Post/Author/DateTime	Post
unundindur 07-25-07, 11:03 AM	How valuable would you say the ability to ignore the fortification-abilities would be? I would think this is a +1 piercing weapon only ability. After all its only useful against a very spesific group; those who wear fortification armour or items. For my setting I need this for a couple of assassin guilds etc. After all, for the political game to work the warriors cannot just be immune to assassination :) Currently I am onto this idea: Penetrating A penetrating weapon ignore all immunity to critical hits and precision based damage that originates from items and spells. This ability can only be placed on piercing weapons. Moderate transmutation; CL 15th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Keen Edge and Moment of Prescience; Price +1 bonus.
Spikes01k 07-25-07, 11:18 AM	If I remember properly fortification is in different values. So you would need an increasingly higher value weapon effect to handle a greater version of fortification. +1 for a lightest fortification maybe.
Nezkrul 07-25-07, 11:24 AM	fortification is negated by antimagic but death attack isn't. They don't need a homebrewed/houseruled weapon mod to do it.
unundindur 07-25-07, 11:25 AM	If I remember properly fortification is in different values. So you would need an increasingly higher value weapon effect to handle a greater version of fortification. +1 for a lightest fortification maybe. Well, either this ability have to go into the +1/8 range, or it then have to go away from the +X range and over to the +price instead. After all its much better to be able to negate critical hits form all enemies than to be able to overcome this very very spesific defense. I though a +1 would be fine to counter a single +5 ability, and thus take the +3 and +1 ability as a bonus (sort of). Alternatively, could it be priced like this: Lower critical immunity due to fortification and artificial defences by 25%: +2000 Lower critical immunity due to fortification and artificial defences by 50%: +8000 Lower critical immunity due to fortification and artificial defences by 75%: +16000 Lower critical immunity due to fortification and artificial defences by 100%: +32000 Something like that?
unundindur 07-25-07, 11:26 AM	fortification is negated by antimagic but death attack isn't. They don't need a homebrewed/houseruled weapon mod to do it. Hehe, well I do since my assassins don't use death attack (which is a horrible mechanic for many reasons) :)
Steidas 07-25-07, 11:33 AM	Hehe, well I do since my assassins don't use death attack (which is a horrible mechanic for many reasons) :) ... WHAT? What kind of assasins are they then? What do they get INSTEAD?
unundindur 07-25-07, 11:48 AM	... WHAT? What kind of assasins are they then? What do they get INSTEAD? See my signature, or click here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=878205). :)
Steidas 07-25-07, 12:07 PM	See my signature, or click here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=878205). :) That's actually quite better than the death attack.
unundindur 07-25-07, 06:03 PM	That's actually quite better than the death attack. I am positively aware of that ;) It goes from horrid to good.
Jaxgaret 07-25-07, 06:30 PM	See my signature, or click here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=878205). :) So they basically get Disintegrate 1/encounter? Interesting.
unundindur 07-25-07, 07:02 PM	So they basically get Disintegrate 1/encounter? Interesting. In a way, but without save, its not magical, they need to hit a flat footed target and yea... but basically, yes :)
Witch 07-25-07, 07:05 PM	Here: Ruin, Lesser: Any weapon with this ability has a 25% chance of ignoring immunity to critical hits (or reduces the chance for a creature with a version of Fortification armor to ignore a critical hit by 25%). Moderate transmutation; CL 11th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +2 bonus. Ruin: Any weapon with this ability has a 50% chance of ignoring immunity to critical hits (or reduces the chance for a creature with a version of Fortification armor to ignore a critical hit by 50%). Moderate transmutation; CL 21st; Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +6 bonus. A bit more generic, but maybe you can use it.
