Balanced Weapons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Balanced Weapons? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ronyon
08-18-06, 01:26 PM There are two weapons simple weapons from the Planar Handbook that I would like to use in a Realms game.
Is there anything unbalancing about these two?
Heavy Sickle. Simple, one handed, costs 12gp does 1D8 (x2)slashing, weighs 6lbs.
This weapon I like 'cause it feals like a medivial chopper or a large machete . Lacking the tripping mechanism of the regular sickle it makes up for it by having 1d8 slashing as a simple weapon.Doesnt over shadow martial slashing weapons, as it lack a good crit and it also is oone handed not light.
I would use this with my clerics, as a great simple slashing weapon, or in an Escrima build, as the primary weapon with the Muspelrule(see below) in the off hand.

Muspelrule. Simple, Light , costs 2gp does 1D4 19 (x2) bashing,weighs 1lb.
This is a cane, a hickory stick, a escrima stick, ect. No real advantges over the club, since its staus as a light weapon and the improved threat is balanced(?) via the increased cost, lack of throw-ablity, and its reduced damage.
I like it as a blunt,wooden and therefor Spikes and Brambles ready light weapon.
It also is swanky, I can see it as a the swager stick of a peacocky swain, or the riding crop of a gentleman rider.

So, as they are official 3.5 weapons, do you see any balance problems or do they seem ok?
cwslyclgh
08-18-06, 01:48 PM the heavy sickle is balanced just fine.

I see no reason why the Muspelrule should have a 19-20 threat range when no other similar weapons do, but it doesn't look unbalanced ruleswise (infact it might be a bit underpowered for a simple light weapon, compare to a dagger which is exactly the same [damage type excpeted] but can be thrown).

note that it is easy to tell that these weapons are balance... mechanically the heavy sickle is just a heavy mace with its damage type changed to slashing (one damage type does not have an advantage over any other in general cases), and the Muspelrule is just a dagger with its damage type changed to bludgeoning and lack of a range increment.
ronyon
08-18-06, 01:58 PM Thank you cwslyclgh for your quick and to the point reply.
I could not have said it as well my self, and that's half of why I posted here.
Other opinions would be nice, especially opposing opinions.
My DM tends to care about balance, but also about appropriatness.
Since he runs a Realms game, I might cross-post to that board, for flavor/appropriateness arguments.
utilitarian
08-18-06, 03:14 PM Well, the Heavy Sickle being balanced by removing the trippling ability works from a balance point of view, but makes no sense from an in game point of view. Why would a larger version of the same thing lack that ability? If anything it would be easier to get around the leg given the increased size of the blade.

The Muspelrule I see mainly as a flavor item so I don't have a lot of desire to "balance" it overmuch.
Tequila_Sunrise
08-18-06, 10:32 PM When I saw the thread's title I thought 'oh no, he wants to use a jovar"...there'll sure be an argument about this!
Mitchell
08-18-06, 11:42 PM These two are fine.
Just weighing in. :cool:
ronyon
08-19-06, 01:47 PM Cool, no real objections!
Utilitarian, I agree with you,the lack of trip makes no sense.
It is yet another reason I prefer to think of it as a Machete.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ronyon 08-18-06, 01:26 PM	There are two weapons simple weapons from the Planar Handbook that I would like to use in a Realms game. Is there anything unbalancing about these two? Heavy Sickle. Simple, one handed, costs 12gp does 1D8 (x2)slashing, weighs 6lbs. This weapon I like 'cause it feals like a medivial chopper or a large machete . Lacking the tripping mechanism of the regular sickle it makes up for it by having 1d8 slashing as a simple weapon.Doesnt over shadow martial slashing weapons, as it lack a good crit and it also is oone handed not light. I would use this with my clerics, as a great simple slashing weapon, or in an Escrima build, as the primary weapon with the Muspelrule(see below) in the off hand. Muspelrule. Simple, Light , costs 2gp does 1D4 19 (x2) bashing,weighs 1lb. This is a cane, a hickory stick, a escrima stick, ect. No real advantges over the club, since its staus as a light weapon and the improved threat is balanced(?) via the increased cost, lack of throw-ablity, and its reduced damage. I like it as a blunt,wooden and therefor Spikes and Brambles ready light weapon. It also is swanky, I can see it as a the swager stick of a peacocky swain, or the riding crop of a gentleman rider. So, as they are official 3.5 weapons, do you see any balance problems or do they seem ok?
cwslyclgh 08-18-06, 01:48 PM	the heavy sickle is balanced just fine. I see no reason why the Muspelrule should have a 19-20 threat range when no other similar weapons do, but it doesn't look unbalanced ruleswise (infact it might be a bit underpowered for a simple light weapon, compare to a dagger which is exactly the same [damage type excpeted] but can be thrown). note that it is easy to tell that these weapons are balance... mechanically the heavy sickle is just a heavy mace with its damage type changed to slashing (one damage type does not have an advantage over any other in general cases), and the Muspelrule is just a dagger with its damage type changed to bludgeoning and lack of a range increment.
ronyon 08-18-06, 01:58 PM	Thank you cwslyclgh for your quick and to the point reply. I could not have said it as well my self, and that's half of why I posted here. Other opinions would be nice, especially opposing opinions. My DM tends to care about balance, but also about appropriatness. Since he runs a Realms game, I might cross-post to that board, for flavor/appropriateness arguments.
utilitarian 08-18-06, 03:14 PM	Well, the Heavy Sickle being balanced by removing the trippling ability works from a balance point of view, but makes no sense from an in game point of view. Why would a larger version of the same thing lack that ability? If anything it would be easier to get around the leg given the increased size of the blade. The Muspelrule I see mainly as a flavor item so I don't have a lot of desire to "balance" it overmuch.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-18-06, 10:32 PM	When I saw the thread's title I thought 'oh no, he wants to use a jovar"...there'll sure be an argument about this!
Mitchell 08-18-06, 11:42 PM	These two are fine. Just weighing in. :cool:
ronyon 08-19-06, 01:47 PM	Cool, no real objections! Utilitarian, I agree with you,the lack of trip makes no sense. It is yet another reason I prefer to think of it as a Machete.