Collision from MIC [Archive] - Wizards Community

Collision from MIC [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Evil DM Mk3
04-21-07, 04:32 PM Is it worth the +2 bonus, or is the 2d6 of an/two energy types from two +1 d6 bonuses (eg flaming) better? Obviously I can't post mechanic details... (I think, not OGL)
Vaelan
04-21-07, 04:59 PM Collision is in the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#collision)

It does +5 damage for a +2 enhancement.

It is reliable damage that gets multiplied on critical hits. I think it is a worthwhile ability.

EDIT: Mounted chargers get to multiply the damage as well.
im_robertb
04-21-07, 05:24 PM Advantages:
-Is multiplied on a critical hit.
-Is not subject to energy resistance.

Give and Take:
-An elemental burst enhancement (+2 bonus) would give an average of +3.5 damage on a normal hit and a total average extra damage of +9 on a critical hit (with an x2 weapon).

Disadvantages:
-5 damage per hit, whereas 2 elemental enhancements give an average of +7 damage per hit.
-Is subject to Damage Reduction (though only if the normal damage from the weapon doesn't overpower it anyway).

It comes down mainly to if DR (that isn't beaten by the primary weapon) or Energy Resistance are more common in your campaign. For example, DR/magic isn't a problem with a Collision weapon, as it must already be magical. However, DR/Evil or DR/Adamantine can be more difficult to overcome. A creature with Energy Resistance 5, on the other hand, will typically be able to ignore the energy damage from a flaming/frost/whatever weapon.

It's a tough call. As a beefy, greatsword wielding barbarian, I'd go for the Collision weapon, as I'm probably getting a few points past DR anyway. As a low-strength ranger or rogue, I'd go with Flaming/Frost, in the hopes that if something has DR I can't or have difficulty getting through, my energy damage still keeps me useful.
RavenDrake
04-21-07, 05:32 PM Collision gives much better minimum damage. Plus, it's damage is multiplied on a critical, which with a x3 or x4 weapon delivers a sizeable hit.

Additionally, the damage added by Collision is melee weapon damage(coresponding to the damage type of the weapon) which is important as it not only is not subject to energy resistances, but it also helps to overcome DR. You're far more likely to find creatures with numerious energy resistances as you progress in levels than creatures with more than 15 points of Damage reduction... and DR can be overcome(and thus ignored), where energy resistances generally can't.
Maraxus
04-21-07, 06:58 PM As an archer: Why choose, take everything.

As anyone else: Given Improved Critical, on a greatsword, collision averages 6 damage, 6.5 on a falcion. Imho, this is definitly close enough to 7, to take the advantage of not being subject to energy resistence. Collision is better if only by a very little bit

PS: And btw, " +5 damage for +2 enchantment " is not in any form protected by copyright, it's only 3 words and 2 integers.
Aryxbez
04-22-07, 11:30 PM See collision has a better damage since it's damage is dependable, since it deals +5 damage every time. While two elemental effects will deal 2-12 average of 6.5 to 7.
Also at later levels, creatures gain resistance to most energy types, while collision will still deal the damage.

So in the Long run, collision is better.
Tempest Stormwind
04-22-07, 11:39 PM I love how Collision's been around in this very edition since 2004 (2001, actually, since it appears virtually unchanged in 3.0) but it's never been truly noticed outside the psi board.

As has been said, it's most useful if you don't need elemental damage OR if you're dealing critical hits very often. Outside of that, it's mostly for fun, although certain weapons with certain characters can make it more worthwhile than others can (Addendum to Raven Drake: It helps with overcoming DR in much the same way that energy enhancements do -- DR 15/Good and Piercing, for instance, isn't any use whatsoever against the flaming/frost damage from a flaming/frost sword (though it blocks the sword just fine).