unundindur 07-25-07, 08:15 PM	Here: Ruin, Lesser: Any weapon with this ability has a 25% chance of ignoring immunity to critical hits (or reduces the chance for a creature with a version of Fortification armor to ignore a critical hit by 25%). Moderate transmutation; CL 11th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +2 bonus. Ruin: Any weapon with this ability has a 50% chance of ignoring immunity to critical hits (or reduces the chance for a creature with a version of Fortification armor to ignore a critical hit by 50%). Moderate transmutation; CL 21st; Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +6 bonus. A bit more generic, but maybe you can use it. Well they have a lot different flavour, and use. Your versions allow to critical hit agaisnt a naturally immune enemy, which is a lot more powerful (even though +6 seemed too expensive in my mind). I prefer a more direct counter to the spesific items, and generally just ask what price you guys and girls would deem fitting. Here is my current take on it. Penetrating A penetrating weapon ignore all immunity to critical hits and precision based damage that originates from items and spells. This ability can only be placed on piercing weapons. Moderate transmutation; CL 15th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Keen Edge and Moment of Prescience; Price +1 bonus.
Empiro 07-25-07, 08:41 PM	I like Ruin more, because it adds something not already present in the game. Penetrating basically takes something in the game, and then specifically negates it, leading to an arms race (what's next, Improved Fortification?) That said, there are many ways to negate the ability already. An AMF works, so does a targetted dispel.
Grumman 07-25-07, 09:00 PM	I am against a weapon ability to ignore fortification. After all, if any enemy with a sneak attack or pickaxe (i.e. the specific group of people you're trying to protect yourself from) is going to buy anti-fortification, what's the point of fortification in the first place? Also, except for the straight gold cost, the opportunity cost of an ability on armour is greater than for an ability on a weapon, since it's a lot easier to switch weapons than it is to switch suits of armour. ETA: For my setting I need this for a couple of assassin guilds etc. After all, for the political game to work the warriors cannot just be immune to assassination Why not? Surely not everyone in the party has heavy fortification on their armour. If they do, do they wear it while they're sleeping? Do they also have immunity to poison? Spells? Do they have anyone who they'd care enough about to protect?
unundindur 07-25-07, 09:14 PM	I like Ruin more, because it adds something not already present in the game. Penetrating basically takes something in the game, and then specifically negates it, leading to an arms race (what's next, Improved Fortification?) That said, there are many ways to negate the ability already. An AMF works, so does a targetted dispel. But in this case "I" need offense to win the arms race for me to be content, in this I just ask for a price of the item, not if it should exist or not :) And generally this has nothing to do with PCs, its about how the world works, as I will get to in my next response ;) What is AMF btw? All this said, I thank you for your oppinion :)
Dheran 07-25-07, 09:19 PM	There is an existing weapon ability that allows you to ignore fortification. It's called vorpal.
unundindur 07-25-07, 09:22 PM	I am against a weapon ability to ignore fortification. After all, if any enemy with a sneak attack or pickaxe (i.e. the specific group of people you're trying to protect yourself from) is going to buy anti-fortification, what's the point of fortification in the first place? Because fortification also works in combat against mercurial greatswords (just a handy example). Its always active and will help our beloved king in war and against less capable assassins, just not the one that is payed XXX amount of gold and who put his life at stake to kill the king for his rival (more on spells and other superpowers later). The best protection from assassins in my setting will be guards and traps, not just immunity to their actual trade. Also, except for the straight gold cost, the opportunity cost of an ability on armour is greater than for an ability on a weapon, since it's a lot easier to switch weapons than it is to switch suits of armour. That I can agree too, but this weapon is also extremely situational, which I find should much more than make up for this. ETA: Why not? Surely not everyone in the party has heavy fortification on their armour. If they do, do they wear it while they're sleeping? Do they also have immunity to poison? Spells? Do they have anyone who they'd care enough about to protect? Its not about a party at all, actually its unlikely to be a topic in ages from now :) The point is just that as part of creating the setting of Eiir I want to make classic assassination a topic at higher levels. A king likely wear things like a ring of fortification while sleeping, not to speak of a ring of immunity to poisons. This should make them near impossible to kill, but that is to assassins of lower level. I want a king to need his guard, and to fear the blade in the darkness more than some crazy necromancer (with spells that may suit the purpose of killing the king). After all, yes spells could kill an important person, but assassins in my setting possess no spells, that is the domain of magicians. If interested you can find all you need in my signature :) Thanks for your comments anyway :)
unundindur 07-25-07, 09:24 PM	There is an existing weapon ability that allows you to ignore fortification. It's called vorpal. ...yes, but that also have another more obvious use that makes "this" part of that weapon extremely unconvenient (only on a 20, ignore all your training [assassinate/sneak attack] and the price goes boom due to it. But thanks for pointing out :)
Grumman 07-26-07, 12:37 AM	Also, except for the straight gold cost, the opportunity cost of an ability on armour is greater than for an ability on a weapon, since it's a lot easier to switch weapons than it is to switch suits of armour. That I can agree too, but this weapon is also extremely situational, which I find should much more than make up for this. At the very least, it is far too cheap for what it does. All someone needs to do is pay 4302 gp for a +1 Penetrating dagger, and they can ignore the 35,000+ gp investment that their victim made in their +1 nightgown of Not Getting Stabbed To Death In Your Sleep. Admittedly, I'm thinking of Fortification more in terms of wizards and non-combatants than fighters, but in my experience sneak attacks are a far greater threat than the additional damage from critical hits.
unundindur 07-26-07, 12:09 PM	At the very least, it is far too cheap for what it does. All someone needs to do is pay 4302 gp for a +1 Penetrating dagger, and they can ignore the 35,000+ gp investment that their victim made in their +1 nightgown of Not Getting Stabbed To Death In Your Sleep. Admittedly, I'm thinking of Fortification more in terms of wizards and non-combatants than fighters, but in my experience sneak attacks are a far greater threat than the additional damage from critical hits. Well, you have to know your target have fortification then... How you will disipher that I don't know. You could of course stab your enemy til you get a cricital hit/sneak attack, then see your weapon doesnt work, change to your penetrating weapon and continue. For the assassin, that is a huge loss of momentum, and the rogue have never been problematic in this regard. If i were an assassin I would liekly have this ability on my main weapon, even though it would come into play like once each 20th session. Its because to this ply predicability is key, and you cannot afford to suddenly have a target that just say "sorry mac, I am immune" without a counter. This of course leads to another interesting question. Why is fortification so cheap compared to spell-resistance? Fortification negates a rogues offensive capabilities completely while spell immunity does it slightly better against a mage (a rogue have weapon damage at least...).
NobodyRemembersThis 07-26-07, 01:19 PM	Magic > everything else. So Spell Resistance > Fortification. If it negates light fortification only, +1 bonus. Light and Medium Fortification, +2 bonus. Light, Medium, and Heavy Fortification, +3 bonus. Then it is relatively balanced.
Jackmojo 07-26-07, 01:32 PM	Magic > everything else. So Spell Resistance > Fortification. If it negates light fortification only, +1 bonus. Light and Medium Fortification, +2 bonus. Light, Medium, and Heavy Fortification, +3 bonus. Then it is relatively balanced. Personally I think it should require a more expensive enchantment to overcome something then the cost of the defensive enchantment. My personal House rule is for a +6 can crit anything enchantment: Murderous: Any weapon with this ability may score critical hits even on creatures which are normally immune or charaters wearing fortification armour. Strong transmutation; CL 18; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Grave Strike, Vine Strike; Price +6 bonus. I don't use the epic rules very often so this is not priced as an epic item, just as a +6 equivalent value. Jack
CaoSlayer 07-26-07, 01:42 PM	Considering how a weapon enchantment is way more expensible than armor enchantment and how is a waste spend a +3 cost in something that you will rarely use (last time I checked most monster dont use armor and a bunch of classes neither) I would say a +1 enchantment for lowing a 25% fortification rate and a +2 enchantment for lower 75% fortification. For sneaking totally sneak attack inmune creatures I would say +4 top, more considering that you are giving up something like +4d6 elemental damage or +4 to hit and damage for every blow against every creature.
