Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thorsbjorn 09-18-07, 01:11 AM	I'm thinking of creating a fortification-piercing weapon special ability. I'm thinking about having a lesser and a greater version. I'm thinking about giving the lesser version a +4 equivalent, and the greater version a +6 equivalent. I'm torn though between making the lesser version reduce the percentage chance of negating a critical or sneak attack by 10 and the greater reducing by 20, or making the lesser reduce the percentage by 25 and the greater by 50. I'm also trying to think of a good spell to use for making the ability. Thoughts? :)
dragon221284 09-18-07, 02:13 AM	spell should be the same as for fortification: Wish +4 and +6 modifiers should be balanced, but I would higher the percentage to 50% (lesser) and 100% (greater). The greater Version should 100% pierce the fortification (only a +5mod) and crit Undeads/Constructs/Plants/Elementals/...
BillTheManiac 09-18-07, 07:04 AM	I'm thinking of creating a fortification-piercing weapon special ability. I'm thinking about having a lesser and a greater version. I'm thinking about giving the lesser version a +4 equivalent, and the greater version a +6 equivalent. I'm torn though between making the lesser version reduce the percentage chance of negating a critical or sneak attack by 10 and the greater reducing by 20, or making the lesser reduce the percentage by 25 and the greater by 50. I'm also trying to think of a good spell to use for making the ability. Thoughts? :) This does not bode well. When you were a little kid, do you remmember describing a battle: "Ha, I had an invulnerable force field!" "Well I'm just loading my forcefield-piercing gun" "Nope, the force field shields against forcefield-piercing bullets" etc. You're going to have to decide one maximum level, so that everyone has everything up to that X. What do you want it to be?
Thorsbjorn 09-18-07, 08:06 AM	This does not bode well. When you were a little kid, do you remmember describing a battle: "Ha, I had an invulnerable force field!" "Well I'm just loading my forcefield-piercing gun" "Nope, the force field shields against forcefield-piercing bullets" etc. You're going to have to decide one maximum level, so that everyone has everything up to that X. What do you want it to be? Heh. We did have something similar. We had Universe Man, then Universe Man's Father, Universe Man's Grandfather, Universe Man's Great-Grandfather, Universe Man's Great-Great-Grandfather and then I jumped to Universe Man's Infinity-Great-Grandfather. My buddy tried to jump over me with Universe Man's Infinity-Plus-One-Grandfather but I informed him that Infinity was as big as it got, so I got to be the more powerful superhero. (Our small-child's premise of course was that older automatically means stronger, so that Universe Man's Grandfather wasn't flying around in his wheel chair, and Universe Man's Great-Grandfather wasn't flying around in his coffin. :D) Since currently there's no way to reduce the fortification, I don't want to negate it entirely. On the epic boards, however, several people have commented that at high levels everyone has 100% fortification anyway, so criticals (and sneak attack damage) have no relevance. (Of course other people claim that nobody uses armor anymore, just bracers, so that nobody has fortification, but that's another debate. :P) I just want to restore the sneak attack as valuable even at epic levels. Now that I'm writing this it occurs to me that it will also aid characters (and monsters) with more critical-oriented attacks (Devastating Critical, Vorpal Strike, and the tarrasque) but it's designed more for the poor rogue types who lose their only decent combat ability in a world of 100% fortification. I initially thought just to lower the fortification percentages a bit: 100% lowered to 90% so that the rogue still has some chance of making a sneak attack. My second thought was, giving such high bonus equivalent, to allow one level of armor-piercing to offset one level of fortification, up to two, but no more, so as to allow some fortification to remain. What do you think? I don't, however, intend to apply the ability to creatures whose type gives them immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks. They just have nothing particularly vulnerable to which one can do more damage, and the ability to penetrate fortification wouldn't somehow give them something vulnerable. :)
PrinceOfTheVoid 09-18-07, 10:42 AM	I'm not positive, but I think that Upper Krust has an ability called Eradication for weapons, with the same denominations as Fortification, that does exactly what you describe. I don't know where its from though, or what the + modifier is.
