[Weapon & Spell] Takem down, and takem down quick!

Surprised this hasn't been done yet (or at least I don't think it has).

-=-=-=-=-

Paragon
A paragon weapon deals its maximum base-damage with every successful hit. This also applies to extra damage from critical hits. This is not applied to other special abilities the weapon may also possess, such as Flaming. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the paragon trait upon their ammunition.
Moderate Transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, paragon weapon; Price +2 bonus.



Paragon Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Clr 4, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One weapon or fifty projectiles (all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting)
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)

Paragon weapon gives a weapon the ability to do its maximum base-damage with every successful hit. This also applies to extra damage from critical hits. This is not applied to other special abilities the weapon may also possess, such as Flaming.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike. A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Arcane Focus: An adamantium file and a split hair.

That's interesting, and also a fearsome enhancement to give to Giants and other 'big hitter' types. I mean, think of the filthy fun that Monkey Grippers, Large-sized characters and Powerful Build types will have with this enhancement. Not to mention the potential for Power Attack or keen Scythe abuse. And then there are the high-level monks! :smalleek:

I can see the reasoning entirely - a damage equivalent to the true strike spell. Fills a need in ensuring that the base weapon damage dished out by the non-casters actually still means something at higher levels. Intuitively it *should* exist. And it will cut down on the number of dice flying about the table during melee (for those primitives amongst us - like me - who haven't moved over to automatic roll generators yet. "Fie upon such godless technomancies!").

I like it, but for some reason (probably just force of habit) such a removal of randomness from the game seems to me more in keeping with Epic-level play. Mathematically the paragon enhancement effectively doubles the base average damage from a melee weapon; which ain't small potatoes when you throw it onto a fighter's preferred weapon. Sure, it's no vorpal or prismatic strike weapon quality, but still, maybe you could up the enhancement cost from a +2 bonus ({elemental} burst and {aligned} strike territory) to a +3 bonus (on par with the speed quality).

Just so it doesn't seem like I'm grognarding what is essentially a good, flavourful (I like to use the term "tribblish") idea I kinda hope one of our resident mathematical brains might run the numbers for the relative average damage/rnd benefits of speed vs. paragon. I'm willing to bet that the benefit would fall markedly in favour of the latter.

Conclusion: good, but thought-provoking (a dozen score of post edits will attest to that). Playtesting needed on this, oh my yes.

Oh, and the focus components for the spell are cool. :smallcool:

ps: This thread is *so* subscribed to.

No, no, it wouldn't be epic quality. For one, its not doing any more damage than you might roll normally.

Also, normal weapon damage isn't that much. Thats why most enhance them out the wazoo with energy damages and the like.

Yeah, it'd be nasty with giant weapon wielders, but the same can be said for most enhancements they might have.

A +3 might be a possibility though...

When I first saw it, I thought +2 was way too little a cost for something that can be so easily abused. Most people say +3 is better. My first impression was +5, but now I think it should be worth +4. The spell is good though. I doubt that any of my DM's will let me have it though.

This makes those higher damage weapons, like Greataxes, and Two handed swords all the better. I know for a fact my DM would never let me use it. This would also make a full attack even more dangerous, assuming they all hit.

This is 'not' a +4 weapon. +4 is Brilliant Energy that ignores all armor and natural armor.

This may do maximum damage, but it is STILL not all that great, as this is base damage. Unless you are using one of these fancy smancy giants with oversized weapon and monkey grip, it ain't doing much. A medium greatsword, the worst damage dealer, deals 12 points of damage everytime. Big. Deal. A CR 5 nymph would only take 2 points of damage each time because of damage reduction. And let me tell you, a simple +1 flaming weapon would do more damage in that instance. And most creatures at higher levels will in fact have DR. Nor does this enhancement make it any easier to hit folks.

So unless you are already stocking up on cheese, this is no more abusable than other enhancements.


As for the spell, it should be allowed (unless your DM doesn't allow homebrew stuff, which I can sympethize with). Its the same level of Great Magic Weapon, which deals, at its lowest level, +2 to damage and to hit every time. It lasts 1 hour per level. Paragon lasts one round. So paragon will die in a few rounds, while you can use greater magic weapon for half the day.

I like it. It does however make critical hits very dangerous, but what they heck. I would spend the extra +2 to get this equipped.

