build a Staff of Striking
Bill the Omnipotent
Anybody have any ideas of how to do a 1st ed. Staff of Striking in 3.5 ed.?
I was thinking a +3 weapon with the collision property (from the Magic Item compendium), but I'm not sure how
to simulate the extra damage with charges. (other than the obvious 'expend 1 charge to do +1d6 damage')
Jim Davies
inscribed:
>
>Anybody have any ideas of how to do a 1st ed. Staff of Striking in 3.5 ed.?
Except that it's a +3 weapon for purposes of hitting iron golems and
the like, a Staff of Striking is strictly pants. It's like a normal +3
staff except that any hit uses charges, and each charge does only +3
more. Pathetic for 15000gp, the same price as a +5 sword.
>I was thinking a +3 weapon with the collision property (from the Magic Item compendium),
Dunno what collision is.
>but I'm not sure how
>to simulate the extra damage with charges. (other than the obvious 'expend 1 charge to do +1d6 damage')
A direct conversion suggests +3 per charge, though you'd want to bump
that up because 3e monsters have many more hp than their 1e
counterparts. To make it worthwhile, I'd go for at least +2d6 per
charge and have the initial damage (1d6+3) not use a charge. Maximum
of 2 extra charges used per strike.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tetsubo
> On the grave of Bill the Omnipotent <wei...@earthlink.net> is
> inscribed:
>
>
>>Anybody have any ideas of how to do a 1st ed. Staff of Striking in 3.5 ed.?
>
>
> Except that it's a +3 weapon for purposes of hitting iron golems and
> the like, a Staff of Striking is strictly pants. It's like a normal +3
> staff except that any hit uses charges, and each charge does only +3
> more. Pathetic for 15000gp, the same price as a +5 sword.
>
>
>>I was thinking a +3 weapon with the collision property (from the Magic Item compendium),
>
>
> Dunno what collision is.
>
>
>>but I'm not sure how
>>to simulate the extra damage with charges. (other than the obvious 'expend 1 charge to do +1d6 damage')
>
>
> A direct conversion suggests +3 per charge, though you'd want to bump
> that up because 3e monsters have many more hp than their 1e
> counterparts. To make it worthwhile, I'd go for at least +2d6 per
> charge and have the initial damage (1d6+3) not use a charge. Maximum
> of 2 extra charges used per strike.
Does this count for each end of the staff?
>
>
> --
> Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
>
> D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
> becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.
>
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
BLUP
Sea Wasp
> On the grave of Bill the Omnipotent <wei...@earthlink.net> is
> inscribed:
>
>
>>Anybody have any ideas of how to do a 1st ed. Staff of Striking in 3.5 ed.?
>
>
> Except that it's a +3 weapon for purposes of hitting iron golems and
> the like, a Staff of Striking is strictly pants. It's like a normal +3
> staff except that any hit uses charges, and each charge does only +3
> more. Pathetic for 15000gp, the same price as a +5 sword.
You can use up to 3 charges at a time, for a +9h/+9D atttack. Or, if
you count the inherent +3 bonus separately, for +12/+12.
Yeah, you keep your +5 sword.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Justisaur
Maybe Brambles/Spikes?
I think the best way is just figure out what you think the item is
worth, keep the properties the same, and decide what spell(s) and
feat(s) you need to craft it.
- Justisaur
Jim Davies
inscribed:
>Jim Davies wrote:
>> Except that it's a +3 weapon for purposes of hitting iron golems and
>> the like, a Staff of Striking is strictly pants. It's like a normal +3
>> staff except that any hit uses charges, and each charge does only +3
>> more. Pathetic for 15000gp, the same price as a +5 sword.
>
> You can use up to 3 charges at a time, for a +9h/+9D atttack. Or, if
>you count the inherent +3 bonus separately, for +12/+12.
By the DMG1 RAW, "...if 3 charges are expended, bonus damage is
tripled (d6+9). No more than 3 charges can be expended per strike."
No mention of +9 to hit. So a +3 to hit weapon that does 1d6+9, eight
times before the charges run out*. On average, that's 12.5, admittedly
more than the +5 sword does (unless it's Bastard or 2H vs large) but
hits less often.
* it is rechargeable, but this is 1e so goodness knows how.
> Yeah, you keep your +5 sword.
