Playtesting: Throwing Sap - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Playtesting: Throwing Sap

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
May 19, 2004 15:41:23 I've been using the DS3/DS3.5 conversion from Athas.org for a while, and first off, I've got to say, it's excellent work. I've been running a campaign with it for some time, and everyone's had a great time with it. I'm especially happy with the recently released Terrors of Athas.

However, one thing in the core Dark Sun 3 rulebook I have found is perhaps a bit out of balance is a specific weapon: the Throwing Sap.

I like the concept of it. But, after seeing it in action, it is pretty crazy. For those who aren't immediately familiar with it, it's a bludgeoning reach weapon that does 2d8 nonlethal damage. Whenever a creature is hit by it, they must make a strength check (DC 5 + damage dealt) or be knocked prone.

The problem with this weapon is that the DC of the strength check averages to ridiculous amounts. Wielded by someone with no bonus to their strength, the minimum save DC is 7, the average is 13, and the maximum is 21. Wielded by someone with a +5 strength bonus (like the Mul in question in my campaign), the minimum save DC is 12, average is 18, maximum is 26.

In short, even a high strength fighter going up against this has, at best, a 50/50 chance (on average) of not being knocked prone. And anyone without a strength bonus has maybe a 25% chance of staying up. Combine this with AoOs caused by standing up, and I've seen this weapon used to devastating effect. I've actually see this Mul knock someone prone, and then knock them back prone again with an AoO when they try to stand up.

The only downside we've ever found with it is it's weight. Since I actually do keep track of how much weight they're carrying, versus what's on their kanks, and such, there have been a few times that having a weapon that is a 30lb sack of sand has been an issue. Aside from that, this weapon is without downsides.

Is there something I'm missing that makes this weapon less broken, in terms of balance? Because right now, we're leaning towards tweaking it down a bit. The ideas I'm currently considering are:

Damage: 2d6 or 2d8 (hard to say which is better), nonlethal
Check DC for being knocked prone: damage dealt
Check Statistic: strength or dexterity, whichever is higher

Bringing the DC down from the current (5 + damage dealt), and possibly reducing the damage, and allowing the save to be dexterity in some cases, will balance this out, IMHO. It'll still be a very useful weapon. We just won't have the situation we have right now, which is that a mid to high strength character can essentially knock any NPC (non-monster, obviously, as some monsters have huge strengths) down given 1-2 tries, at which point the party slaughters it with AoOs as it tries to stand back up.

Thoughts?
#2
zombiegleemax
May 19, 2004 17:21:03 I never even looked at that weapon actually! Damn, that's pretty powerful for even an exotic weapon.

The only things I can think of that would involve the least amount of changes would be to limit the DC to the max damage of the weapon by itself. ie. DC would range between 7 and 21 regardless of strength. Either that, or turn the weapon's ability into a free trip attack which relies on an opposed Str or Dex check rather than a set DC based on damage.

Thankfully none of my PC's have found that weapon yet ;)
#3
dawnstealer
May 19, 2004 17:54:39 Or make the save Fort-based instead of Str-based.
#4
nytcrawlr
May 19, 2004 19:01:49 I'd definately make it a Fort save too, and leave the rest as is, maybe drop the damage to 2d6 too.
#5
zombiegleemax
May 19, 2004 19:50:00 Hmm.

I kind of like the fort save idea, but I'm not sure about two things regarding it.

First off, it's unlikely that the wielder of the sap is going to have their strength go up significantly over the course of their adventures. What this means is that the damage dealt per hit is going to be fairly static over time. Oh, sure, he'll perhaps hit more often with it, but I do worry that, if you base it off fort saves, you might reach a level where there's practically no use for the weapon. It just won't be able to overcome the fact that fortitude saves have gotten high enough that most creatures will only fail on maybe a 1-3 or so.