Did some back-of-an-envelope figuring earlier this evening.

With all other factors (weapon type, weapon focus feat tree, weapon enhancement + Str bonuses, target AC, DR, miss chance, etc.) being equal, a magical weapon with the paragon quality will do on average between 0.85 and 1.2 times the damage of a similar weapon with the speed enhancement.

The weighting shifts very gradually from favouring speed to favouring paragon as number of iterative attacks/rnd increases at higher levels. At mid-high levels (7th-14th) the difference in average damage/rnd offered by the two weapon properties is negligible.

Both properties (speed and paragon) average out about double the base damage of a similar weapon with neither property. Enchanting a weapon with *both* properties will effectively triple base average damage/rnd (the ranges covered were from 2.8-3.3).

Personal conclusion: Vorpal Tribble has - as is his wont - created yet another interesting, flavourful and fundamentally balanced homebrew offering for our games. I would use both the weapon quality and the spell without reservation.

"Disengaging excessively serious pomposity mode...subjective personal normality restored" :smalltongue: :smallwink:

...not that brilliant energy bypasses natural armor...

Hey +2..? to deal... the same damage..? I shall delve into the world of maths... my home...

A +3 short sword --> 1d6+3 --> 6.5 mean value
A +1 paragon short sword --> 7 mean value

A +3 long sword --> 1d8+3 --> 7.5 mean value
A +1 paragon long sword --> 9 value

A +3 great sword --> 2d6+3 --> 10 mean value
A +1 paragon great sword --> 13 value

From this breif analysis, the ability becomes more effective as the size of the weapon becomes larger, as one would expect.

+3 huge warmace --> 3d8+3 --> 17.5 mean value
+1 huge paragon warmace --> 27

well... there you have it.
The DMG has long proffesed that increasing randomness favours the underdogs, the PC's opponents. This is the opposite: decreasing the randomness is definatly on the PC's side for this one... particularly if your a Monkey Gripping Goliath with exotic weapon profficiency Warmace.

Hey the Expanded Psionics handbook has a +2 effect that adds 5 to damage rolls... a "maximise the base damage" seems fair...

...you see the extra damage you can deal only counts if you hit. By using this ability, you are missing out on +2 to hit, potentially. That is why this is soooo totally balanced. Well done VT.

...what happens if I sneak attack with a paragon stiletto +1? Do those dice max too, since they're technically extra weapon damage and not an ability of the weapon?

This is like the Weapon Master's "Ki Damage", only it happens all the time.
Hmm... +2 seems good, I guess... It would greatly benefit those that usually rolls low damage like me :p
I think a +3 would make it more balanced, but I'm not sure.
How does Critical Hits works? Since it's extra damage hits, you could make the 1st die full damage, and the additional dies normal damage.

....Jeez. Large Monks who cast this on themselves, with a permanency spell, would utterly wtfpwnzor everything at higher levels with Flurry of Blows. Utterly. A level 20 Large Monk would do 32 damage per attack, and with Flurry of Blows, that's 32 damage for each attack of +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. Daaaaamn.

By the way, Roderick, the wording implies that critical damage is maxed too. Still more lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fax_Celestis

...what happens if I sneak attack with a paragon stiletto +1? Do those dice max too, since they're technically extra weapon damage and not an ability of the weapon?

---

Hrmmm... well, I'd say no as that is not base damage. That is specifically sneak attack damage which is based more on your skill than anything a weapon could do. You could dish out 4d6 extra damage with a wet rag theoretically, even if normally it'd do no damage whatsoever.

Keeping in the extra damage from a critical hit however because it is still base damage, just multiplied because of the lucky shot.

Quote:

---

How does Critical Hits works? Since it's extra damage hits, you could make the 1st die full damage, and the additional dies normal damage.

---

If the weapon is, say, a standard x2 weapon, that just means you double its maximum damage.

If it deals 1d6, it deals 12 damage on a critical.

Quote:

---

....Jeez. Large Monks who cast this on themselves, with a permanency spell, would utterly wtfpwnzor everything at higher levels with Flurry of Blows.

---

I dunno, I'd say a permanent True Strike would be even nastier. Paragon may do max damage, but its actually got to hit. +20 to hit every blow would practically asure the monk hitting every time, which would likely add up to being at least as effective as Paragon.

