Talk:Hammer of Ancients (3.5e Equipment)

Way Off Base

To be blunt, this entry is a trainwreck.

• See Magic Items: Weapons (SRD Rules) for how magic items should look, be described, and have their costs calculated in d20.
• Weapon should conform better to existing weapon standards. See weaponry under SRD:Equipment.

In more details:

• Exotic weapons should do 1d10, not 2d10. (See: Sword, Bastard (SRD Weapon))
• There is a pre-existing penalty for using a weapon/exotic weapon without proficiency. That should be used rather than a custom bonus.
• Auction cost is too low for the actual cost of an actual +4 weapon. See magical weapons, cited above. Cost should be closer to 32,000 gp.
• The calculated cost belongs in the cost field. Flavor text belongs down below. (This improves readability.)
• Item should have Spell Resistance rather than a flat failure to enchant. (This better accounts for such spells as magic weapon.)
• If you want the item to remain non-magic (acceptable for an artifact), place that in the text. In theory, enchanting it would only confer the weapon the magic descriptor.

--Dmilewski 13:22, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Since this was made by an IP, please feel free to change this keeping the ideas you said above in mind. Also, when your done, this items needs to be added to Weapon Descriptions. --Green Dragon 15:55, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Okay, admittantly the weapon did have a lot of design flaws, but there was a couple good ideas I think that should be addressed. The original design had a -4 to Base Attack. This was to be offset by the exotic weapon proficiency so that the weapon would still have a base of +0 to hit, but also would not allow as many attacks per round. This was to compensate for the obscenely high damage. I think this is an interesting mechanic that should at least be explored.

The high cost for a non-magic weapon was to stop low-leveled characters from just purchasing this weapon and killing everything with it.

I don't know where you got +4 weapon though. In a sense it is a -4 weapon. Regardless, I'd like to hear if you have any ideas on creating a balanced version with the tradeoff mechanic. I was thinking as a more humble version:

-4 to base attack, exotic feat reduces this to -3 in addition to the feat's normal effects

2D8 damage maybe? I don't see how that is so much more powerful than a greatsword (2D6, 19-20/x2)

Keep the 20/x3 crit --> it is a big hammer after all

Besides that, the other things were to add flavor of the unknown metal type.

Let me know what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.66.49 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 January 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

I misread the +4 as an absolute bonus. I see now. It's really a masterwork weapon with confusing and customized rules. We can revise this to better fit into the weapon and materials system of 3.5. A few things to note: if you are non-proficient in a weapon, you get a penalty. If a weapon is of a larger size category than you, you get a penalty. That's roughly the same penalty (-4) as the one that you proposed. The weapon now fits better into the weapons rule systems. Now that we know HOW the penalty acts, characters can choose feats to mitigate the penalty. (Place a note in your description about what the rules say is good writing. Medium characters get a -X penalty for wielding a large weapon. Using a weapon that you are not proficient with grants a -X penalty.)

You are right about the damage. I misread the greatsword advancement in my haste. (2d6 does advance to 2d8). 2d6/19-20 x3 translates to 2d6/x3. That would get bumped to 2d8 if we made it an exotic weapon. That gets bumped to 2d10 for being a large example of the exotic weapon.

In 3.X, you create a weapon, give it a size, then apply any special materials. What we really have two separate entries here: one for the weapon, and one for the material that it is made out of. I updated the entry a bit. Have I moved it closer to your conception? I made the top more like a normal weapon entry (which defines the exotic warhammer). Down below, I took a stab at a clearer definition of your exotic material and the weapon itself.

--Dmilewski 21:07, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Greatsword advancement does not go from 2d6 to 2d8. It goes to 3d6 (see Weapon Qualities). However, and exotic derivation of a greatsword would go to 2d8 (and in fact I was in the process of writing up such a weapon). Also, 2d8 goes to 2d10 only if the 2d8 weapon is sized for a Small creature or smaller. For Medium and larger creatures it goes to 3d8.