rob_douglas 09-18-07, 11:37 PM	Actually, they do have Fortification with bracers, either in the form of a +1 Robe of Heavy Fortification and Soulfire, or a Gemstone of Fortification. Bracers and monk's belt, plus high wisdom, dex, as well as stat boosting items and tomes give you better AC than armor and shield. ;) But seriously, I don't think there is a problem with your Fortification negating abilities. You could make them +6 and +8, reasoning that even the minimum negation shouldn't be in the hands of non-epics, if you are only trying to deal with the epic problem. If you feel it is a problem in epic, I think that it would be fine to have them at 1 higher than the equivalent fortification they are negating: +2 for -25%, +4 for -75%, and +6 for -100%. I am surprised there is not a Greater Spell Storing weapon enhancement, so you could put Greater Dispel Magic in there. Better yet, get an intelligent item that can cast GDM for you each round - and have it cast it on the armor in question. That will negate most armors - as they have lower caster levels (though I guess fortification will have a caster level of 17....) ROB
Thorsbjorn 09-18-07, 11:51 PM	Actually, they do have Fortification with bracers, either in the form of a +1 Robe of Heavy Fortification and Soulfire, or a Gemstone of Fortification. Bracers and monk's belt, plus high wisdom, dex, as well as stat boosting items and tomes give you better AC than armor and shield. ;) But seriously, I don't think there is a problem with your Fortification negating abilities. You could make them +6 and +8, reasoning that even the minimum negation shouldn't be in the hands of non-epics, if you are only trying to deal with the epic problem. If you feel it is a problem in epic, I think that it would be fine to have them at 1 higher than the equivalent fortification they are negating: +2 for -25%, +4 for -75%, and +6 for -100%. I am surprised there is not a Greater Spell Storing weapon enhancement, so you could put Greater Dispel Magic in there. Better yet, get an intelligent item that can cast GDM for you each round - and have it cast it on the armor in question. That will negate most armors - as they have lower caster levels (though I guess fortification will have a caster level of 17....) ROB I don't want to negate fortification entirely, so I'd probably stick with the -25% and maybe a -75% version. I'm more inclined go to -25% and -50%, although if I were designing the fortification I'd probably have gone with +25%, +50%, and +75%. I don't really like the 100% chance of negating critical hits and sneak attacks. Maybe I'd do +4 for the -25% and +6 for the -50% (or -75%) chance to allow one at non-epic and one at epic levels. My party doesn't consist of even remotely-power-players and sometimes I have to suggest ideas for how they might use their abilities better. In a recent combat two pirate officers killed the party's cleric in two rounds and so I had the party's NPC sorceress hit one of the two officers with a greater dispel magic. Since the pirates' buffs all came from wands, the greater dispel magic had a devastating effect on the target's buffs. When I first announced what the NPC was going to cast, the player of the wizard looked at me like I was nuts. When they fought the pirates again later that day, the first thing the wizard did was to ask the sorceress to cast greater dispel magic on one of the pirates! :D
Tequila_Sunrise 09-19-07, 10:13 AM	Honestly, the problem you're trying to solve is not limited to epic levels, so I don't think that the solution should be either. Personally, I just ban the fortification abilities because they make combat less exciting and they eliminate the rogue's effectiveness in combat. But if you don't want to ban fortification for whatever reason, I'd suggest placing this new ability of yours at exactly the same percentages and bonus-equivalents as the fortification abilities. Unless you have this ability affect naturally un-critable critters (undead, constructs...), which I don't recommend, it's going to suck anyway because its sole purpose is the negation of another ability. PS Anyone know why the fortification levels are so bogus? 25% -> 75% = Huh? Why are designers' math skills so shoddy? 100 percentiles divided by 5 bonus-equivalents = 20% per +1 equivalent. How friggin' hard is that?
BigGus 09-19-07, 11:23 AM	I would suggest that 100% fortification should not be allowed. There are no items (except possibly major artifacts) which make you completely immune to other classes' main attack modes (arcane magic, divine magic, armed attacks, unarmed attacks etc.) so how can it be balanced for the Rogue's main attack mode to be completely negated for a mere +5 enhancement bonus? I would suggest the following: +1 25% +3 50% +5 75% +7 90% A 90% failure chance seems plenty high enough to me; it still weakens the Rogue very considerably.