So with both, you've got 32 damage per 5 attacks per round. (-.-) 160 damage per round = dead. Luckily, True Strike, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't work with permanency. After all, it's meant to end the turn after you cast it. It only increases your next attack roll. Paragon Weapon, on the other hand, lasts for a while. That would, I believe, make it eligible for Permanency, which would be really, really lethal. Lemme check the rules on Permanency.

EDIT:
Oh, right. Permanency specifies in its description which abilities can be made permanent and which can't. So we just shouldn't add Paragon Weapon to that list. Otherwise...*shudder* Death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatum479

So with both, you've got 32 damage per 5 attacks per round. (-.-) 160 damage per round = dead. Luckily, True Strike, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't work with permanency. After all, it's meant to end the turn after you cast it. It only increases your next attack roll. Paragon Weapon, on the other hand, lasts for a while. That would, I believe, make it eligible for Permanency, which would be really, really lethal. Lemme check the rules on Permanency.

---

I couldn't find permanency, but I did find persistent, and it lasts 24 hours, so it might as well be permanency, and it does work for True Strike.

There's also my true permanency spell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vorpal Tribble

I couldn't find permanency, but I did find persistent, and it lasts 24 hours, so it might as well be permanency, and it does work for True Strike.

---

Permanency specifically states what spells can be used with it.

True Strike only applies to "the next single attack role"; I don't know how that would work wih persistence. (What book is Persistent Metamagic in?) And I thought that persistence was universally regarded as broken, anyways. :smallsigh:

I'd have no problem with allowing this spell to be made permanent. I'd put it at level 11* and make it personal-only, meaning that any monk who wants to make the effect permanent on himself will need to invest in 11 levels of a class which can cast permanency. And this spell, for that matter. Or, he can buy himself a magical stick or something.

I'd make it a +2 for light or one-handed weapons of medium size or smaller, and all small-sized weapons. Anything larger should apply an additional +1 for each (up to) 2 size increments. As mentioned, it gets a lot more powerful at larger sizes, and it'd be cheese to permit the half-ogre cleric (or warpriest) to use it on his large greataxe in concert with things like Righteous Might. Especially the next round, when he uses the Strength domain's granted power and pastes the fighter in 4 swings. Permanancy can be dispelled, but production of magic items needs to be more judiciously considered.

*usually Permanency requires the caster be level (8+spell level of permanent effect). At level 11 it'd also require a payment of 1500 experience to make permanent. And again when the effect gets dispelled by an enemy caster.

Huh. I like this enhancement a lot actually. I know a whole bunch of people are looking at it and going "Max damage for the price of 18,000 gold?! That's at least epic!" but VT's wording on it is very specific. Only base damage and on crits. I think its a fine enhancement indeed and might actually make sword-and-board more useful. Easier (Though not perfect) to keep up with the Power Attackers with greatswords if your longsword does max base damage automatically. The only thing that does worry me is the scythe.

I'd say change it so only one handed weapons or light can be paragon but that doesn't make sense.

Scythe crits don't benefit from this enhancement as much as you might think. The weapon itself is only doing 2-8 damage on its own anyway - it's the x1.5 Strength modifier that really makes them hurt...

As for my own specific comments on Paragon weapons - I like the idea. I'm still torn between calling it a +2 and a +3, though. It seems to me to be more the equivalent of a Speed weapon then a Burst weapon, but I don't know how many people would actually bother to take this if it was +3...

I'll have to think on that some more.

Well, trying to analyze this mathematically. . .
For every dX of weapon damage, this adds X/2-.5 damage, on average.
So, for each d4, this adds 1.5
Each d6, 2.5
each d8, 3.5
d10, 4.5
d12, 5.5

A +1 enhancement can add +1 to hit, +1 to damage, or +3.5 to damage, but subject to energy resistance, highly variable (2.5 in each direction; variability is bad for PCs), and doesn't crit. This is not subject to energy resistance (it follows the normal DR rules), and doesn't vary; let's go with an an initial increase of 2, and 2 damage each increase thereafter, with .5s being free when needed (but only added once).