Witch 07-26-07, 08:17 PM	Personally I think it should require a more expensive enchantment to overcome something then the cost of the defensive enchantment. My personal House rule is for a +6 can crit anything enchantment: Murderous: Any weapon with this ability may score critical hits even on creatures which are normally immune or charaters wearing fortification armour. Strong transmutation; CL 18; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Grave Strike, Vine Strike; Price +6 bonus. I don't use the epic rules very often so this is not priced as an epic item, just as a +6 equivalent value. Jack It's too cheap. It'd likely even be too cheap as an epic pricing.
Steidas 07-26-07, 08:49 PM	It's too cheap. It'd likely even be too cheap as an epic pricing. Cheaper?! There are spells of 2nd level that let you sneak attack constructs and undead. This is VERY overpriced, and EPIC? Come on. It's worse than Vorpal!
Dheran 07-27-07, 12:59 AM	For sneaking totally sneak attack inmune creatures I would say +4 top, more considering that you are giving up something like +4d6 elemental damage or +4 to hit and damage for every blow against every creature. This +4 pricing is probably reasonable for bypassing 100% Fortification. It's cheaper than Vorpal because it doesn't chop off heads, but it also works on all criticals rather than just natural 20s.
unundindur 07-27-07, 02:59 AM	Now let me point out that I asked for an item that spesifically counters fortification and similar spells and items, not undead and constructs as that would be a LOT more versatile and easily worth a truckload more money. I can agree that a weapon able to inflict prescicion based damage on plants, undead and constructs likely could be a +4 to +6 ability. Still, I none have convinced me that when only trumphing items and spells (a rare occurency) its worth more than +1, especially when the above was said to be worth +6.
Witch 07-27-07, 07:29 AM	Cheaper?! There are spells of 2nd level that let you sneak attack constructs and undead. This is VERY overpriced, and EPIC? Come on. It's worse than Vorpal! Vorpal won't affect those poor plants and undead. It won't affect oozes, either. And other things. That and the fact that Vorpal works on a natural 20 only. Incidentially, I houserule Vorpal to work on any critical. It is a +7 ability. Those second level spells require you to expend spell slots. This one doesn't. There's level 1 spells that allow you a +20 on attacks as well, after all.
Grumman 07-27-07, 08:35 AM	Still, I none have convinced me that when only trumphing items and spells (a rare occurency) its worth more than +1, especially when the above was said to be worth +6. Can you come up with a single reason why any rogue, ninja, spellthief or assassin above 12th level wouldn't fork out the palty 4302 gp for one of these weapons? Even if they never fight against someone who uses fortification or magic to protect themselves, it's pocket change. And if they do... their victim is screwed, despite spending an absolute minimum of 8 times as much (and the opportunity cost of using up all of their armour ability slots) to protect themselves. The only opportunity cost the rogue faces is the need to carry an extra pound of weapons.
