Talk:Weapon Care (3.5e Variant Rule)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


I really like this idea, and I think it is well balanced, except for one thing. Some "munchkin-size-me player" will come around and say "Oh, I'll sharpen my weapon, do 1 battle with it, then sharpen it again, do another battle with it, etc, and my first two strikes in any battle will have +1 to the crit range!" This variant rule can be broken... So, to fix this you might want to add something about making it so (just an idea) if a weapon is not bad it cannot be repaired (bad idea, I know....). Anyway, this is a great variant rule and it will be done once this problem can be worked out... --Green Dragon 23:45, 3 January 2007 (MST)

Actually, the topic of broken weapons was covered in 'Limitations'. for munchkins... that's a very good point...Still, its less useful because you need to spend an hour maintaining the blade, so a munchkin would not be able to exploit it in battle. Maybe make it a required two hours to do allow the bonus?--Cypresslyshra 23:52, 3 January 2007 (MST)
Amendum: Just figured out what you meant by 'If a weapon ain't broke'. No, that doesn't work, saddly, but we still need to work on fixing that potential exploit
As I was just thinking about this I noticed there may be no way to fix this. Lets say we made it so each weapon can only be repaired so many times. For example, a typical sword could only be repaired, say, 20 times. If this went into place, the player could just buy a new weapon after 20 repairs. Your way would not work because the player could just rest 2 hours between battle and repair his weapon... So, the final solution must be... The DM's call. Make it so the DM has the final say with how they are using this ability and make it so the DM can make their weapon not get as sharp if they are using this ability wrong. This hopefully should work. --Green Dragon 00:01, 4 January 2007 (MST)
That's probably the best. Shall I put a note in there for DMs? "If you think a character is exploiting this rule, inform him that is weapon cannot be maintained any further"?--Cypresslyshra 00:05, 4 January 2007 (MST)
Yes. --Green Dragon 00:08, 4 January 2007 (MST)
Done. Added DM notes--Cypresslyshra 00:11, 4 January 2007 (MST)
Looks good, well written. --Green Dragon 00:13, 4 January 2007 (MST)


I like it, but it needs a little more sauce (benefits and stuff). Threats and all are good, but it feels wanting... --Pz.Az.04Maus 12:17, 18 January 2007 (MST)

It's not meant to really do all that much, it was originally just supposed to accurately model the decay of weapons left un-cared for. Our DM was getting annoyed with us finding ancient elvish blades that were just as sharp as the day they were forged.--Cypresslyshra 19:50, 18 January 2007 (MST)
I actually don't think this needs more sauce, and if it did I do not know what could be changed. This looks good to my eyes, however possibly on the confusing sides at times... --Green Dragon 21:15, 18 January 2007 (MST)
Where? *Prepares to fix* --Cypresslyshra 21:39, 18 January 2007 (MST)
Okay... I don't think parts like "Player Notes" are needed, players already know that the DM is God. "Limitations" could be better worded, it seems to not fit where it is on the page and "Conditions" could use a nice table. Other than that it looks very good and understandable.. --Green Dragon 22:57, 18 January 2007 (MST)
I don't know how to make a table, but I've completed the other two--Cypresslyshra 23:02, 18 January 2007 (MST)
I would love to teach you but Wikipedia does a better job here... Anyway, basically one opens the table with {| and closes it with |}. The inside of the table has rows and columns. To make a row add |- then |. To add a row in a column add || between the rows. For example see below.
| Inside of the table || Next column || Even the next column || etc.
| Another row... etc.
Basically thats how its done. BTW, you have already used tables (See the Ghost Monk). --Green Dragon 23:13, 18 January 2007 (MST)
I directly ripped that table from the prestidigitator and used it for my own nefarious means. Thanks--Cypresslyshra 23:15, 18 January 2007 (MST)
No problem. I just made the table a class="d20" table (a table that Sledged made) which looks much nicer. With the table this is easier to understand. Good job. --Green Dragon 23:21, 18 January 2007 (MST)

Supplemental Variant Rule?[edit]

Is this a supplemental variant rule? --Green Dragon 11:32, 2 April 2007 (MDT)

If you think so.--Cypresslyshra 21:48, 2 April 2007 (MDT)
Okay... I am not really sure. So, which of these two choices do you think fits this better?
A supplemental variant rule can be implemented into a campaign with little or no change in the core dynamics. These rules cover an area that the core rules do not cover or do not cover well.
A transformational variant rule, when implemented into a campaign, will change the core dynamics. These rules change the core rules to make them more playable or more realistic while staying in the d20 framework.
--Green Dragon 13:26, 7 April 2007 (MDT)
Then it's suppliemental, if used correctly. If the DM really milks it, it mught become Transformational, but aside from that, it should fall under a suppliment--Cypresslyshra 01:30, 9 April 2007 (MDT)
Good, that is what I thought originally. Thanks for clearing this up. --Green Dragon 11:58, 9 April 2007 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors