3.5 Weapon from Hellboy 2

[Boci]

Name: Elven Tarjul
Cost: 130gp
Weight: 8 lbs

Version one: One Handed exotic weapon
Damage (medium) : 1d4
Critical: 19-20/x2
Damage type: Piercing/Slashing


Version 2: Two handed exotic weapon
Damage: 1d8**** (1d6/1d4)*****
Critical: 20/x3 (20/x2 / 20/x2)
Damage: Piercing (Blougeing/Slashing)

****=reach weapon
*****=double weapon

Appearance:
Version 1:
A short blade on the end of a very long hide bound hilt. It has all the stacticstics of a dagger, expect the unproportional size of the hilt changes it into a one handed weapon and requires special training to use properly.

Version 2:
As part of a move equivilant action, the wielder of an Elven Tarjul can exstend the hilt into a long, hollow shaft. Well placed supporting pieces of metal maintain its strength, and the wielder now has two options:
1. He may use it as a long spear
2. Use it as a quarter staff with one end as a blade with deals less damage but of the slashing sub type.
Edit: The wielder of the Tarjul may choose at the beginning of his turn which form of the weapon to use. Changing is a free action, reverting the Tarjul to its shorter form is a standard action, but it doesn't prevoke an attack of opertunity.

History: Made as a versatile weapon for the traditional sport of the Nadrandik Elven Aristocracy, the Tarjul is a versatile weapon that is great for a fighting style aimed to please crowds, but can also be a deadly tool in the hands of a warrior familiar with its weight and balance.

Special: The wielder of a Tarjul may treat his weapon as a dagger, spear, or quarterstaff for the purpose of using feats and class abilities. For example, a fighter could gain the benefits of both weapon focus (dagger) and Quick staff, no matter which version of the weapon they was using.

So what you think?

[Aneantir]

Version 2: Two handed exotic weapon
Damage: 1d84

That would hurt.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

That would hurt.

Especially the 1d6 divided by 1d4 and then multiplied by five.

Hmmmmm.

[roll]1d84[/roll]

[roll]1d6[/roll] [roll]1d4[/roll]

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

Well, there went my rolls.
[roll]1d84[/roll]
[roll]1d6[/roll]
[roll]1d4[/roll]

EDIT: Does the roller not work on this board?

Edit 2: Okay, on Invisible Castle,I got 40, 5, and 4.
5 divided by 4 is 1.25. Multiply by five and we get 6.25.......This weapon is confusing.

[tyckspoon]

EDIT: Does the roller not work on this board?
.

No, actually; it's not enabled for the discussion forums. The roller is only activated for the play-by-post forums.

[Boci]

When I had this written up in microsoft the 4 and the 5 were in supertext. That was lost I pasted it into here and I only realised that once it was too late. Surely that wasn't that unobious. I'm guessing the people who replied don't know D&D rules so it would be hard for them to understand.

[Thurbane]

I think there's a weapon in the MiC that shifts between a shortspear, spear and longspear. Add the abiltity to do slashing damage as well as piercing, and you're just about there...

[Shades of Gray]

You might be thinking of the swordbow.

swordbow: longsword to longbow
light swordbow: Short Sword to Shortbow
Great Swordbow: Greatsword to Composite Longbow

[Boci]

I think there's a weapon in the MiC that shifts between a shortspear, spear and longspear. Add the abiltity to do slashing damage as well as piercing, and you're just about there...

Depends. Is that weapon amgical? Is so then its no good, I want this to be mundane. Secondly, can you use that as a double weapon? Again, if no then its no good.

[Kizara]

1) This belongs in the homebrew forum.

2) Replace the 'superscript' numbers for asterixes like this.

1=*
2=**
3=***
Etc. Its not as good as numbers, but its considerably more readable when you don't have superscript functionality.

[Aneantir]

When I had this written up in microsoft the 4 and the 5 were in supertext. That was lost I pasted it into here and I only realised that once it was too late. Surely that wasn't that unobious. I'm guessing the people who replied don't know D&D rules so it would be hard for them to understand.

We were having a little fun at the typo. It's just a joke, man, don't take it so seriously.