I will.
Jim Davies
>Jim Davies wrote:
>> A direct conversion suggests +3 per charge, though you'd want to bump
>> that up because 3e monsters have many more hp than their 1e
>> counterparts. To make it worthwhile, I'd go for at least +2d6 per
>> charge and have the initial damage (1d6+3) not use a charge. Maximum
>> of 2 extra charges used per strike.
>
> Does this count for each end of the staff?
I'd suggest that you enchant the basic staff to +3 using whatever
rules you like (by default, each end is separate) but the extra
charges can be applied to each end as desired.
Quite honestly, I think you'd be better off enchanting only one end
(or making the other just +1 to get past DR/magic) because you won't
be using the other end much.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.
--
Dragonkat
> On the grave of Bill the Omnipotent <weis...@earthlink.net> is
> inscribed:
>
>
>
> >Anybody have any ideas of how to do a 1st ed. Staff of Striking in 3.5 ed.?
>
> Except that it's a +3 weapon for purposes of hitting iron golems and
> the like, a Staff of Striking is strictly pants. It's like a normal +3
> staff except that any hit uses charges, and each charge does only +3
> more. Pathetic for 15000gp, the same price as a +5 sword.
>
> >I was thinking a +3 weapon with the collision property (from the Magic Item compendium),
>
> Dunno what collision is.
>
> >but I'm not sure how
> >to simulate the extra damage with charges. (other than the obvious 'expend 1 charge to do +1d6 damage')
>
> A direct conversion suggests +3 per charge, though you'd want to bump
> that up because 3e monsters have many more hp than their 1e
> counterparts. To make it worthwhile, I'd go for at least +2d6 per
> charge and have the initial damage (1d6+3) not use a charge. Maximum
> of 2 extra charges used per strike.
>
I think collision is a weapon property, Magic Item Compendium
style.
a +1 Staff with Collision does 1d6+1+Str+5*Collision in Damage.
A +5 Longsword w/Collision does 1d8+5+5*+Str in Damage...
So, adding Collision to a Staff of Striking would be an inprovement
I like the initial dmg w/collision (1d6+3+5*+Str) and each
charge(+2d6) as working for each endd, as a conversion to 3.5D&D.
Too Munchkin?!
Dragonkat
Sea Wasp
> On the grave of Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> is
> inscribed:
>
>
>>Jim Davies wrote:
>
>
>>>Except that it's a +3 weapon for purposes of hitting iron golems and
>>>the like, a Staff of Striking is strictly pants. It's like a normal +3
>>>staff except that any hit uses charges, and each charge does only +3
>>>more. Pathetic for 15000gp, the same price as a +5 sword.
>>
>> You can use up to 3 charges at a time, for a +9h/+9D atttack. Or, if
>>you count the inherent +3 bonus separately, for +12/+12.
>
>
> By the DMG1 RAW, "...if 3 charges are expended, bonus damage is
> tripled (d6+9). No more than 3 charges can be expended per strike."
I'll have to look up the character who used one. I was pretty sure it
was +3/+3 per charge, but I have no idea whether that was from
original, 1e, 2e, or something else.
>
> No mention of +9 to hit. So a +3 to hit weapon that does 1d6+9, eight
> times before the charges run out*. On average, that's 12.5, admittedly
> more than the +5 sword does (unless it's Bastard or 2H vs large) but
> hits less often.
>
> * it is rechargeable, but this is 1e so goodness knows how.
But they're talking about making one in 3e, so you could certainly
recharge it.
(In my own games, recharging magic items was a skill any mage could
learn, and generally did.)
>
>
>> Yeah, you keep your +5 sword.
>
>
> I will.
No you won't! We'll take it from you and you can use this +1 dagger
of pixie slaying instead!
D.J.
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
]Jim Davies wrote:
]> By the DMG1 RAW, "...if 3 charges are expended, bonus damage is
]> tripled (d6+9). No more than 3 charges can be expended per strike."
]
] I'll have to look up the character who used one. I was pretty sure it
]was +3/+3 per charge, but I have no idea whether that was from
]original, 1e, 2e, or something else.
My 1e DMG says the damage goes to 1d6+6 if 2 charges are used. And
to 1d6+9 if 3 charges are used. 1d6+3 for one charge.
With a maximum of 3 charges per strike.