unundindur 07-27-07, 10:20 AM	Can you come up with a single reason why any rogue, ninja, spellthief or assassin above 12th level wouldn't fork out the palty 4302 gp for one of these weapons? Even if they never fight against someone who uses fortification or magic to protect themselves, it's pocket change. And if they do... their victim is screwed, despite spending an absolute minimum of 8 times as much (and the opportunity cost of using up all of their armour ability slots) to protect themselves. The only opportunity cost the rogue faces is the need to carry an extra pound of weapons. Yes. Because the [insert class here] wants a shocking ability attached instead that is active on every hit against anyone. (if someone wants, fire up the math, and assume something like 1 of 40 targets have fortification, at most). And its absolutely not pocket change, it you look at it as a +1 on a +1 ability, then yes, but as a +1 on top of whatever you have on your primary weapon can be quite a huge cost. If they do the target is indeed screwed, even though they spent a lot more on an ability that have so many other uses that they are lucky anyway (not to much opportunity-cost on fortification, comes into play ALL the time). It sounds like you want the rogue to carry this on a separate nr.2 weapon. Fair enough, but then his momentum goes to waste in actually finding out if the target have fortification, as I mentioned earlier. That is still useful though, but well, I have no problem with a + ability beeing useful ;)
Steidas 07-27-07, 11:53 AM	If I were a rogue, I'd definetly carry another type of weapon. just ignoring fortification (unless the campaing is heavy on undead) that costs +4 is just too much. That's why people don't make Vorpals. Fun to find them, but that's it.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-27-07, 12:00 PM	So no one likes my gradual upgrade suggestion (+1/25%, +2/75%, +3/100%) instead? I'm crushed. :(
unundindur 07-27-07, 12:29 PM	So no one likes my gradual upgrade suggestion (+1/25%, +2/75%, +3/100%) instead? I'm crushed. :( Well, I just found it to expensive really. And I think that magic>everything doesnt mean we have to just live with it. I still think it is fair to compare fortification to spell immunity (with some modifications), the fact that sneak attack isnt comparable to spell progression is a fault in class-design, and one we should strive to minimize in my oppinion.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-27-07, 12:44 PM	Then go with +1 = ignore up to 75% fortification, and +2 = 100% fortification. :) And the system is designed around magic>everything else. So yes, we do have to live with it, unless you redo the magic system from the ground up - or, as Tempest Stormwind suggests, scrap magic and use psionics only. :P
Steidas 07-27-07, 12:48 PM	Then go with +1 = ignore up to 75% fortification, and +2 = 100% fortification. :) And the system is designed around magic>everything else. So yes, we do have to live with it, unless you redo the magic system from the ground up - or, as Tempest Stormwind suggests, scrap magic and use psionics only. :P I actually like the +1/25% and so on. My small chagne would be that there's that same percentage of sneak attacking or dealing a critical hit to a creature that you normally couldn't (oozes n' stuff).
unundindur 07-27-07, 12:51 PM	Then go with +1 = ignore up to 75% fortification, and +2 = 100% fortification. :) And the system is designed around magic>everything else. So yes, we do have to live with it, unless you redo the magic system from the ground up - or, as Tempest Stormwind suggests, scrap magic and use psionics only. :P +2 may be ok :) Regarding the second point, have any of the developers ever stated this? That is sort of blasphemy to my design-heart :eek: If you mean that everything points to it I can agree, but still cling to my hope that they don't do it by purpose. If they on the other hand have said this its like a judge just tells that he favours one of the subjects...that is hillarious!
Lusden Veharo 07-28-07, 01:53 PM	+2 may be ok :) Regarding the second point, have any of the developers ever stated this? That is sort of blasphemy to my design-heart :eek: If you mean that everything points to it I can agree, but still cling to my hope that they don't do it by purpose. If they on the other hand have said this its like a judge just tells that he favours one of the subjects...that is hillarious! Whether or not it's intentional, it's reality. SR granting armor is so terrible, I've never seen a character using it, so comparing Fortification (one of the many good choices for armor) to one of the worst will, of course, lead to the good one looking overpowered.
Voran 11-07-07, 03:12 AM	Sorta an old thread, but I was cruising the 'fortification' threads and this caught my eye. My gut feeling is that I'd be strongly opposed to implementing or allowing a player to try to implement a 'negate fortification' ability that costs less than the cost to fortify yourself in the first place. I think it should be expected that if you want to bypass a defense, you should be at least willing to equal, or exceed the cost. I mean, some of the examples were a little silly, for the cost of some guy giving himself 100% fortification, a squad of his enemies could all buy their own 'totally ignore fortification' weapons? An assassins guild or murderous bent thieves guild could pay for all their bagmen to have them.