[Thurbane]

You might be thinking of the swordbow.

swordbow: longsword to longbow
light swordbow: Short Sword to Shortbow
Great Swordbow: Greatsword to Composite Longbow

Nope...Changeling weapon property, page 31. Seems not to be what the OP was after, however...

For my game, I'd stat it as a +1 Changeling Keen Wounding Spear...

[RTGoodman]

Its not as good as numbers, but its considerably more readable when you don't have superscript functionality.

But... we DO have superscript functionality.^See?

The code is [sup]Your Text Here[/sup] = ^{Your Text Here}


On topic, maybe call them "Tarjul" and "Greater Tarjul" or something like that makes it sound better than just calling them different versions.

For the greater version, the wording is a little weird. I'd just say it does 1d8 piercing/1d6 bludgeoning damage and you can choose which end to use if you're only using one attack. The damage DECREASING if you choose to attack twice makes no sense to me, and it's probably not overpowered to leave it at 1d8 (especially as an exotic weapon and one designed for, I assume, using the usually-suboptimal TWF to use both ends). As for reach, I'd either give it reach all the time or say you can switch between reach and not as a swift action (like you would if you had the Short Haft feat). It's all up to you, though.

[Boci]

We were having a little fun at the typo. It's just a joke, man, don't take it so seriously.

Fair enough, your post was okay, but the subsequent 2 posts by Fiendish_Dire_Moose were uneccissary.

[Boci]

But... we DO have superscript functionality.^See?

The code is [sup]Your Text Here[/sup] = ^{Your Text Here}


On topic, maybe call them "Tarjul" and "Greater Tarjul" or something like that makes it sound better than just calling them different versions.

For the greater version, the wording is a little weird. I'd just say it does 1d8 piercing/1d6 bludgeoning damage and you can choose which end to use if you're only using one attack. The damage DECREASING if you choose to attack twice makes no sense to me, and it's probably not overpowered to leave it at 1d8 (especially as an exotic weapon and one designed for, I assume, using the usually-suboptimal TWF to use both ends). As for reach, I'd either give it reach all the time or say you can switch between reach and not as a swift action (like you would if you had the Short Haft feat). It's all up to you, though.

There aren't 2 weapons here, theres just the Tarjul. Its wielder has 3 options with the weapon.

[RTGoodman]

There aren't 2 weapons here, theres just the Tarjul. Its wielder has 3 options with the weapon.

Oh. Well. Nevermind, then.

[BardicDuelist]

Your mechanic is clunky. A magical weapon would make more sense.

Also, stuff like this goes in Homebrew.

[Burley]

The cost would be for both weapons, masterworked, added together.

The type would be exotic.

The player would be crazy.

Also, when in it's extended form, it'd take a -x to hardness. It's now hollow and easy as crap to sunder.

[Boci]

The cost would be for both weapons, masterworked, added together.

The type would be exotic.

The player would be crazy.

Also, when in it's extended form, it'd take a -x to hardness. It's now hollow and easy as crap to sunder.

The type is exotic and waht do you mean the player would be crazy? It isnt a very good weapon?

[Burley]

I personally don't think it's a very good weapon. I, as a player, wouldn't use it because I'm sure I could just get one of each weapon, and have a much better time. I've played the Weapon Master kinda character, and I don't have much fun with them.

As a DM, I wouldn't allow it. If a one of my players wanted one, I'd assume two things: A) They're basing their characters around the weapon, and 2) They've got cheese planned. If anything happened to the weapon, they'd be really angry and blame me, but they shouldn't have been using a hollow spear to hold open a stone door.

The book keeping involved would be profound, and I (and a lot of people) would end up just writing the stats for the three different weapons, as though they had the three different weapons, which would be cheaper.

Also, your mechanics are terrible. Extending is a Move Action, Changing is a free action, Shortening is a Swift action? What? Do you know what actions you're talking about?
Extending should be part of a move action, just like drawing a weapon.
Shortening should be a full round action, unless there is a complex mechanism (no rules for this, just a turn of phrase), which could shorten it to a standard action to shorten. But, it should provoke an attack of opportunity anyways.