For a 1d4 weapon, this isn't even worth a +1
For a 1d6 weapon, it's exactly a +1
For a 1d8 weapon, it's worth +1.5
2d4, +1.5
1d10, +2
1d12, +2.5
2d6, also about +2.
2d8, about +3.5
3d6, also about +3.5

For human-scaled weapons, this looks about balanced as a +2. It grows to be overpowered with big weapons, and possibly greataxes, but big creatures are usually NPCs, so, as their power is arbitrary (and they're harmed by the loss of rolling), it doesn't matter what we give them. Monkey Grip or Powerful Build can likewise overpower it, but that's a good thing; MG needs a niche.

Giving it a +3 would be erring on the side of caution (assuming people will use it with Greataxes or, worse, oversize greataxes); a +2 might be a bit too liberal.

That's why I think it should be graduated based on the base item. +2 for anything at least as small as a greataxe (medium sized item I think) and +3 for up to a huge greataxe, either remaining at 3 or going to +4 above that size.

I certainly wouldn't want to come across a rich hecatoncheires in any case :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_Got_This_Name

Well, trying to analyze this mathematically. . .
For every dX of weapon damage, this adds X/2-.5 damage, on average.

---

...well... no... the mean value increases by X/2 -0.5... wich is different.

1d6 dose not ever roll 3.5, how can that be average?

2d6 dose roll 7, and it rolls 7 1/6th of the time: more than any other result. Hence 7 is average for 2d6.

3.5 is, however the mean result of the numbers 1-6 distributed evenly. (1d6)

I digress...




Instead of having a +x weapon being paragon, why not produce a table, similar to what has been done with the "resist energy" armors and shields.

Suggestion:(5 000 x total mean value increase)

Base
Damage Cost

1d2 +2 500
1d3 +5 000
1d4 +7 500

1d6 +12 500
2d4 +15 000
1d8 +17 500

1d10 +22 500
2d6 +25 000
1d12 +27 500

2d8 +35 000
3d6 +37 500
3d8 +52 500

...d... +... ...
6d8 +105 000


As normal, a weapon would need to be +1 or better to have this ability added on to it, and the ability dose not count towards the +10 limit of the weapon. This ability only applies to the end on the weapon it is applied to: you must added it to both ends of a double weapon for both ends to have the effect.

Well, what do people think?

This would be perfect for use in creating a D&D Excalibur. (Assuming one doesn't already exist and I just missed it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magic8BALL

...well... no... the mean value increases by X/2 -0.5... wich is different.

1d6 dose not ever roll 3.5, how can that be average?

---

Dictionary.com claims that Average means Arithmetic Mean in four separate definitions. The arithmetic mean of a theoretically perfect (or suitably large) set of d6 rolls is 3.5. That is also the median value, which is backed by one definition.

You're thinking about the mode, which, to be fair, also has one definition backing it. However, "average" and "arithmetic mean" are synonyms.

Back on topic, I think that the cost increase should definitely be a + value (it's comparable to enhancement. Not favorably comparable, but comparable); if basing it on average damage increase, I'd go with +1 per +2.5 of average damage increase, with the on the end being free with any cost of +2 or more (so a d2 (+.5), d3 (+1), d4 (+1.5), and d6 (+2.5) are all +1 equivalent; 2d4 (+3), 1d8 (+3.5), 1d10 (+4.5), 2d6 (+5), and 1d12 (+5.5) being +2 equivalent, and most bigger things being +3.

well...

Dictonary.com has all the credibility of wikki. None.
Arathmatic mean is the sum of all the terms, divided by the number of terms. It is only one measure of the average of a set, and in no way synomisous with average (in credable circles of science, anyway.)

I dont care what it says, I will never roll 3.5 on a d6, hence it is not average. In such a case, arathmatic mean is not a suitable measure of the center of the posable results, but rather the mode is (and for a d6, the mode is 1-6, meaning there is no clear average, reflected in the fact that all six posable results are equally likely. I teach maths. Dont get into this argument.)

...back on topic...

+0.5...?

been playing D&D long...?

+5 for a greatsword to roll max damage..? I'll take my 1 in 36 chances and keep my money, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magic8BALL

Dictonary.com has all the credibility of wikki. None.
Arathmatic mean is the sum of all the terms, divided by the number of terms. It is only one measure of the average of a set, and in no way synomisous with average (in credable circles of science, anyway.)

I dont care what it says, I will never roll 3.5 on a d6, hence it is not average. In such a case, arathmatic mean is not a suitable measure of the center of the posable results, but rather the mode is (and for a d6, the mode is 1-6, meaning there is no clear average, reflected in the fact that all six posable results are equally likely. I teach maths. Dont get into this argument.)

