Topic: Warrior Mage - Warriors Weapon

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The "Just take the higher bonus" logic is happy-joy until someone whips out a +20 enchanted -100 material/quality paper origami battle-axe and starts cleaving people into gravy.

In context of this spell, it's like someone saying "What kind of bonus would you call this twig, as a club?" with an answer of "Like -50, why?" leading to "OK, I make this twig-club my special weapon, nobody ever respects it, until I slap them with it as a +10 magical club, but then it's too late. . ."

It seems to become illogic at that point.

Of course it seems illogical when you try to take it to the most outrageous extremes, that is why it is called "outrageous extremes". A twig as a club? an origami battle axe? Please. Any GM who allows such absurdities likely deserves any problems that he gets.

Now personally, if you have a weapon that has a negative modifier based on the material it is made from, that is going to be a functional and relevant modifier regardless of what sort of magical bonus it has.

Take your origami battle axe. Being made of Paper (as opposed to the iron or steel that it SHOULD be made of), you will, IMO, ALWAYS have that -100 modifier due to material, regardless of the magical bonus, Thus it would end up as -80 rather than +20.

While material and quality bonuses are often combined because they are non-magical, it needs to be remembered that they are still 2 different modifiers. It also needs to be remembered that the attack tables are built around the concept of weapons are made of certain materials, and to certain specifications (length, weight ranges, etc).

If a "weapon" does not meet those basic construction standards, then it will receive a minus on the attack table (or not be allowed at all) regardless of what sort of bonuses it might have. And if the modifier is based on the material, then unless the spell that created the item (or the item's description) specifically states otherwise, it should always receive that negative modifier, regardless of what bonuses it has or where they come from.

[vroomfogle]

i want a character with an origami battle axe

[Marc R]

Which explains why the RAW require enchanted weapons to have a non-magical bonus no more than five less than the desired magical bonus. Blade I, however, does not create an enchanted weapon in the normal sense, although it does "grant the weapon a +5 magic bonus".

The thing is, that all too often in games, the world is not a monolithic tech level. . .a spread from stone to high steel II can easily be in play, does that mean that only superior crafted stone/copper/bronze items, which reach a 0 bonus, can then be enchanted to +5, while any old Iron piece can be enchanted to +5, and a rusty/bent high steel blade to +5?

I understand why that rule was added, I just find that while it helps limit excess in bonuses it leads to other problems. . . .I have yet to find a bonus stacking rule I'm completely happy with.

On the other hand, temporary boosts always stack on top (so the priest mumbling over you before combat will add +5 to any weapon be it -10 or +10) giving a separate logic for temporary enchantments.

Or the logic expressed in this thread of -15 to me, +15 to you semi-permanent enchantment creating a 3rd logic of stacking.

If I had a clean and clear logic that worked for them all, I'd be happy, but I have yet to see a stacking rule that didn't create some goofy results, or smack of "rules by exception" ala "one rule for these, a separate one for those, and yet another for this one." <shrug> I'll be a happy man when someone comes up with an elegant answer on this one.

Of course it seems illogical when you try to take it to the most outrageous extremes, that is why it is called "outrageous extremes". A twig as a club? an origami battle axe? Please. Any GM who allows such absurdities likely deserves any problems that he gets.

Now personally, if you have a weapon that has a negative modifier based on the material it is made from, that is going to be a functional and relevant modifier regardless of what sort of magical bonus it has.

Take your origami battle axe. Being made of Paper (as opposed to the iron or steel that it SHOULD be made of), you will, IMO, ALWAYS have that -100 modifier due to material, regardless of the magical bonus, Thus it would end up as -80 rather than +20.

While material and quality bonuses are often combined because they are non-magical, it needs to be remembered that they are still 2 different modifiers. It also needs to be remembered that the attack tables are built around the concept of weapons are made of certain materials, and to certain specifications (length, weight ranges, etc).

If a "weapon" does not meet those basic construction standards, then it will receive a minus on the attack table (or not be allowed at all) regardless of what sort of bonuses it might have. And if the modifier is based on the material, then unless the spell that created the item (or the item's description) specifically states otherwise, it should always receive that negative modifier, regardless of what bonuses it has or where they come from.

Hyperbole and extremes are the easiest way to demonstrate flaws, on smaller scales they are less amusing but equally problematic.

So then a Bronze (-10), Iron(0) and Steel(+10) dagger, all enchanted to +10 result in weapons that are 0, +10 and +10? So stack on the downside but not on the upside, despite the fact that the steel dagger is as superior to the iron dagger as the bronze dagger is inferior to the iron dagger, on the same standard, measured on the same scale? I think that's illogical. Either the material bonuses should stack, or they should not, saying they only sometimes stack. . .that "sometimes" says something is being ruled by exception rather than ruled by logic, which bugs me, even if I know why it's being done and see the downside of either the "never stack" or "always stack" logical answers. . .YMMV.

i want a character with an origami battle axe

It would be fresh. . .especially when after the battle, you re-fold it into a +20 origami shield.