This weapon isn't magical. You don't even show that it must be masterwork. A Mundane weapon shouldn't let you have "three weapons in one" and let you switch amongst them faster than another PC with the regular three.

Basically, it's just extra book keeping with no reward, and it provokes AoO whenever you change forms (which having three weapons wouldn't).

A player wouldn't have to be "crazy", because that was hyperbole, and I'm sorry if it offended you. But, the player would end up having a better character if they just had all three weapons.

[Jayabalard]

1) This belongs in the homebrew forum.

2) Replace the 'superscript' numbers for asterixes like this.

1=*
2=**
3=***
Etc. Its not as good as numbers, but its considerably more readable when you don't have superscript functionality.

you have superscript functionalty on this board

text¹
text²
text³

You use Text[sup]1[/sup] = Text¹

It just doesn't get automatically translated when you paste from word.

[Boci]

I personally don't think it's a very good weapon. I, as a player, wouldn't use it because I'm sure I could just get one of each weapon, and have a much better time. I've played the Weapon Master kinda character, and I don't have much fun with them.

You could get each weapon. That would give you cvertain advantages and certain disadvantages.

As a DM, I wouldn't allow it. If a one of my players wanted one, I'd assume two things: A) They're basing their characters around the weapon, and 2) They've got cheese planned. If anything happened to the weapon, they'd be really angry and blame me, but they shouldn't have been using a hollow spear to hold open a stone door.

1. Sometimes good PCs can be based off something seem in the mvies. As long as a PC acknowledges that Prince Nuada will begin as a 1st level, just like the other PCs, and will have a standard class, just like the other PCs, whats the problem?

2. What would happen to the weapon? Sundered? That can happen to any weapon, and its the only real way weapons break. Any PC is annoyed by sundering, so why is that problem unique to this weapon?

The book keeping involved would be profound, and I (and a lot of people) would end up just writing the stats for the three different weapons, as though they had the three different weapons, which would be cheaper.

What would be cheaper? Having three seperate weapons? Book keepings a fair point, but I wouldn't have any problem with it. Like 3 different spells for a wizard.

Also, your mechanics are terrible. Extending is a Move Action, Changing is a free action, Shortening is a Swift action? What? Do you know what actions you're talking about?
Extending should be part of a move action, just like drawing a weapon.
Shortening should be a full round action, unless there is a complex mechanism (no rules for this, just a turn of phrase), which could shorten it to a standard action to shorten. But, it should provoke an attack of opportunity anyways.

I made it a move action because when Prince Nuada lengthened it he needed to spin it around alot and didn't move whilst he did so. He never seemed to expend much time shortening it and I could imagine it being done in a short amount of time, just push it shut.

This weapon isn't magical. You don't even show that it must be masterwork. A Mundane weapon shouldn't let you have "three weapons in one" and let you switch amongst them faster than another PC with the regular three.

This is supose to be a base weapon, so it shouldn't need to be masterwork. Saying mundane weapon "shouldn't grant three weapons in one" is like saying a mundane weapon shouldn't have the returning ability on it, but the boomerang does. Both are exoptic weapons and therefor special.

Basically, it's just extra book keeping with no reward, and it provokes AoO whenever you change forms (which having three weapons wouldn't).

Hey hey hey, you cannot propse a change, then attack my creation based on the rule you propsed. I doesnt provoke an attack of opertunity each time it changes form, that a suggestion by you, which I wont adopt.

A player wouldn't have to be "crazy", because that was hyperbole, and I'm sorry if it offended you. But, the player would end up having a better character if they just had all three weapons.

Note however that for the purpose of applying feat benefits this weapon is better than 3 seperate ones. Plus its cheaper to enhance.


I can understand that as a player you wouldn't use this, my friend said the same. As for not allowing it as a DM, that up to you, but I think you're exxaggerating problems that would occure with it. The whole argument about this weapon being realitic is a dodgy one in D&D, since its not realitic to have your damage output sinificantly decreased when you grab a rock in your hands (20th level monk).