---

You may not ever roll a 3.5 on a d6, but you will roll 3s and 4s in equal proportions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magic8BALL

well...

Dictonary.com has all the credibility of wikki. None.
Arathmatic mean is the sum of all the terms, divided by the number of terms. It is only one measure of the average of a set, and in no way synomisous with average (in credable circles of science, anyway.)

---

When referring to the credibility of a given site vis-a-vis its capacity for defining words in the English language, it might be an idea to remember that your own credibility is damaged when you misspell other words in the same language. Would you believe Webster, which also defines average as arithmetic mean? How about Oxford? We're not scientists here, and we deal with the definitions the bulk of the English-speaking world accepts which are as we've outlined. If you cleave to a different set of definitions, I'm afraid the onus is on you to establish them as superior to the ones we've been using to date.

Quote:

---

I dont care what it says, I will never roll 3.5 on a d6, hence it is not average. In such a case, arathmatic mean is not a suitable measure of the center of the posable results, but rather the mode is (and for a d6, the mode is 1-6, meaning there is no clear average, reflected in the fact that all six posable results are equally likely. I teach maths. Dont get into this argument.)

---

That's completely spurious reasoning. The average is the arithmetic mean, by popular agreement. I don't doubt that you teach maths, but you seem to have a weaker grasp on linguistics than figures.

Quote:

---

+0.5...?

---

You're a maths teacher so this should be fairly easy...
Add 1 and 2 (the possible outcomes on a d2) together. I've been getting '3' every time I try. Now, divide that by two (the number of possible outcomes, on a d2) and try as I might I can't get an answer other than 1.5. If we then subtract this average value of 1.5 from the maximum value of 2, we're left with the 0.5 IGTN mentioned.

Quote:

---

+5 for a greatsword to roll max damage..? I'll take my 1 in 36 chances and keep my money, thanks.

---

Apparently the point eluded you. The differential damage on a greatsword, between average and maximum, is 5 points. IGTN was proposing that the enchantment to achieve that be given a +2 equivalency. It was really quite clear to me, when I read it.

...and where does a 19 year old teach, anyway?

Yeah, seeing as for an Australian you generally graduate from high school at the age of 17-19, and then you have Uni to go to, and it takes 3 years to get a teaching degree. So you could be very young for your level of education, a student teacher, or not telling the whole truth (i.e., lying about your age). I will go with Occam's Razor and go with option number three, thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun

Yeah, seeing as for an Australian you generally graduate from high school at the age of 17-19, and then you have Uni to go to, and it takes 3 years to get a teaching degree. So you could be very young for your level of education, a student teacher, or not telling the whole truth (i.e., lying about your age). I will go with Occam's Razor and go with option number three, thanks

---

In The USA we get out at eighteen assuming one is smart enough to pass four years in a row.

I like it, but I'm curious as to why the ranger doesn't get it on his spell list as well. It looks like it'd benefit the class, and I don't see it going too far against the flavor.

It would propably be too non-standard but I would still houserule this as a +1 enchantment for small and smaller weapons, +2 for medium and +3 for large and larger weapons.

I'm starting to think perhaps it should merely be a price like a few of the weapon enchantments I've seen are. That way it can be specially priced for weapons below and over sized and not have to go through all that +1,2,3 business.

Well Tribble, i tell ya: This, I like. The spell is superb, the weapon enhancement? It makes the one's from complete warrior look like crap thrown together at the last minute!
Anata ha atama ga ii desu yo!
(Your Head is good)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fax_Celestis

You may not ever roll a 3.5 on a d6, but you will roll 3s and 4s in equal proportions.

---

A d6 also rolls equal proportaions of 1's and 2's... whats your point?

An average result is a result that best fits the overall pattern of possablr results. As 1 die will alwasy roll each result equal times over enough trials, there is no suitable measure for average. (the d3 is the only example where there may be some slight debate, as its mode is actually a credable result, but d3's dont even really exist anyway, so who cares?... someone will, watch.)

A teacher in training is a teacher. I still teach.

+0.5 has never been an enhancement bonus to anything in v3.x D&D, mainly becouse any dice roll that is even represented as a fraction for any reaon is rounded to the nearest integer.

Now...