[Right Wing Wacko]

i want a character with an origami battle axe

It would be fresh. . .especially when after the battle, you re-fold it into a +20 origami shield.

[vroomfogle]

It actually would be an interesting, if somewhat silly, character concept - an origami master who can enchant his various origami creations to be much stronger than otherwise would be the case.

With regard to bonus stacking rule, really the one rule that does make the most sense and can be used consistently across all types of bonuses is to simply average all the bonuses, whether it be an temporary enchantment from a spell, inherent magic, quality, material type, etc.   The problem is that people don't typically relish the idea of having to average numbers.  And from a player point of view it sucks because it makes spell enchantments pretty weak if you have to average them along with a few other bonuses (your +5 becomes more like a +1 or +2).

So let's take a look at this for a minute.  You will always have workmanship and material modifiers, even if they are 0.   And then you have magic bonuses and I can completely see them operating with a different ruleset than workmanship and materials.   It could be argued that a magic modifier shouldn't be based on the material of the weapon.   On the other hand I think workmanship would be highly dependent on the weapon material.   You can only take quality so far when dealing with inferior materials.

The way that I think I will run it from now on would be to treat the material bonus as a max limit on workmanship, not an inherent bonus on it's own....so just because you have a steel sword doesn't mean it will definitely be +10.  A crapmaster can still make a crapsword from the finest materials.   Magic bonuses on the other hand would add straight to the workmanship bonus, not the current whichever is higher logic.  So....

- Material modifier is a simple cap on how well the item can be made (quality bonus)
- Quality bonus is used directly (need logic for cases where material mod is < 0 initially...does that mean all those weapons would be of same quality?...what is the default quality bonus of an item when made?)
- Magic modifiers, whether permanent or temporary, add directly to the quality modifier.

Thus total bonus = quality + magic

This means higher bonuses overall than the existing rules so some adjustments to existing items would have to be made. 

Of course this is all IMO and YMMV.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Either the material bonuses should stack, or they should not, saying they only sometimes stack. . .that "sometimes" says something is being ruled by exception rather than ruled by logic, which bugs me, even if I know why it's being done and see the downside of either the "never stack" or "always stack" logical answers. . .YMMV.

Actually, the "ruled by exception" as you call it IS following logic, as opposed to slapping a singular rule on something and saying it always applies even when it doesn't follow standard logic.

And it isn't actually a "rule by exception", but multiple different rules, that apply in different circumstances.

Circumstance/Rule 1) If the construction of a weapon does not meet the basic minimum standards figured into the construction of the attack tables (i.e. via materials, or size), then the negative modifiers always apply when using that weapon, regardless of any other bonuses or their source or nature.

Circumstance/Rule 2) If the construction of a weapon meets the basic minimum standards, then magical modifiers stack with magical modifiers AND non-magical modifiers stack with non-magical modifiers, BUT magical and non-magical modifiers do no stackw with each other

That is not a rule by exception, it is two different rules for two different set of circumstances.

A "rule by exception" would be where I said

unless the spell that created the item (or the item's description) specifically states otherwise, it should always receive that negative modifier, regardless of what bonuses it has or where they come from.

because it carves out an exception to the rule regarding a weapon that does not meet the basic standards of construction. The thing to remember is that IF a weapon is made to its basic minimum standards, then it will have no modifiers at all, period.

Now, granted, a person could try to twist those two rules into a single rule and claim that it is a rule by exception by totally ignoring the conditional aspects, but I find that a bit silly since that would then have the "rule by exception" have its own "rule by exception". Under that same tortured logic, a person could say that ANY modifier (be it magic, quality, material, etc) given to a weapon is a "rule by exception".

It cannot be both ways... You either have specific rules based on certain conditions that apply, OR everything that is outside the norm is a rule by exception -- especially when discussing such things as modifiers to weapons.

[Fidoric]

i want a character with an origami battle axe

You might want to reconsider this after the first rain...

[Marc R]

Global logic applies in every instance while situational logic applies on a case by case basis. I prefer a global answer to a situational "rule by exception" logic wherever possible. . .I try to never use two rules where one rule could do the job.

And it isn't actually a "rule by exception", but multiple different rules, that apply in different circumstances.

If multiple rules are needed, that's the best way to go, if not, then it's unnecessarily situational rules by exception. That this area creates such fertile ground for discussion and disagreement among players and GMs indicates that likely the as-is rules are either confusing or sub-optimal. I don't have a unifying rule to offer, so I can't claim to have an answer, just that I have yet to find one that totally satisfies me.

