Speculation on Secret Entrance, Rules Discussion: Field Modifications
Subject: Re: The Map
Mission ignores Farron ignoring him. 20 miles to the temple. . .
"Didn't the halfling boy say he overheard his captors saying that the entrance was near the marker? Well, this is a marker if ever I saw it. Perhaps the entrance is the sewers."
From: Tom
Subject: Weapon modifications
Ty, I still think that you're being a little bit generous with these weapon modifications. As I pointed out, the rules are fairly unambiguous about the fact that, for example, you can grind down a magical longsword to make it a short sword, or lengthen the hilt on a longsword to make it into a bastard sword.
These kind of modifications, by the normal rules, would not only imbalance the weapon (-4 to hit), but would also break the enchantment until the weapon was restored to its original state.
If you're worried that no one else will give Rennik another weapon, I'd suggest that a modified magical weapon lose all BUT its bonus, and take at least a -2 to-hit modifier even on a successful Craft check. I see no reason why enchantments like tracking bonuses or wounding would continue to work after the integrity of the weapon has been violated.
The only exceptions that I've seen in the rules are, in fact, artifacts. These aren't quite that good. :)
Again, let me point out that cutting down a halberd and expecting it to continue to be useful in a fight is kind of stretching reality; the heads of such weapons were deliberately balanced for the length of their haft, and chopping two or more feet off the end of the handle would remove a lot of its effectiveness.
Moreover, I think this kind of thing is a pretty bad precedent. Allowing people to modify magical weapons in the field, much less craft and modify any balanced weapons without appropriate tools or supplies, is one of those rulings that, in my experience, ALWAYS gets abused once it's written in stone.
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Weapon modifications
Could the balance on the halberd be corrected by lashing a counterweight to the end that was cut?
(Not that I myself know what the actual weapon modification rules ARE.)
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Weapon modifications
Actually, Rennik was thinking about cutting the haft off completely and just using the solid metal halberd head as an axe. I had also thought to ask Ty about putting a counterweight on the butt end of the pole as well, which would put the weapon in better balance.
The thing is, one weapon is essentially like another in this game, since all fighters/barbarians/rangers/etc can use all weapons with equal efficiency. A tree branch club has the same bonus to hit as a rapier according to the rules, provided the latter is not of masterwork quality. A rapier that has been broken in half is really just a dagger, and would have the same to hit rate.
Now, the critical range would change for sure, and the weight, and the damage - and any weapon specialization, finesse or focus possiblities would be lost with that weapon. But, a character has as much ease of hitting someone with a stick, a dagger, a big rock, a sword, an axe or a polearm in this game - regardless of strength, skill or weapon size/shape. That's why we have bonuses, to show truly "masterwork" items that are made so well as to be in perfect balance. A weapon with no special balance is no different then hitting someone with a table leg - having no dice penalties, and relying on your melee rating.
So, with that in mind, I figure that a modification to the haft would eliminate the to hit bonus of the weapon, but wouldn't carry any further penalties. Garyth's weaponsmithing roll was meant to maximize balance of the weapon with regard to Rennik's size/strength/grip, in an attempt to preserve part of the bonus. I can see, though, that such a feat might be impossible (though a counterweight might help considerably).
Tom, you said:
"As I pointed out, the rules are fairly unambiguous about the fact that, for example, you can grind down a magical longsword to make it a short sword, or lengthen the hilt on a longsword to make it into a bastard sword."
I'm guessing you meant "can't" instead of "can" in this sentence, and I'll read it that way. This is a good point. If you change the essential nature of the weapon, you destroy its magical properties. But what if you rewrap the handle with different leather? Or decorate the haft of an axe with carved runes? Or even sharpen the weapon? What signifies alteration enough to change its structural integrity?
I mean, grinding a long sword to a short sword seems obvious. But what about replacing the string on a magic longbow? The rules are extremely unclear. Does a weapon's handle do the constitution damage, or the blade - or is it the gestalt of the entire weapon, down to the leather wrapping on the handle? As far as I've read, there's nothing about a weapon losing its magical potency (except magical ammunition) anywhere in the rules.
The rules that seem appropriate are:
"A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost."
Which seems to mean that unless my axe is melted down or shattered into several pieces (a la gimli's at the council of Elrond) it's still magical. And that a modified haft would constitute damage to the item rather than destruction.
"Some magic items take damage over the course of an adventure. It costs no more to repair a magic item with the Craft skill than it does to repair its nonmagical counterpart. The make whole spell also repairs a damaged--but not completely broken--magic item."
So yeah, Mending wouldn't work on the axe, as Ty said. But a weapon repaired with the craft skill would retain its magical qualities. Say, if Garyth managed to lash the remaining halberd haft piece to the axehead with rope.
Still, though, no specific mention is made of combat modifiers at any point. Nor is there mention made of modifying magical weapons on the fly. For instance, if I tied a rope to a magical poisoning dagger +2 and swung it around my head, does it still deal poison, still have it's +2 to hit or damage, or even retain its magical nature because it's being used differently? What if I carved "Orcs Smell" into a magical shield, or widened the eyeholes in a magical helm, or cut a tail hole in magical leather armor - do they lose their properties?
Tom, am I missing something somewhere in the rules? I've all but burned my 3.0 books, since the open source has rendered them obsolete, but I'm focusing on the files at this point rather than the pages I spent actual money on.
]rant] This is the problem with an overly specific rules system. When a question comes up outside the rules, it throws things into chaos. And rules that make a point of such clear delineation stifle creativity and resourcefulness on the part of the players. [/rant]
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Weapon modifications
> Tom, am I missing something somewhere in the rules?
Importantly, to my mind, the limitation of players being able to replace and/or modify weapons in the field is a valuable balance to specialist fighters. When a fighter specializes in a given weapon, the cost of specialization is that he becomes considerably less flexible should that weapon be lost; the ability, then, to easily repair or convert weapons to a given type negates this penalty. (In the same way, Small characters -- like halflings -- receive numerous bonuses that are negated by three things: carrying capacity, weapon size, and speed. Being able to cut down large weapons -- which are balanced for their significant damage capacity by being heavy and unusable by small characters -- to negate THEIR handicaps without affecting their damage or significantly imbalancing them would imbalance THAT ruling.)
Consider for a moment what we are implying. By cutting down this halberd's haft, we have made it a Medium weapon so that a halfling can swing it around two-handed, albeit at a -1 penalty (more, if we add in the negation of the magical bonus). This means that a dual-wielding human ranger could conceivably use TWO such halberds in combat. Can we do the same to scythes? Greataxes? Pikes?
Is a cut-down pike a short spear? Does this mean that someone who's got a Weapon Focus: Spear feat can use a chopped-up pike? If someone has Weapon Focus: Mace, does that mean he can get a +1 to hit with a short sword if he first sticks some cardboard over the blade? If not, why not? :)
The rules are of course meant to simulate reality in the abstract, but they also exist to balance the game.
That said, I didn't mean to question Ty's decision publicly. *blush* I'd meant to send that E-mail to him, but clicked the wrong contact. *shuffles feet*
Tom
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Weapon modifications
Oh, it's no problem. I always like hashing out rules back and forth. :D
Though I think I'll continue discussion in private emails so as not to bog down everyone's mailboxes over the weekend.
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Weapon modifications
> Though I think I'll continue discussion in private emails so as not to bog down everyone's mailboxes
> over the weekend.
Thank you. ;)
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Weapon modifications
Ooo, looky, a helpdesk number with an extension for an actual person. . .
Heh.