Is anyone going to comment on my suggested pricing stratagy (appart from VT...), or are we just going to say that 1d6 will roll more 3's and 4's than anything else, cuz thats not the case... sorry to bring it up.

Oh for crying out loud. I learnt (in an Australian high school) that 'average' could mean refer to (:smalltongue:) mean, mode or median... usually mean. Five years of (Australian) university later (engineering and comp sci, lotsa maths there), I still see 'average' referring to the mean all the time (if slightly informally), never median nor mode unless actually specified. Are we done? I think we're done.

Anyway. I just had to do some analysis of my own. As expected, this wins out most for weapons with larger damage dice (including from larger sizes; specifically it's the maximum we're after, so for once, 2d4 is not better than 1d8), and for weapons with higher crit ranges or multipliers. (It might be worth noting that ordinary enhancement plusses are also more valuable on these weapons, albeit less noticeably.) For a scythe or ranseur, it's worth slightly less than +2. For a greataxe, it's somewhat better than +2. For the poor old short sword, it's worth about a +1.5. (It may be completely pointless to note that as the enhancement bonus rises, the relative value of the paragon enhancement also rises. A +2 paragon scythe is closer to a +4 scythe than a +1 paragon scythe is to a +3 scythe.)

On the matter of pricing by gold instead of by plusses: The thing with pricing by plusses is that it makes other plusses more expensive. If a +1 paragon scythe and a +3 scythe will be the same price, the paragon enhancement is worth a +2, which is 16,000gp in this case. This means a +2 paragon scythe and a +4 scythe will also be the same price; the +2 of the paragon enhancement is now worth 24,000gp. If you fix the price at (say) 16,000gp, it becomes relatively cheaper on higher-plus weapons. If that plus is from enhancement bonus, the paragon enhancement has become slightly more useful. If it's from other plus enhancements, like flaming, paragon is no better. This argues in favour of pegging the price, rather than using plusses.

The question is where to peg the price? By my calculations, which might not generalise too well but it's after 3am and I can't be bothered checking any more, it's worth about 14,857gp (don't ask) on a scythe, 24,558gp on a greataxe, 14,400gp on a ranseur, and just 12,973gp on a short sword.

Edit: This comes out reasonably close to magic8BALL's pricing. You could just use that, or else find a more complicated formula taking into account the critical range/multiplier of the weapon, adjusted for inflation and phase of the moon.

Im tempted to drop this (as people are tempted to injure me, I supose...), but I wont back down on somthing I believe in. Surely people still recognise average to mean that result wich generally represents the group. If x is the average of the set X, then x reprents the majority of individuals in X. The average person has 2 arms, not 1.9987453628462 or whaterver the mean is. Whats the average result of a coin toss? 1/2 heads + 1/2 tails? Thats all im saying.

Peregrine... what about other weapons? A Large Spiked Shield, for instance, or a Small Throwing Axe? Or, even better... how did you come up with your magic numbers, as grand as they be?

Arithmetic mean is defined as (n1+n2+n3.../x) where x is the number of occurrences of n. Therefore, the arithmetic mean of a d6 is 1+2+3+4+5+6/6 which is 21/6 which is 3.5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magic8BALL

Surely people still recognise average to mean that result wich generally represents the group.

---

That's one way of putting it...

Quote:

---

If x is the average of the set X, then x reprents the majority of individuals in X.

---

...but this doesn't mean the same thing. 'Represents the group' is not the same as 'represents most of the individuals in the group'. As I said, I learnt that mean, mode and median are all averages. In the case of the 'average' number of arms a person has, you're right, the mode would probably be the best average to use. (But compare the aphorism, 'the average family has 2.3 children'.) In the case of rolling dice, the average most people are familiar with -- the one that best represents the results you can expect over a period of time -- is the mean.

Quote:

---

Peregrine... what about other weapons? A Large Spiked Shield, for instance, or a Small Throwing Axe? Or, even better... how did you come up with your magic numbers, as grand as they be?

---

I came up with them by:
1. Find the average mean damage dealt by the weapon, given a few assumptions about the target, like the roll required to hit, etc. (I've demonstrated to myself in the past that these assumptions generalise well, barring outlying cases like where part of a weapon's threat range is outside the range of rolls needed to hit. I didn't test it this time though.) Find this for an unenhanced weapon, a +1/+2/+3 weapon, and a +1 paragon weapon.
2. Taking 16,000gp as the cost of the +1-to-+3 upgrade, calculate the ratio of cost to mean damage increase.
3. Apply this ratio to the mean damage increase observed for the paragon weapon.