Circumstance/Rule 1) If the construction of a weapon does not meet the basic minimum standards figured into the construction of the attack tables (i.e. via materials, or size), then the negative modifiers always apply when using that weapon, regardless of any other bonuses or their source or nature.

Only problem there is that turns into a horde of specific instance calls. . .is steel the "minimum standard" for a sword or would iron be acceptable also? Does bronze make the cut, or is that going below "minimum standards"? What about copper?. . .What about arrows, steel, iron, bronze, copper, obsidian, bone, stone or just a fire hardened wooden head?

The origami battle-axe is obviously sub-standard, hence why I used it for a hyperbolic example, but when not trying to be amusing, the range of what's a minimum standard material and what isn't becomes far less clear cut. Or is what you're saying that the "minimum standard" material is not a range but a fixed point, i.e. +/-0 bonus materials for that weapon?

[providence13]

What if you do have a Warrior's Weapon with a Blade III enchantment and someone else uses it?
According to RAW, it would be -15 in their hands, right?

It seems to me that the +15 is magical, as stemming from the enchantment of the spell, so the -15 is magical as well.

If that is correct, and you don't allow "stacking", then even if it was a +10 quality blade, the magic supercedes... so it would still be a -15 magical blade..? -15 OB but criting on the magic column..?

If you do allow stacking.. then even a +15 quality blade would be a +0 blade or a "magically normal" blade in the hands of another person. This IMHO, goes ogainst the nature of the spell.

If you allow the +15 quality to be modified by the -10 for Blade II, then it turns into a +5 if stacked, which totally goes against the "theme" of this spell.
Anyone other than the caster who attempts to
utilize this weapon will receive a penalty to its use equal to the
bonus it gives the caster.

Of, course, someone could say that taking the +15 quality down to a +5 quality is a penalty enough, but IMO, it is still a +5 magic bonus, that shouldn't be allowed.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Only problem there is that turns into a horde of specific instance calls. .

No, the problem is that the rules are ALREADY like that - no matter which version of RM you are playing. Hence the question cropping up.

[modbreak=
General Warning to one and all]
The main problem in using hyperbolic (i.e. highly exaggerated) examples is that they tend to muddy the waters with  things that do not normally crop up in any reasonable situation. Thus any response to such usually will usually end up only confusing the original issue.

Additionally, they also can be part of a larger personal attack. The hyperbolic argument, if used as a prelude to looking for nit-picking answers (i.e going from one extreme to the other over the course of multiple posts), can and is considered to be a form of trolling. I personally consider the combination of the two to be a form of passive/aggressive trolling.

Either by itself is not too much of an issue, it is the combination of the two (one followed almost immediately by the other) that causes trouble.

Consider this to be a warning and reminder to ALL forum members, that any form of trolling WILL result in a minimum 3 day banning from the forums - and often without any other warnings being issued.
[/modbreak]

Or is what you're saying that the "minimum standard" material is not a range but a fixed point, i.e. +/-0 bonus materials for that weapon?

Well, in my last post, I said

The thing to remember is that IF a weapon is made to its basic minimum standards, then it will have no modifiers at all, period.

So that would seem to indicate a fixed point to me. At least according to what I had already stated.

What this also means is that the baseline is the "basic minimum standards" for a given weapon is based on the default construction presumed by the rules (i.e if equipment lists sell wooden arrows with iron or steel heads, then you can easily presume that that is the standard).

[Marc R]

Thing is, by the logic that +/-0 is the minimum standard, and that the bonuses stack below that standard but not above it doesn't seem to be two rules, just one, that material and magical bonuses stack for penalty materials, but don't stack for bonus materials. . .which does indeed work in the context of keeping bonuses from inflating to excessive levels, but doesn't seem to make any actual logical sense in the context itself. . it's a meta rule that does what needs to be done.

Which is what I meant all along, that you come to an answer that works, but doesn't satisfy, as a niggling voice in the back of my brain says:

OK, the bronze dagger -10 enchanted to +10 is a +0 weapon, which is a lot better than a -10 dagger. Why is it 0? Because the sub standard materials make it an inferior weapon, but the enchantment improves upon that to make it 0.

But, the +10 Superior Steel dagger is enchanted to +10 is a +10 weapon, because the enchantment doesn't improve upon the already superior materials, though it does allow for it to be used as a magical weapon vs creatures needing them, and use the magic table on large/super large.

that voice says, "shouldn't it either improve upon the base material in both situations, or neither?"

The main reason that niggles at me is that it makes me think that all enchanted swords would just be average materials, no reason to go above that other than wanting to waste the expensive superior materials, and penalties for going below. . .High Steel, Mithril and the rest should be reserved for non magical weapons where they'll do some good. . .which is contrary to the way the various mythos work, with all the really cool items being made of Mithril, Laen or other super materials.