The only saving benefit is if you need a +3 weapon and no ne else in
the group has one but the Staff of Strking.
Its like it was almost designed to be useful. Since, in 1e, staves
can have only 25 charges, its not much good. But I can see some
situations where it might be a saver for the player characters. But
they better need only those 25 charges.
If I ever put one in my campaign again, it would be 3 charges gives
3d6+9, not 1d6+9. Or, to go the 'whole 9 yards', it would be 3d6+27
hp for 3 charges.
JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/blog/ Oct 1, 2007 1E AD&D blog
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Oct 2, 2007: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog July 9, 2007
Dragonkat
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:52:49 -0400, Sea Wasp<seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> ]Jim Davies wrote:
>
> ]> By the DMG1 RAW, "...if 3 charges are expended, bonus damage is
> ]> tripled (d6+9). No more than 3 charges can be expended per strike."
> ]
> ] I'll have to look up the character who used one. I was pretty sure it
> ]was +3/+3 per charge, but I have no idea whether that was from
> ]original, 1e, 2e, or something else.
>
> My 1e DMG says the damage goes to 1d6+6 if 2 charges are used. And
> to 1d6+9 if 3 charges are used. 1d6+3 for one charge.
>
> With a maximum of 3 charges per strike.
>
> The only saving benefit is if you need a +3 weapon and no ne else in
> the group has one but the Staff of Strking.
>
> Its like it was almost designed to be useful. Since, in 1e, staves
> can have only 25 charges, its not much good. But I can see some
> situations where it might be a saver for the player characters. But
> they better need only those 25 charges.
>
> If I ever put one in my campaign again, it would be 3 charges gives
> 3d6+9, not 1d6+9. Or, to go the 'whole 9 yards', it would be 3d6+27
> hp for 3 charges
>
I still like the idear of both a magic bonus(+1) & Collision(+5dmg)
to
a staff with each charge giving a +3 to hit when charged up, at 1, 2
or 3 Charges, & (+2d6 dmg) per Charge -but that was not the original
intent, so this one could be called Staff of Smitefulness...
In 3e, staves, rods, & wands get a 50ch. max.
3ch. for 3d6+9 is ok my me, but 3d6+27 in a monk's hands is more
than '9 yards' but '39 yards'...
Dragonkat
D.J.
<dragonk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
]On Oct 2, 9:06 pm, D.J. <alphmo...@cableone.net> wrote:
]> If I ever put one in my campaign again, it would be 3 charges gives
]> 3d6+9, not 1d6+9. Or, to go the 'whole 9 yards', it would be 3d6+27
]> hp for 3 charges
]
]I still like the idear of both a magic bonus(+1) & Collision(+5dmg)
]to
]a staff with each charge giving a +3 to hit when charged up, at 1, 2
]or 3 Charges, & (+2d6 dmg) per Charge -but that was not the original
]intent, so this one could be called Staff of Smitefulness...
]
]In 3e, staves, rods, & wands get a 50ch. max.
]
]3ch. for 3d6+9 is ok my me, but 3d6+27 in a monk's hands is more
]than '9 yards' but '39 yards'...
I was attempting a joke on 'yards'..
triple damage, 3 charges. Three cubed is 27. The same number of
cubic feet in a cubic yard of cement.
Dragonkat
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:44:43 -0700, Dragonkat<dragonkat2fl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ]On Oct 2, 9:06 pm, D.J. <alphmo...@cableone.net> wrote:
> ]> If I ever put one in my campaign again, it would be 3 charges gives
> ]> 3d6+9, not 1d6+9. Or, to go the 'whole 9 yards', it would be 3d6+27
> ]> hp for 3 charges
> ]
> ]I still like the idear of both a magic bonus(+1) & Collision(+5dmg)
> ]to
> ]a staff with each charge giving a +3 to hit when charged up, at 1, 2
> ]or 3 Charges, & (+2d6 dmg) per Charge -but that was not the original
> ]intent, so this one could be called Staff of Smitefulness...
> ]
> ]In 3e, staves, rods, & wands get a 50ch. max.
> ]
> ]3ch. for 3d6+9 is ok my me, but 3d6+27 in a monk's hands is more
> ]than '9 yards' but '39 yards'...
>
> I was attempting a joke on 'yards'..