To answer your specific queries, the paragon enhancement for a Small throwing axe (1d4, 20/x2) comes out to exactly 8,000gp, while that for a Large spiked shield (let's say a heavy one, 1d8, 20/x2) gives 16,649gp. Again, fairly close to the prices your rule gives.

Question: If the bonus equivalence increases with size, does the market price of your weapon suddenly increase if you cast, say, righteous might?

oooOOOhhh...

...um... dosnt your weapon decrease in size if you let go of it? Then you can't sell it for more than you payed for it... Im not sure...

...the price may include "expensive material components that must cover the entire weapon". Hence, a larger weapon must use more of these expensive material components. That seems like a good in game excuse for increasing the cost of enhancing larger weapons, and keeping every joe blogs out of the group with paragon weapons.

I was thinking more in terms of a weapon sudenly becoming epic.

Magic8ball, I understand what you're trying to say, that the average of a d6 is not the average of 1 and 6. You're quite right. That would make no sense. Picking two arbitrary numbers is illogical. One could, by that method of reasoning, choose 4 and 6 and say the average of a d6 is 5. The way you have to choose the average of a d6 is by averaging all the numbers. (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5. Thus, the average of a d6 is still 3.5, but for a much different reason.

...thats the mean, yes. well done. *claps*

...its how you say it. "the average roll for 1d6 is 3.5" implies that more often than not, you will roll a 3 or 4. You wont. The mode is the best measure of average for probalitity problems, as this actually is the result wich comes up more often. "the average of 2d6 is 7" makes heaps of sence, as 7 is the mode of the results of rolling two standard die independantly. The average result of two independant coin tosses is one head and one tail, that dosnt make the average result of one coin toss 1/2 head and 1/2 tail.

I see your point Lord Iames Osari... as you go from medium to huge (or whatever the spell dose... enlarge person would be mutch the same problem...) your weapon goes from a 20 000gp sword to a 30 000gp sword... but surly the cost is only a balance for obtaining the weapon. As you increase in size, your weapon does too... just this enhancment will increase the weapons effectiveness to more than the spell (enlage person, divine might... surley there are others... ahh... giant form... etc) intends. Hey if this is the only thing we can fault the power on, well done to VT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magic8BALL

...thats the mean, yes. well done. *claps*

---

I don't think there's any need to be condescending.

Quote:

---

...its how you say it. "the average roll for 1d6 is 3.5" implies that more often than not, you will roll a 3 or 4.

---

I wouldn't read it like this, and I wouldn't expect the others arguing against you to read it like that either. This doesn't fit with any of the three types of average (mean, mode, median). It's kind of like what the median means, but still quite different: the median means, "half the time, you will roll 3 or less; the other half, you will roll 4 or above."

Quote:

---

The mode is the best measure of average for probalitity problems, as this actually is the result wich comes up more often.

---

I would think the mode would be the worst to use for most cases in probability. For a start, many, if not most, situations would have no mode. Secondly, many probability problems assign numerical values to the outcomes, as in rolling dice. The mean is the best measure of numerical results over time.

The mode is more useful when 'average' means 'normal', as in 'the average person has two arms'.

Quote:

---

The average result of two independant coin tosses is one head and one tail, that dosnt make the average result of one coin toss 1/2 head and 1/2 tail.

---

Well, it does and it doesn't. Coin flips aren't assigned a numerical value; if a head was 0 and a tail was 1, then you could correctly say that the average result is 0.5. But even stated as "1/2 head and 1/2 tail", you convey important information about what results you can expect. This is both the mean and the median; you would get no information whatsoever from the mode, which doesn't exist.

Can you just accept that, even if you believe the common terminology or 'average' is wrong, it is common (and widely understood) terminology?

...I'm trying not to. Indeed, I am atempting, and failing, to change common perception. I feel now that there is no hope for my cause, and I shall drop the point. I will continue, however to use mean when I mean mean (:smalleek: ), and average when I mean most representative.

I only hope forgiveness can be given to me for seemingly hyjacking this thread, wich was to be dedicated to a very insightful weapon ability.