It's what we'd call a perfectly balanced weapon enhancement -- there's indecision involved in choosing between Collision and other weapon enhancements of the same cost. That's what I consider good design.
RavingDork
04-23-07, 12:18 AM If you are using a two-handed weapon and have the Power Attack feat you are better off simply Power Attacking for 4 extra damage.

That would net you 6 poinsts instead of Collision's 5.
jaelis
04-23-07, 12:31 AM If you are using a two-handed weapon and have the Power Attack feat you are better off simply Power Attacking for 4 extra damage.

That would net you 6 poinsts instead of Collision's 5.

I would say that if you have a 2H weapon and the power attack feat, then a straight enhancement bonus is probably better than most any special ability. But that maxes out at +5, so you need to add something after that. Collision is a pretty good choice, I'd take it over the energy abilities.
runestar
04-23-07, 12:46 AM Well, the burst enhancements are arguably a tad weak for a +2, so I suppose that collision would be an example of what constitutes a fair +2 weapon property.:)
Tempest Stormwind
04-23-07, 01:38 AM Well, the burst enhancements are arguably a tad weak for a +2, so I suppose that collision would be an example of what constitutes a fair +2 weapon property.:)

As I said above, it's nigh-perfectly balanced at +2.

It's generally held that attack rolls are more valuable than damage rolls, although how much is up for debate -- generally people lean more toward the attack roll, though. Compared to a straight enhancement bonus, which improves attacks by +2, Collision is 3 additional damage at no additional attack bonus. 3 (damage) is slightly greater than 2 (attack), which follows from the general assertion earlier.

Furthermore, we know it can't be a 1:1, since virtually NO ONE recommends using Power Attack unless you're using a two-hander -- read "unless you're getting 2:1 return with it".

If you're looking for straight damage, the fact that it multiplies makes it one of the best options in the game. However, it is still limited by DR, and at +2 it's not exactly the cheapest enhancement to implement, and the +2 attack it's costing you means a fair amount.

So, do you apply it, or do you instead favor things like the energy boosters or a straight enhancement bonus? Having trouble making up your mind?

Taste the indecision? That's balance, right there.
runestar
04-23-07, 02:40 AM Also, are you sure that the damage is blocked out by dr? I was under the impression that it was untyped, and thus, nothing could stop it...:P
DarkRhystar
04-23-07, 02:50 AM I love how Collision's been around in this very edition since 2004 (2001, actually, since it appears virtually unchanged in 3.0) but it's never been truly noticed outside the psi board.

Might be the fact that the most recent printing before the MIC is the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

That's just a hunch though. :)
Vaelan
04-23-07, 03:44 AM Also, are you sure that the damage is blocked out by dr? I was under the impression that it was untyped, and thus, nothing could stop it...:P
The property is called Collision and the text says that it works by making the weapon heavier or some such nonsense. It is additional physical damage and thus DR is applicable.
runestar
04-23-07, 03:57 AM The property is called Collision and the text says that it works by making the weapon heavier or some such nonsense. It is additional physical damage and thus DR is applicable.
Hmm...I assumed that it was the upgrade for the psychokinetic weapon property, which had such a provision. Guess I was mistaken then...:embarrass
Tempest Stormwind
04-23-07, 04:04 AM Might be the fact that the most recent printing before the MIC is the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

That's just a hunch though. :)Yeah, and?

Just because it's in the XPH doesn't mean it ONLY belongs on the psi forum. I mean, the MIC did destroy many of the psionic items, flat-out stealing them as magical ones, but those that did survive intact are being discussed elsewhere. Why now? Why do people avoid that book, despite it being full of not just D&D gold, but D&D gems?Hmm...I assumed that it was the upgrade for the psychokinetic weapon property, which had such a provision. Guess I was mistaken then...:embarrassThe upgrade from Psychokinetic is psychokinetic burst (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#psychokineticBurst). That Psychokinetic has a bypass-DR provision but Collision does not should have tipped you off. :p