>
> triple damage, 3 charges. Three cubed is 27. The same number of
> cubic feet in a cubic yard of cement.
>
I thought it was a football reference... Sorry.
Dragonkat
D.J.
<dragonk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
]On Oct 3, 10:57 am, D.J. <alphmo...@cableone.net> wrote:
]> I was attempting a joke on 'yards'..
]>
]> triple damage, 3 charges. Three cubed is 27. The same number of
]> cubic feet in a cubic yard of cement.
]>
]
]I thought it was a football reference... Sorry.
No problem. My relatives tell me my jokes should be considered
torture mechanisms for the unwary.
Bill the Omnipotent
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:55:06 +0100, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>Quite honestly, I think you'd be better off enchanting only one end
>(or making the other just +1 to get past DR/magic) because you won't
>be using the other end much.
That's what I was thinking of. I don't see the point of enchanting both ends of a staff, except where two
weapon fighting is concerned.
Sea Wasp
I assume the entire WEAPON is enchanted. This business of having to
do special additional enchantment just so the entire length of this
unitary piece of wood is magical makes no sense. Do I need to enchant
the blade of a +2 two-handed sword twice so that the part near the
hilt is also +2? No.
Enchant a staff, both ends are enchanted identically. It would take
considerable work, in my POV, to do it OTHERWISE -- have different
enchantments on each end.
Donald Tsang
>> That's what I was thinking of. I don't see the point of enchanting
>> both ends of a staff, except where two weapon fighting is concerned.
>
> I assume the entire WEAPON is enchanted. This business of having to
>do special additional enchantment just so the entire length of this
>unitary piece of wood is magical makes no sense. Do I need to enchant
>the blade of a +2 two-handed sword twice so that the part near the
>hilt is also +2? No.
>
> Enchant a staff, both ends are enchanted identically. It would take
>considerable work, in my POV, to do it OTHERWISE -- have different
>enchantments on each end.
Unfortunately, that's not how the RAW work. In fact, you have to pay
600 gp (MW on both ends) to have a staff that even qualifies for being
made magical.
If you can only strike with one end of the weapon, it's a club. That you
can't throw.
Donald
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>>That's what I was thinking of. I don't see the point of enchanting
>>>both ends of a staff, except where two weapon fighting is concerned.
>>
>> I assume the entire WEAPON is enchanted. This business of having to
>>do special additional enchantment just so the entire length of this
>>unitary piece of wood is magical makes no sense. Do I need to enchant
>>the blade of a +2 two-handed sword twice so that the part near the
>>hilt is also +2? No.
>>
>> Enchant a staff, both ends are enchanted identically. It would take
>>considerable work, in my POV, to do it OTHERWISE -- have different
>>enchantments on each end.
>
>
> Unfortunately, that's not how the RAW work.
Then they are wrong. As I said. When basic common sense and rules
collide, generally the rules get hurt. It's a little different when
the "common sense" collision is on the low end, as in "we've
simplified damage-taking with the Hit Point rule so as to eliminate
the problem of tracking being not wounded, scratched, a little
wounded, moderately slowed up, staggering, walking dead, bleeding your
life out, etc."; in those cases it's recognized that in the actual
game world you might very well have those conditions, but the players
would find it a pain in the ass to track. Other rules, like this one
about staves's ends being treated separately even though an equally
large component of another weapon (the 2-H sword) is treated as a
single object, are there not for simplicity, but because someone felt
there might be a "game balance" issue and threw in a rule that has no
purpose other than to enforce their particular view of "balance".
> If you can only strike with one end of the weapon, it's a club. That you
> can't throw.
Of course you can throw it. Especially if you take the feat that
allows you to pretty much throw anything and use anything as a weapon,
a la Jackie Chan
Tetsubo
This particular view of the universe doesn't seem to exist within the
minds of game designs though. If you can't place a decimal point to
three places next to a rule, it just doesn't happen... I agree with you.
But game designers seem to be Orthodox worshippers at the Altar of Game
Balance... I bet they even have funny robes...
>
>> If you can only strike with one end of the weapon, it's a club. That you
>> can't throw.
>
>
> Of course you can throw it. Especially if you take the feat that
> allows you to pretty much throw anything and use anything as a weapon, a
> la Jackie Chan
>
>
>
>
--