Caros 09-19-07, 12:18 PM	Err, one of two things. First off, there is an ability that beats heavy fort. Its called brilliant energy. No armor, no immunity to crits. Secondly, keeping in mind that Such is a +4, I'd put a "Can crit things with fort" Ability at +3. Why? Their armor is useful all the time at a +5. +5, I'm now immune to crits. Statting it at a +4-+6 bonus is somewhat silly when you consider that it costs twice as much for weapon enhancements, and that your enhancement does only one thing, allows you to crit people wearing fort armor.
spike81101 09-19-07, 01:28 PM	Err, one of two things. First off, there is an ability that beats heavy fort. Its called brilliant energy. No armor, no immunity to crits. Since when? It ignores the ARMOR, not the magical protection the armor gives. If the character is ethereal with armor of etherealness and fortification, does that mean your brilliant energy weapon can hit him because it ignores the armors etherealness ability...no, I think not.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-19-07, 03:55 PM	Err, one of two things. First off, there is an ability that beats heavy fort. Its called brilliant energy. No armor, no immunity to crits. I remember this being a point of heated contention, with the only real conclusion that each DM chooses for himself. I'm not going to argue the issue either way, but I am going to point out that even with a DM that rules the issue your way, requiring high level rogues to run around with light sabers (oops, I mean brilliant energy weapons) is not an elegant way to solve Thorsbjorn's problem. Brilliant energy weapons require a lot of cash and makes rogues even more useless against uncrittable monsters.
BillTheManiac 09-19-07, 03:57 PM	I remember this being a point of heated contention, with the only real conclusion that each DM chooses for himself. I'm not going to argue the issue either way, but I am going to point out that even with a DM that rules the issue your way, requiring high level rogues to run around with briliant energy weapons is not an elegant way to solve Thorsbjorn's problem. Brilliant energy weapons require a lot of cash and are useless against most uncrittable monsters, which only exacerbates the rogue's problem. Fortification states it is "plates of force". Brilliant energy does not pass through force, nothing does.
Thorsbjorn 09-19-07, 06:24 PM	Since when? It ignores the ARMOR, not the magical protection the armor gives. If the character is ethereal with armor of etherealness and fortification, does that mean your brilliant energy weapon can hit him because it ignores the armors etherealness ability...no, I think not. Etherealness actually takes the wearer to the ethereal plane, so he's actually absent to all but force effects. (Hey, how about a force special ability? :)) So that's not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would involve some other special ability that keep the wearer present, like energy resistance. Brilliant energy works by ignoring and passing through the armor. Armor with energy resistance actually absorbs some energy damage. I'd say that if a brilliant energy weapon passes through the armor, the armor cannot absorb energy damage that the weapon might also have. So a +1 brilliant energy flaming longsword would pass right through +1 fire resistance full plate and do the energy damage directly to the creature wearing the armor. I think that likewise a brilliant energy weapon that scored a critical hit would pass right through the armor and do the critical hit directly to the creature wearing the armor. BillTheManiac raises a point about the nature of the fortification enchantment itself. The DMG says that fortification "produces a magical force that protects the vital areas of the wearer more effectively." This could mean a force effect, as with a spell that bears the force descriptor, but it's not clear. I think they probably would have said "force effect" if they'd meant to be specific, and used "force" with a more general definition in mind. If they did mean that fortification produces a force effect, then I'd agree that brilliant energy wouldn't bypass fortification. (Black blade of disaster, by the way, does pass through any force effect of 8th-level or lower.) Tequila_Sunrise makes the point that even if, as Caros suggested, brilliant energy does ignore fortification, it doesn't really solve the problem of fortification doing away with the main combat benefit of the rogue, not to mention the benefits of various feats related to critical hits, especially Devastating Critical. I wouldn't want, as Tequila_Sunrise notes, to have every high-level rogue running around with light-sabers (and light-sabers to which undead and constructs are immune). ;) Now if fortification is not a force effect, then Caros makes a good point about brilliant energy having the advantage of doing more than just allowing sneak attacks and critical damage. It does, however, have the drawback of not affecting undead or constructs at all. The drawback mitigates but probably don't fully offset the advantage. That would suggest, as Caros does, making the fortification-penetrating special ability the equivalent of a +3 bonus. I wouldn't, however, want every single high-level rogue running around with fortification-penetration which is what would happen if it penetrated fortification 100% for only a +3 bonus. Nor would I want rogues (or anyone else) to be able to simply negate a +5 equivalent bonus completely with a +3 equivalent bonus (even if the +3 equivalent bonus costs twice as much proportionately). Maybe it would simply be easier to adjust the fortification so that light medium grants 50% and heavy grants 75%. That way even at epic levels sneak attack and criticals would work one in four times on average. :) Edit: I'd already written to Customer Service with the general question of whether brilliant energy bypasses a special ability of armor through which it passes. I hadn't considered though the special case of whether or not fortification is a force effect when I wrote them.