Seriously, your +3 weapon deals +3 damage; that +3 is the same type as the weapon itself. Collision works the same way.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evil DM Mk3 04-21-07, 04:32 PM	Is it worth the +2 bonus, or is the 2d6 of an/two energy types from two +1 d6 bonuses (eg flaming) better? Obviously I can't post mechanic details... (I think, not OGL)
Vaelan 04-21-07, 04:59 PM	Collision is in the SRD. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#collision) It does +5 damage for a +2 enhancement. It is reliable damage that gets multiplied on critical hits. I think it is a worthwhile ability. EDIT: Mounted chargers get to multiply the damage as well.
im_robertb 04-21-07, 05:24 PM	Advantages: -Is multiplied on a critical hit. -Is not subject to energy resistance. Give and Take: -An elemental burst enhancement (+2 bonus) would give an average of +3.5 damage on a normal hit and a total average extra damage of +9 on a critical hit (with an x2 weapon). Disadvantages: -5 damage per hit, whereas 2 elemental enhancements give an average of +7 damage per hit. -Is subject to Damage Reduction (though only if the normal damage from the weapon doesn't overpower it anyway). It comes down mainly to if DR (that isn't beaten by the primary weapon) or Energy Resistance are more common in your campaign. For example, DR/magic isn't a problem with a Collision weapon, as it must already be magical. However, DR/Evil or DR/Adamantine can be more difficult to overcome. A creature with Energy Resistance 5, on the other hand, will typically be able to ignore the energy damage from a flaming/frost/whatever weapon. It's a tough call. As a beefy, greatsword wielding barbarian, I'd go for the Collision weapon, as I'm probably getting a few points past DR anyway. As a low-strength ranger or rogue, I'd go with Flaming/Frost, in the hopes that if something has DR I can't or have difficulty getting through, my energy damage still keeps me useful.
RavenDrake 04-21-07, 05:32 PM	Collision gives much better minimum damage. Plus, it's damage is multiplied on a critical, which with a x3 or x4 weapon delivers a sizeable hit. Additionally, the damage added by Collision is melee weapon damage(coresponding to the damage type of the weapon) which is important as it not only is not subject to energy resistances, but it also helps to overcome DR. You're far more likely to find creatures with numerious energy resistances as you progress in levels than creatures with more than 15 points of Damage reduction... and DR can be overcome(and thus ignored), where energy resistances generally can't.
Maraxus 04-21-07, 06:58 PM	As an archer: Why choose, take everything. As anyone else: Given Improved Critical, on a greatsword, collision averages 6 damage, 6.5 on a falcion. Imho, this is definitly close enough to 7, to take the advantage of not being subject to energy resistence. Collision is better if only by a very little bit PS: And btw, " +5 damage for +2 enchantment " is not in any form protected by copyright, it's only 3 words and 2 integers.
Aryxbez 04-22-07, 11:30 PM	See collision has a better damage since it's damage is dependable, since it deals +5 damage every time. While two elemental effects will deal 2-12 average of 6.5 to 7. Also at later levels, creatures gain resistance to most energy types, while collision will still deal the damage. So in the Long run, collision is better.
Tempest Stormwind 04-22-07, 11:39 PM	I love how Collision's been around in this very edition since 2004 (2001, actually, since it appears virtually unchanged in 3.0) but it's never been truly noticed outside the psi board. As has been said, it's most useful if you don't need elemental damage OR if you're dealing critical hits very often. Outside of that, it's mostly for fun, although certain weapons with certain characters can make it more worthwhile than others can (Addendum to Raven Drake: It helps with overcoming DR in much the same way that energy enhancements do -- DR 15/Good and Piercing, for instance, isn't any use whatsoever against the flaming/frost damage from a flaming/frost sword (though it blocks the sword just fine). It's what we'd call a perfectly balanced weapon enhancement -- there's indecision involved in choosing between Collision and other weapon enhancements of the same cost. That's what I consider good design.
