, the glaive does too.
I posit that this is not because Heavy Blade Opportunity is such an awesome feat. One handed heavy blades are mechanically equivalent to their axe and hammer counterparts, and in AV, when they introduced the fullblade, it improves on the great sword by two steps, one die step of damage and giving it the high crit property, whereas the executioner's axe and mordenkrad are only one step improvements over their military counterparts, thus making them all equal. If the glaive was the only weapon out of line, I might make that assumption, but since the great sword is also underpowered, I think it was due to an uncorrected oversight. The fullblade provides a decent upgrade to the great sword and falchion, but there's no upgrade option currently for the glaive.
EDIT: I did make a mistake in the above but not one that actually takes away from the case I made. It turns out, that the great sword is increased by two steps. As explained below...
One handed damage die progression goes from 1d8-1d10-1d12, which is an increase of one point of average damage per increase.
For whatever reason, 2 handed weapons increase 1d8-2d4-1d10-1d12, adding an extra step between 1d8 and 1d10 that only increases the average damage by .5 points per increase. So the great swords gets a two step incease that is exactly mechanically equal to half of the increase the greataxe gets. So when you drop the glaive 2 steps back, it actually comes out weaker because of that 2d4 step in the progression.
I'm pretty sure weapons were balanced to themselves independent of other factors like what feats you could get with each of them. It's just that the way they set up the die progression chart created mechanical deficiencies down the line.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 7:27PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Which doesnt really matter in game considering no one in the campaign setting knows about "heavy blade feat X" because its a metagame term. No one in the world is going to see the character waving his glaive around and think that he's doing something impossible because it doesn't have an axe-head. You are thinking very much in metagame terms instead of in-game terms.
I agree with this, but I also think Salamndyr's observation on the Greatsword and the Glaive being inherently behind a bit.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 7:41PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
You are thinking very much in metagame terms instead of in-game terms.
No, I'm not - I'm thinking about the definition of words. A glaive is defined. Another example - would it be alright if everyone just called you a monkey? I mean you're not really a monkey - you're a person - but from now on - everyone in the world will call you a monkey. Alright?
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 8:00PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
Is this too much reflavouring?
I am thinking of making a proud Dragonborn warrior, who is dedicated to fighting for justice, and to bring back Arkohsia (sp). He was born from a special golden egg, granting him amazing adaptability with his breath weapon. Thus he mainly uses his breath to fight enemies, only using his sword as a backup.
Now he is statted out as a dragonborn sorceror, flavouring his powers as breath attacks. I also see him in scale or plate armour as well as wielding sword and shield, reflavouring a dagger as a sword, and cloth armour as scale. Note I do not want the mecahnical benefits of these (longsword is light blade doing d4 damage, scale armour gives +0 AC bonus.) I just like the look of it.
Pity I wont be able to play him. damn this DMing business! :P
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 8:02PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Nov 25, 2006
|
To much reflavoring is when your DM or any of the other players even think of rolling their eyes.
|
|
|