I've seen the game damage inflicted by excessive item bonus inflation, so I'm not encouraging unrestrained stacking, just saying that while the answer works, it somehow feels unsatisfying to me and I wish I could come up with a better one.

And the semi-permanent enchantment at the root of this thread raises questions like in Providence's post above, which make my head hurt.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

What if you do have a Warrior's Weapon with a Blade III enchantment and someone else uses it?
According to RAW, it would be -15 in their hands, right?

It seems to me that the +15 is magical, as stemming from the enchantment of the spell, so the -15 is magical as well.

Actually, I would say that that is because the magical bonus is tied specifically to the caster's aura and the aura of the weapon in question. That it is the interaction of the two auras that grant the bonus to the weapon (or the penalty when somebody else tries to use it.



@Lordmiller --
1) I did not write the rules, they were written by the old ICE (RMC has a few things from the RMC Team or from ICE itself, but not on this particular topic).

2) The rules do not always make sense, especially when it comes to magic items, but part of my job is to make interpretations as best as I can on those rules.

3) If a person does not like the interpretation that I give, I cannot help that, they are free to disagree and to change them for their own games.

4) If a person has something that is actually pertinent to say, perhaps pointing out something that I might have missed, I will gladly look at it and perhaps even revise my official interpretation accordingly (I am only human and can miss something and/or make a mistake in how I read something).

5) What I am not willing to do is to baby-walk somebody through every single thought process that I have in reaching an interpretation. Nor am I willing to continue arguing/discussing something just because they don't like the interpretation that I gave. To put it quite frankly, I just don't have the time. I have too many other things that I need to be working on.

So, to sum things up. If you don't like the interpretation I gave on this topic, fine, use your own interpretation for your own games. Have fun and enjoy.

However, I gave my interpretation and a general overview of how/why I interpreted it in that manner, therefore, unless there is an actual question to be answered, or new data to consider, I am done discussing this topic for now.

[Fidoric]

I have no definitive answer to that point of rules. But I am a little bit surprised to see how passionate such a thread may become. Guys, it's just a game made for fun, isn't it ?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

[modbreak=
My Apologies for some confusion]
The other day I locked this topic, and there seems to have been some confusion as to why or for what reason it was locked.

Quite simply, some folks apparently got confused and thought that two separate things were part of a single action. In short, they were not.

A few posts ago, after noticing a pattern of posting that often leads into a specific type of trolling, I posted a general Moderation Warning to everybody. The Moderation Warning was encased in the standard box with the red dotted border.

Please remember that  public discussion of any sort of Moderation is and always has been against the forum rules. Anybody who posts and talks about a specific instance of Moderation will have that post removed and be sent a warning about it.

However, I then made a somewhat..... curt.... reply to Lordmiller in my next post. That response to Lordmiller was not and is not any sort of attempt at Moderation. It was me being frustrated and perhaps slightly overworked and not wanting to rehash the same thing yet again without new data or a new argument being introduced (rephrasing the original argument is not the same thing, IMO).

If Lordmiller or anybody else was offended by my curt response, then I offer my apologies to them.

After my curt response, Fidoric made a post (the one just above this one) that comments on my curt response. He has every right to do so and you will notice that it was never removed.

However, after Fidoric made his post, two other individuals made posts that mentioned the moderation. It never occurred to me at the time but it is possible that those two individuals may have mistook my curt response for moderation and were possibly commenting on the curt response.

Anyways, since publicly commenting on Moderation is and always has been against the rules, I decided (after 2 posts mentioning moderation in a row) that it would likely be a good idea to lock the thread. This thread was locked because of the two posts I removed - not for any other reason.

After some thought, I can more easily see where there might have been some confusion on the part of those two posters. If you two were meaning my curt response and not the actual Moderation Warning, then my apologies to you two as well.

I can also see that my locking the thread might have been seen as something that was not intended. There was no intent to stifle the conversation, which is why the post that locked the thread said that the conversation was free to continue in a new thread.

Once again, I offer my apologies to anybody who might have been offended by my curt response to Lordmiller.

I am also going to unlock this topic again, but please do not publicly comment about the Moderation Warning, I really don't want to have to remove any more posts.

[/modbreak]

[Fidoric]

No offense takenb or meant. My comment was not specifically directed at your moderation but to some threads that has in the past become a little "hot". It was maybe not my place to do so. My apologies for that.

[providence13]

And the semi-permanent enchantment at the root of this thread raises questions like in Providence's post above, which make my head hurt.

My work here is almost complete... 
Just kidding. I ask this before it comes up in my games. The players are experts at putting me on the spot! Official Rulings and RAW are fantastic and sometimes.. they work in my game. I never mean to challenge them, just trying to work them onto our table. You guys are a wealth of experience, ya seen near everything. So input helps.