Now, granted, we are talking about pretty high levels here. But still, it just feels like basing it off fort saves might eventually negate any utility in the item, and that'd be a shame. I want to tone it down, not make it obsolete over, say, 15th level. (it's a really cool weapon from a flavor standpoint, even for the DM)

Moreso, from a game standpoint, I'm not sure how you justify it being a fortitude save. I guess you're getting hit pretty hard in the chest, and perhaps the fortitude save is to absorb the blow while holding your ground. Then again, in that case, you might even want it to be fort or reflex, whichever is higher. (Fort to absorb the blow without falling, reflex to deflect the blow enough to stay standing)

Limiting the save DC is OK I guess, but (and I could be wrong), it seems sort of unprecedented. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I just don't think I've ever seen anything work quite that way.

A free trip attempt ... I dunno. That just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe because it's called a trip attempt. It may be a good game mechanic that I'm against just because of the name. I'll have to think about that.
#6
skitzboy_dup
May 20, 2004 20:05:13 How about just making it an opposed check? Str for the attacker with a +4 bonus for the weapon, opposed by the higher of Str or Dex for the defender modified by size, # of legs, etc. It does effectively make it a ranged trip attack, but it does make it a little more static than either a damage based DC or a Fort based save.

And since I'm too lazy to look it up in the DS3 rules, what's the range increment on a 30 lb. sack of sand? I'd imagine 10 ft, but if it gets too out of hand, maybe consider a 5 ft increment.
#7
zombiegleemax
May 20, 2004 22:12:46
Originally posted by Skitzboy
How about just making it an opposed check? Str for the attacker with a +4 bonus for the weapon, opposed by the higher of Str or Dex for the defender modified by size, # of legs, etc. It does effectively make it a ranged trip attack, but it does make it a little more static than either a damage based DC or a Fort based save.

And since I'm too lazy to look it up in the DS3 rules, what's the range increment on a 30 lb. sack of sand? I'd imagine 10 ft, but if it gets too out of hand, maybe consider a 5 ft increment.

Hmm. The opposed check is also a pretty good idea.