[Burley]

The actions you described would not make sense. I didn't see Hellboy 2, so, I don't know, but I've actually got a lot of experience with sticks that extend, having worked with blind people in the past. They're easy as heck to make long, but very time consuming to collapse.

Sundering is not the only way things can break. Common sense breaks weapons, too. This thing is hollow, and without serious reinforcement, it's going to shatter really fast when it hits metal, stone, or solid wood.

A Boomerang only returns if it misses. It also only does one type of damage.
Your weapon changes when you want it do, does various types of damage, has different crit multipliers, and has all three types of damage. It can also be treated as a reach weapon or a double weapon. This is too powerful to be a cheap item.

It is cheaper to have three seperate weapons, because any sane DM would have you pay the masterwork cost of the three types of weapons involved (dagger, quarterstaff, longspear), plus extra for the extremely complex craftman ship to make an effective hollow shaft.

Being cheaper to enchant is not balanced. The magic item compendium has a weapon that turns from a +1 Longbow to a +1 Longsword (effectively). Guess what! It costs a lot of money. It's not the cost of a +1 weapon. It's the cost of two +1 weapons and some other cost for the Shapeshifter weapon addition. Saying something is mundane doesn't make it fair.

I'm not making up rules. I'm using rules already in place as guidelines, from any source books I can find with relevant information.

[Tokiko Mima]

My two favorite weapon properties are Morphing (+1, MIC) and Sizing (+5000gp, MIC). Combine the two and you can easily have a dagger that becomes a longspear, or a sword that transforms into a battleaxe. Turn up the cheese a little, and you can even use your weapon to make you bridges across huge chasms by turning your weapon into a Colossal Shillelagh. That's very "Journey to the West" now that I think about it.

[Boci]

The actions you described would not make sense. I didn't see Hellboy 2, so, I don't know, but I've actually got a lot of experience with sticks that extend, having worked with blind people in the past. They're easy as heck to make long, but very time consuming to collapse.

I like it better my way, more fun.

Sundering is not the only way things can break. Common sense breaks weapons, too. This thing is hollow, and without serious reinforcement, it's going to shatter really fast when it hits metal, stone, or solid wood.

A scimitar's blade will also dull after a fighter uses it to hack apart an iron golem. Do you keep track of that aswell? No. Does the book in anyway give rules for a weapon breaking from normal use? No.

A Boomerang only returns if it misses. It also only does one type of damage.
Your weapon changes when you want it do, does various types of damage, has different crit multipliers, and has all three types of damage. It can also be treated as a reach weapon or a double weapon. This is too powerful to be a cheap item.

The only advantage this has over a spiked chain is that you can wield it as a double weapon (and the multiple feat ability). The spiked chain has many more advantages. Its not overpowered.

It is cheaper to have three seperate weapons, because any sane DM would have you pay the masterwork cost of the three types of weapons involved (dagger, quarterstaff, longspear), plus extra for the extremely complex craftman ship to make an effective hollow shaft.

3 weapons would be cheaper because you think its underpriced is what your basically saying.

Being cheaper to enchant is not balanced. The magic item compendium has a weapon that turns from a +1 Longbow to a +1 Longsword (effectively). Guess what! It costs a lot of money. It's not the cost of a +1 weapon. It's the cost of two +1 weapons and some other cost for the Shapeshifter weapon addition. Saying something is mundane doesn't make it fair.

Yes, that it a weapon that can be used for both melee and range. Mind can't, now are many of them commonly used weapons (simple and not martial to begin with)

I'm not making up rules. I'm using rules already in place as guidelines, from any source books I can find with relevant information.

You are making up rules. Sorry.

[Burley]

You are making up rules. Sorry.

Don't ask for opinions and shoot them down. I stated that these were my opinions and I gave how I would run it in one of my games.

The relevant information I'm using is the PHB crap for drawing weapons and the rules for the Wristblade weapon from the Dawnforge Campaign setting (retractable gauntlet blades).

I'm done with this thread.

[Boci]

Don't ask for opinions and shoot them down. I stated that these were my opinions and I gave how I would run it in one of my games.