RavingDork 04-23-07, 12:18 AM	If you are using a two-handed weapon and have the Power Attack feat you are better off simply Power Attacking for 4 extra damage. That would net you 6 poinsts instead of Collision's 5.
jaelis 04-23-07, 12:31 AM	If you are using a two-handed weapon and have the Power Attack feat you are better off simply Power Attacking for 4 extra damage. That would net you 6 poinsts instead of Collision's 5. I would say that if you have a 2H weapon and the power attack feat, then a straight enhancement bonus is probably better than most any special ability. But that maxes out at +5, so you need to add something after that. Collision is a pretty good choice, I'd take it over the energy abilities.
runestar 04-23-07, 12:46 AM	Well, the burst enhancements are arguably a tad weak for a +2, so I suppose that collision would be an example of what constitutes a fair +2 weapon property.:)
Tempest Stormwind 04-23-07, 01:38 AM	Well, the burst enhancements are arguably a tad weak for a +2, so I suppose that collision would be an example of what constitutes a fair +2 weapon property.:) As I said above, it's nigh-perfectly balanced at +2. It's generally held that attack rolls are more valuable than damage rolls, although how much is up for debate -- generally people lean more toward the attack roll, though. Compared to a straight enhancement bonus, which improves attacks by +2, Collision is 3 additional damage at no additional attack bonus. 3 (damage) is slightly greater than 2 (attack), which follows from the general assertion earlier. Furthermore, we know it can't be a 1:1, since virtually NO ONE recommends using Power Attack unless you're using a two-hander -- read "unless you're getting 2:1 return with it". If you're looking for straight damage, the fact that it multiplies makes it one of the best options in the game. However, it is still limited by DR, and at +2 it's not exactly the cheapest enhancement to implement, and the +2 attack it's costing you means a fair amount. So, do you apply it, or do you instead favor things like the energy boosters or a straight enhancement bonus? Having trouble making up your mind? Taste the indecision? That's balance, right there.
runestar 04-23-07, 02:40 AM	Also, are you sure that the damage is blocked out by dr? I was under the impression that it was untyped, and thus, nothing could stop it...:P
DarkRhystar 04-23-07, 02:50 AM	I love how Collision's been around in this very edition since 2004 (2001, actually, since it appears virtually unchanged in 3.0) but it's never been truly noticed outside the psi board. Might be the fact that the most recent printing before the MIC is the Expanded Psionics Handbook. That's just a hunch though. :)
Vaelan 04-23-07, 03:44 AM	Also, are you sure that the damage is blocked out by dr? I was under the impression that it was untyped, and thus, nothing could stop it...:P The property is called Collision and the text says that it works by making the weapon heavier or some such nonsense. It is additional physical damage and thus DR is applicable.
runestar 04-23-07, 03:57 AM	The property is called Collision and the text says that it works by making the weapon heavier or some such nonsense. It is additional physical damage and thus DR is applicable. Hmm...I assumed that it was the upgrade for the psychokinetic weapon property, which had such a provision. Guess I was mistaken then...:embarrass
Tempest Stormwind 04-23-07, 04:04 AM	Might be the fact that the most recent printing before the MIC is the Expanded Psionics Handbook. That's just a hunch though. :)Yeah, and? Just because it's in the XPH doesn't mean it ONLY belongs on the psi forum. I mean, the MIC did destroy many of the psionic items, flat-out stealing them as magical ones, but those that did survive intact are being discussed elsewhere. Why now? Why do people avoid that book, despite it being full of not just D&D gold, but D&D gems?Hmm...I assumed that it was the upgrade for the psychokinetic weapon property, which had such a provision. Guess I was mistaken then...:embarrassThe upgrade from Psychokinetic is psychokinetic burst (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#psychokineticBurst). That Psychokinetic has a bypass-DR provision but Collision does not should have tipped you off. :p Seriously, your +3 weapon deals +3 damage; that +3 is the same type as the weapon itself. Collision works the same way.