What's odd about this weapons is that I was going to put together a weapon almost exactly like it:

Sledgehammer

Exotic Two-Handed Melee Critical: ×3 Range Increment: — Type: Bludgeoning Hardness: 5
Size	Cost	Damage	Weight	hp
Fine	10 gp	1d6	1 lb.	1
Diminuative	20 gp	1d8	2 lb.	1
Tiny	20 gp	1d10	4 lb.	2
Small	40 gp	2d6	7 lb.	5
Medium	40 gp	2d8	14 lb.	10
Large	80 gp	3d8	28 lb.	20
Huge	80 gp	4d8	56 lb.	40
Gargantuan	160 gp	6d8	112 lb.	80
Collossal	160 gp	8d8	224 lb.	160

A sledgehammer is too large to use without special training (the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat).

Creatures larger than the intended size of the wielder may treat a sledgehammer as a martial weapon. Treat as a two-handed martial weapon for creatures one size larger, as a one-handed weapon for creatures two sizes larger (with the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, the creature must choose at the beginning of each turn whether to wield as a light weapon or a one-handed weapon), and as a light weapon for creatures three sizes larger. In all cases, the penalty for weilding an inappropriately sized weapon still applies.

—Sledged 21:54, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Only without the special dwarven qualities. Both are very cool. Out of curiousity, would it have any bonuses against constructs? (To model for the fact that sledge hammers tend to tear through stone and concrete). --Cypresslyshra 22:01, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Other than the fact that it does more damage than any other mundane Medium weapon? No. This is a "weaponized" (for lack of a better term) version of a sledgehammer. —Sledged 22:46, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Sledged, you should still make your weapon into your own creation... It looks very good. --Green Dragon 22:33, 4 January 2007 (MST)

It's part of a series of weapons. As soon as I get the others fleshed out, I'll post them. —Sledged 22:46, 4 January 2007 (MST)

Let's just base this thing on your sledgehammer. Make it simple. That leaves us with better defining the material. (The stats I have in there are best guesstimates.)--Dmilewski 06:39, 5 January 2007 (MST)

Okay, I've given it its own page: Sledgehammer. —Sledged 07:52, 5 January 2007 (MST)

I like the new changes. It makes much more sense as a masterwork Sledgehammer. I think the trade-off that the metal gives needs revision now. SR 30, and +4 saves for the hammer itself is hardly worth an effective +2 enhancement modifier. SR 13 for the character is a comparable enhancement effect, but it is a weapon, not armour. I wish there was some sort of "dispel strike" for weapons to compare to and use. It would fit in nicely with the concept. Aarnott 10:47, 5 January 2007 (MST)

Riffing: It could ignore enhancement bonuses. It could grant negative levels to a target. It could deny a target hit from any spellcasting for one round. It could damage force effects, like walls of force. It could have a dispelling affect against any spell with a duration. --Dmilewski 12:50, 5 January 2007 (MST)

I figured I should probably justify the price change with the new ability. Creating a magic item with dispel magic use-activated costs 30,000 gold (caster lvl 5 x lvl 3 spell x 2000). The item has a -2 enhancement in terms of enchanting, which for enchanting to +1 costs 10,000 gold. This of course effectively costs more later, but the effect is non-magic. Also, the spell does not function exactly like dispel since it can only be used to remove buffs (I wasn't sure if sundering would make it far too powerful -- I haven't used sunder much). Now dispel strike seems really powerful to me, so this still might need a lot of work. Aarnott 13:24, 5 January 2007 (MST)

Mundane?

Is this still mundane? --Green Dragon 16:03, 5 January 2007 (MST)

Well, it's non-magic, but I don't know if I'd call it mundane. Perhaps we need another column on the Equipment page to identify special non-magic (-psionic) items. —Sledged 16:09, 5 January 2007 (MST)

Agreed, that is very needed. Although, under which main category should it go (Mundane, Magical, Epic Magical, or Artifacts)? --Green Dragon 17:34, 5 January 2007 (MST)

None of the above. In addition to Mundane, Magical, Epic Magical, and Artifacts there would be a separate column for special non-magic/-psionic items. —Sledged 13:12, 7 January 2007 (MST)

Done. Is this what you envisioned (User Non-Magical/-Psionic Items)? --Green Dragon 13:52, 7 January 2007 (MST)