Post/Author/DateTime	Post
daponz 05-25-05, 01:25 PM	A character in my group a character recently decided to commision a magic item: A bow +1 paralyzing. Testing the weapon in a playtest game-session, I pitted them (2 players: both cl12) against 2 ogres (each fighter 8). Under normal circumstances they should have died. But that's where paralyzing comes in: This means that every arrow shot from the bow which hits, results in a Will 17 save or be paralyzed= held = helpless. Each round the target may make a new save, Will 17. Here's the teamplay: Bow shoots 3 arrows, target (eg fighter 12, will +6) fails save, second player goes to the held target and with death blow delivers a coup de grace, otherwise he gets a critical for free. Even without the teamplay the paralyzing factor is questionable, a warlock with hold monster only gets 1 attempt a round, not three or more with many shot. I think this is awfully broken, especially if you know that paralyzing is +2 enhancement to weapon. Granted it is nice munchkinin but I think paralyzing is plainly broken. Your thoughts please
tarkin 05-25-05, 02:04 PM	I agree, that enchantment should be melee only. That way they are far more limited in the number of possible targets they can attack in a round.
Armoracia Rusticana 05-25-05, 02:59 PM	Well I think that even in melee Paralizing is outrageous enchantment. Because of great number of attacks per a combat round. Just imagine that first one usually hits ans sometimes paralizes your enemy. That means other attacks will anyway hit a helpless target with all possible advantages you can imagine. A TWF-ing rogue needs only to strike opponent once and finish him up with his sneaks
Niveus Lynx 05-25-05, 03:04 PM	Maybe you shouldn't do a paralyzing ability, but a stunning one...
djinni 05-25-05, 03:59 PM	Granted it is nice munchkinin but I think paralyzing is plainly broken. the enhancement might be out of balance but since there isn't anyone cheating there is noone being a munchkin. if you balance the encounters with additional creatures that have a wil save of +10 or higher then you have no problem, especially since Spell Resistance should apply. have them fight a war troll or two....you'll see.
Nobby 05-25-05, 04:26 PM	That way they are far more limited in the number of possible targets they can attack in a round. i think that if you limit the times per round you should be fine with the balance and you can just do what djinni said so you could limit the wepon but i would let the player have the enhancement on whatever wepon that he payed for.. but that is my 2 cents Nobby
Illion the Red 05-25-05, 04:30 PM	Broken or not, why is the save a Will save? It should be a Fort save. So what if the rules on the ability say otherwise. That said, throw something at the PCs that can send the arrows back at them...
daponz 05-27-05, 11:22 AM	Thanks for answering all, tonight I'm going to talk this through with my players. guess they'll be on the defensive, but if they persist, I will take Illion's idea to heart and make em sweat :)
wonlee76 05-27-05, 11:51 AM	A simpler approach to make it on par with regular hold monster vs. Mass Hold Monster is to make the ability kick in only on a standard action or activate it as a move action per arrow (thus 1 arrow/round). Putting a paralyzing enhancement on a bow is giving a PC access to mass hold monster (if each arrow is shot at a different creature) or allowing the PC to do something the regular spell would not be able to do (multiple saves on one monster).
Dalthbar 05-27-05, 11:52 AM	I've said it before in other threads - anything that requires the opponent to make a save every single attack will slow things down. It seems insignificant at first, but trust me, it can add up during medium-to-large scale battles. If they insist on this weapon, why not have a decent DC and just make it 3x/day or something like that?