PrinceOfTheVoid 09-19-07, 06:46 PM	For force damage on weapons, in Monte Cook's COmplete Book of Eldritch Might (awesome third party book, by the way), he has Arcane Blasting, which does +4d6 force damage, for a +4 bonus, and Eldritch Blasting, which does +7d6 force damage, for a +7 Bonus. They're rather overpowered, but that's the only that I've ever seen anything like what you described. Maybe something more in line with the existing enchnatments? maybe even d4s instead of d6s, since it penetrates pretty much anything?
Thorsbjorn 09-19-07, 07:29 PM	For force damage on weapons, in Monte Cook's COmplete Book of Eldritch Might (awesome third party book, by the way), he has Arcane Blasting, which does +4d6 force damage, for a +4 bonus, and Eldritch Blasting, which does +7d6 force damage, for a +7 Bonus. They're rather overpowered, but that's the only that I've ever seen anything like what you described. Maybe something more in line with the existing enchnatments? maybe even d4s instead of d6s, since it penetrates pretty much anything? I have Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might, but not his Book of Eldritch Might. Does Book of Eldritch Might do for the arcane caster what Book of Hallowed Might does for the divine caster? There was a DM in whose campaign I played for a while who wouldn't allow any Wizards expansion books because he considered them overpowered, but he allowed Monte Cook! I have to laugh at that because Monte Cook, like Gary Gygax, is long on creativity and short on balance. :P So I got the Book of Hallowed Might and planned to make full use (abuse) of the "non-overpowered" material therein. :D Anyway, I wasn't really thinking of force damage so much as a weapon make of force that would then be able to target ethereal creatures. I mean what else can force really do besides affect ethereal creatures and maybe do some additional damage? I agree with you that +4d6 for a +4 enhancement bonus equivalent and +7d6 for a +7 enhancement bonus equivalent are overpowered. If the only thing force really lets you do is target ethereal creatures, then maybe it should have only a +1 enhancement bonus equivalent. Maybe if it does that and, say, 1d4+1 like a magic missile. then you could make the bonus equivalent equal to the level of caster need to cause a certain amount of damage with a magic missile: +3 gets you 2d4+2, +5 gets you 3d4+3, +7 gets you 4d4+4, and +9 gets you 5d4+5. Does that sound reasonable?
Tequila_Sunrise 09-19-07, 10:19 PM	Anyway, I wasn't really thinking of force damage so much as a weapon make of force that would then be able to target ethereal creatures. I mean what else can force really do besides affect ethereal creatures and maybe do some additional damage? I agree with you that +4d6 for a +4 enhancement bonus equivalent and +7d6 for a +7 enhancement bonus equivalent are overpowered. If the only thing force really lets you do is target ethereal creatures, then maybe it should have only a +1 enhancement bonus equivalent. Maybe if it does that and, say, 1d4+1 like a magic missile. then you could make the bonus equivalent equal to the level of caster need to cause a certain amount of damage with a magic missile: +3 gets you 2d4+2, +5 gets you 3d4+3, +7 gets you 4d4+4, and +9 gets you 5d4+5. Does that sound reasonable? I don't think it's wise to tack on more flat bonuses to damage, as that might confuse a lot of players. Character gets his new sword identified: "It's a +5 longsword with 3d4+3 bonus damage? Wait...do I add the first one to attack and damage or the second one...or both of them?!" I think that 1d4 force damage is perfectly reasonable for a +1 bonus-equivalent.
Thorsbjorn 09-21-07, 02:54 AM	Here's the reply I got from Customer Service: The entry on Brilliant only specifies that it ignores the armor bonus at AC because it's non living. It would stand to reason that certain other armor abilities would still apply, but it should probably be judged on a case by case basis. Like the last few replies I've gotten from them, it's not particularly helpful.
BillTheManiac 09-21-07, 07:12 AM	Here's the reply I got from Customer Service: Like the last few replies I've gotten from them, it's not particularly helpful. Oh hahahaha he didn't say anything that wasn't printed in the book.
Thorsbjorn 09-21-07, 07:17 AM	Oh hahahaha he didn't say anything that wasn't printed in the book. Indeed. That's been the case with the last couple of their replies to my queries too. They're probably all to busy studying 4E to bother helping with 3.5 anymore. :P
Tequila_Sunrise 09-21-07, 11:32 AM	ilmao, don't you just love "customer service" everywhere? Honestly, I don't think it matters much either way you choose to rule the issue. My only suggestion is to write down your decision somewhere, so that you don't change it sometime in the future and confuse your players.