The relevant information I'm using is the PHB crap for drawing weapons and the rules for the Wristblade weapon from the Dawnforge Campaign setting (retractable gauntlet blades).

I'm done with this thread.

So your opinion is that it should be alot more expensive and break very soon? Forgive me for not taking it too well.

[Toliudar]

Given the complexity of the mechanism you're describing, I would also bump the initial cost into the 75-100gp range.

What material do you envision as the haft of the Tarjul? You mention bound with hide, and reinforced by metal. Does that mean that there's a third material in there, or just the metal and leather?

Since the one-handed version of this weapon does piercing damage, it might make more sense for the pointy part of the double weapon version to also do piercing damage.

I would also suggest making it at least a standard action to collapse the weapon again (it would need to be something more than a simple twist and push, or else the weapon would be useless as a spear).

On the whole, I would consider it a fun and flavourful weapon - not terribly overpowered, because at higher levels it would get very expensive to enchant effectively.

[Reaper_Monkey]

I'm done with this thread.

I must say I have to agree with Burley Warlock here, this is a classic case of emulation rather than balanced construction.. yes the weapon in Hellboy 2 (which I have seen, very good movie) is very shiney, however, it is done that way for the film, if you were to make it in a game, along side weapons already made, it has to be balanced appropriately.

The weapon may not be magical, but the mechanical properties would make it at least count as a +1 weapon for construction and pricing. The hardness of the weapon would be dire in its extended version, as it would indeed be hollow, and although there are no written rules for that property other than for sundering, a good DM would point out the likelihood of its breaking when used in cirtain ways (perhaps even make a simple chart that puts a fort DC it has to take when used against hard things).

The crit multiplier also shouldn't be a x3 when its in its extended form used as a reach weapon IMO, as its still effectively going to be doing the same as it would be while in its dagger form.

Regardless of that however the damage type should be consistent, in the film it is used to both stab and slash while in dagger form, as while extended (which is logical) so it should be a Piercing/Slashing weapon while in dagger form and in "spear" form, while keeping it as a Slashing//Bludgeoning when used as a double weapon. Mind, I'd also address the damage die to be more consistent also, a 1d4 in dagger, 1d6 in spear and 1d6//1d4 in double form so as follows..

Version one: One Handed exotic weapon
Damage (medium) : 1d4
Critical: 19-20/x2
Damage type: Piercing/Slashing

Version 2: Two handed exotic weapon
Damage: 1d6 (1d6/1d4)
Critical: 20/x2 (20/x2 / 20/x2)
Damage: Piercing/Slashing (Slashing//Bludgeoning)


The required actions to change and extend etc really need to be looked at, in the film it does appear that it takes very little time, but there is a difference between what it takes and how its stated mechanically, whenever he shrinks it he does little else that "round" (6 seconds) other than move, with this in mind id say shortening it (if you were just trying to imitate the film) could easily be said to be a move action also, this would make it easier to remember and follow but also make it more balanced (slightly).

...but to be fair, the cost, complexity, and overlooked features that make it unbalanced (most of which have been mentioned by previous posters) make this weapon cheesey at best and a munchkin magnet at worse. However, as your taking any helpful critiquing so poorly I doubt this will make much of an impression, and in which case have fun with your uba-weapon.

EDITED: Tidied up weapon data

[Boci]

and in which case have fun with your uba-weapon.

I'll respond to the other thing you said latter. For now:
lets just compare my uber-weapon to a spiked chain.

*Pretty much equal damage (2d4 versus 1d8) No points
*Better crit multiplier (3x versus 2x) One point for the Targul
*Both have reach, and both strike adjacent targets, but I'm going to give half a point to the spiked chain here because you have to use an inferior fighting style to strike an ajacent target with a Tarjul
*Tarjul can be a double weapon, spiked chain can't. Half a point to the Tarjul since two weapon fighting is sub-optimal power wise
*Tarjul can gain benefit of multiple feats. 1 points to the Tarjul
* Spiked chain can be used to to trip and disarm. 2 points for the Spiked chain

So each get 2.5 points whem compared. My uber weapon is only as good as the best weapon from the players handbook.