Thorsbjorn 09-21-07, 12:00 PM	ilmao, don't you just love "customer service" everywhere? Honestly, I don't think it matters much either way you choose to rule the issue. My only suggestion is to write down your decision somewhere, so that you don't change it sometime in the future and confuse your players. Earlier this morning I actually updated my house rules file to switch moderate fortification to 50% and heavy fortification to 75%.
IrishRover 09-24-07, 11:53 AM	At the risk of adding a bit of real history into the game, here's a bit of a note on armor and weapons, and the trade-off. I'll use naval armor, since this is the sort of armor and weapons I'm most familiar with, but similar developments happened with knights and their armor and weapons. Ships of the line had guns that could, with time, penetrate the armor (thick oak sides) of their opposite number and eventually batter each otehr into submission. So...someone developed a weapon that would defeat this protection quickly, and turn a ship into an inferno in a few shots...this weapon is explosive shells. So the developers, faced with the need to keep ships fighting, add armor plate, which defeats the shells, and requires solid shot to make a comeback. Guns get biger, and armor thicker, back and forth, with first one, then the other, dominant, until a new balance was struck. Even so, ships and guns gut bigger, armor thicker, throughout the life of the gun armed warship. With heavy fortification present, you're at the point where armor is superior to the weapons. My point is this...offence and defences evolve to meet the challenges. You might want to add this aspect of change to your game. Perhaps you might even decide that "Fortification piercing" weapons negate one level of fortification as a default, but that ones made with the most recent techniques negate 2 levels...and that the armor made with the latest techniques is more resistant to a "fortification piercing" ability. This, of course, is only appropriate, IMVHO, if people are working hard on penetrating vs. defending. Would they be doing this? The primary beneficiaries are the combatant types, whereas the primary expences are borne by the spellcasters.
BillTheManiac 09-24-07, 03:17 PM	At the risk of adding a bit of real history into the game, here's a bit of a note on armor and weapons, and the trade-off. I'll use naval armor, since this is the sort of armor and weapons I'm most familiar with, but similar developments happened with knights and their armor and weapons. Ships of the line had guns that could, with time, penetrate the armor (thick oak sides) of their opposite number and eventually batter each otehr into submission. So...someone developed a weapon that would defeat this protection quickly, and turn a ship into an inferno in a few shots...this weapon is explosive shells. So the developers, faced with the need to keep ships fighting, add armor plate, which defeats the shells, and requires solid shot to make a comeback. Guns get biger, and armor thicker, back and forth, with first one, then the other, dominant, until a new balance was struck. Even so, ships and guns gut bigger, armor thicker, throughout the life of the gun armed warship. With heavy fortification present, you're at the point where armor is superior to the weapons. My point is this...offence and defences evolve to meet the challenges. You might want to add this aspect of change to your game. Perhaps you might even decide that "Fortification piercing" weapons negate one level of fortification as a default, but that ones made with the most recent techniques negate 2 levels...and that the armor made with the latest techniques is more resistant to a "fortification piercing" ability. This, of course, is only appropriate, IMVHO, if people are working hard on penetrating vs. defending. Would they be doing this? The primary beneficiaries are the combatant types, whereas the primary expences are borne by the spellcasters. The question is, what balance of power is balanced? Is it 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% fortification? Then simply design the optimal abilities such that this fortification is achieved.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-24-07, 04:27 PM	My point is this...offence and defences evolve to meet the challenges. You might want to add this aspect of change to your game. Perhaps you might even decide that "Fortification piercing" weapons negate one level of fortification as a default, but that ones made with the most recent techniques negate 2 levels...and that the armor made with the latest techniques is more resistant to a "fortification piercing" ability. You make a good point that is true of any situation that involves two opposing forces. For example, there is a species of snake in south america that is poisonous enough to kill 10 grown men with a single bite. This snake's favorite prey is a species of frog, whose resistance to poison has evolved along with the snake poison's potency, so that any given frog is only about 50% likely to die from the snake's venom. That said, I try to avoid these kind of arms races in my games. Why? Well first because d&d is a fantasy game, a major theme of which is the idea of cyclical balance rather than linear balance. The other and perhaps more important reason is that these type of arms races makes the game more complicated and difficult to run.