As for the range, it's not actually a missile weapon. It's a reach weapon; it's actually a 30lb sack of sand on a rope. It can reach 10 feet, though you can grip the rope higher and use it to attack adjacent squares. So, long range will never be a balance issue.
#8
skitzboy_dup
May 21, 2004 19:03:52 Upon further review, I think I'll just make it a reach weapon capable of doing a trip attack that you cannot be tripped in return. That's the easiest way to incorporate it in my game without making up a special rule for it. The Improved Trip feat will still give the original +4 bonus I proposed.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax May 19, 2004 15:41:23	I've been using the DS3/DS3.5 conversion from Athas.org for a while, and first off, I've got to say, it's excellent work. I've been running a campaign with it for some time, and everyone's had a great time with it. I'm especially happy with the recently released Terrors of Athas. However, one thing in the core Dark Sun 3 rulebook I have found is perhaps a bit out of balance is a specific weapon: the Throwing Sap. I like the concept of it. But, after seeing it in action, it is pretty crazy. For those who aren't immediately familiar with it, it's a bludgeoning reach weapon that does 2d8 nonlethal damage. Whenever a creature is hit by it, they must make a strength check (DC 5 + damage dealt) or be knocked prone. The problem with this weapon is that the DC of the strength check averages to ridiculous amounts. Wielded by someone with no bonus to their strength, the minimum save DC is 7, the average is 13, and the maximum is 21. Wielded by someone with a +5 strength bonus (like the Mul in question in my campaign), the minimum save DC is 12, average is 18, maximum is 26. In short, even a high strength fighter going up against this has, at best, a 50/50 chance (on average) of not being knocked prone. And anyone without a strength bonus has maybe a 25% chance of staying up. Combine this with AoOs caused by standing up, and I've seen this weapon used to devastating effect. I've actually see this Mul knock someone prone, and then knock them back prone again with an AoO when they try to stand up. The only downside we've ever found with it is it's weight. Since I actually do keep track of how much weight they're carrying, versus what's on their kanks, and such, there have been a few times that having a weapon that is a 30lb sack of sand has been an issue. Aside from that, this weapon is without downsides. Is there something I'm missing that makes this weapon less broken, in terms of balance? Because right now, we're leaning towards tweaking it down a bit. The ideas I'm currently considering are: Damage: 2d6 or 2d8 (hard to say which is better), nonlethal Check DC for being knocked prone: damage dealt Check Statistic: strength or dexterity, whichever is higher Bringing the DC down from the current (5 + damage dealt), and possibly reducing the damage, and allowing the save to be dexterity in some cases, will balance this out, IMHO. It'll still be a very useful weapon. We just won't have the situation we have right now, which is that a mid to high strength character can essentially knock any NPC (non-monster, obviously, as some monsters have huge strengths) down given 1-2 tries, at which point the party slaughters it with AoOs as it tries to stand back up. Thoughts?
#2 zombiegleemax May 19, 2004 17:21:03	I never even looked at that weapon actually! Damn, that's pretty powerful for even an exotic weapon. The only things I can think of that would involve the least amount of changes would be to limit the DC to the max damage of the weapon by itself. ie. DC would range between 7 and 21 regardless of strength. Either that, or turn the weapon's ability into a free trip attack which relies on an opposed Str or Dex check rather than a set DC based on damage. Thankfully none of my PC's have found that weapon yet ;)
#3 dawnstealer May 19, 2004 17:54:39	Or make the save Fort-based instead of Str-based.
#4 nytcrawlr May 19, 2004 19:01:49	I'd definately make it a Fort save too, and leave the rest as is, maybe drop the damage to 2d6 too.
#5 zombiegleemax May 19, 2004 19:50:00	Hmm. I kind of like the fort save idea, but I'm not sure about two things regarding it. First off, it's unlikely that the wielder of the sap is going to have their strength go up significantly over the course of their adventures. What this means is that the damage dealt per hit is going to be fairly static over time. Oh, sure, he'll perhaps hit more often with it, but I do worry that, if you base it off fort saves, you might reach a level where there's practically no use for the weapon. It just won't be able to overcome the fact that fortitude saves have gotten high enough that most creatures will only fail on maybe a 1-3 or so. Now, granted, we are talking about pretty high levels here. But still, it just feels like basing it off fort saves might eventually negate any utility in the item, and that'd be a shame. I want to tone it down, not make it obsolete over, say, 15th level. (it's a really cool weapon from a flavor standpoint, even for the DM) Moreso, from a game standpoint, I'm not sure how you justify it being a fortitude save. I guess you're getting hit pretty hard in the chest, and perhaps the fortitude save is to absorb the blow while holding your ground. Then again, in that case, you might even want it to be fort or reflex, whichever is higher. (Fort to absorb the blow without falling, reflex to deflect the blow enough to stay standing) Limiting the save DC is OK I guess, but (and I could be wrong), it seems sort of unprecedented. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I just don't think I've ever seen anything work quite that way. A free trip attempt ... I dunno. That just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe because it's called a trip attempt. It may be a good game mechanic that I'm against just because of the name. I'll have to think about that.
#6 skitzboy_dup May 20, 2004 20:05:13	How about just making it an opposed check? Str for the attacker with a +4 bonus for the weapon, opposed by the higher of Str or Dex for the defender modified by size, # of legs, etc. It does effectively make it a ranged trip attack, but it does make it a little more static than either a damage based DC or a Fort based save. And since I'm too lazy to look it up in the DS3 rules, what's the range increment on a 30 lb. sack of sand? I'd imagine 10 ft, but if it gets too out of hand, maybe consider a 5 ft increment.
#7 zombiegleemax May 20, 2004 22:12:46	Originally posted by Skitzboy How about just making it an opposed check? Str for the attacker with a +4 bonus for the weapon, opposed by the higher of Str or Dex for the defender modified by size, # of legs, etc. It does effectively make it a ranged trip attack, but it does make it a little more static than either a damage based DC or a Fort based save. And since I'm too lazy to look it up in the DS3 rules, what's the range increment on a 30 lb. sack of sand? I'd imagine 10 ft, but if it gets too out of hand, maybe consider a 5 ft increment. Hmm. The opposed check is also a pretty good idea. As for the range, it's not actually a missile weapon. It's a reach weapon; it's actually a 30lb sack of sand on a rope. It can reach 10 feet, though you can grip the rope higher and use it to attack adjacent squares. So, long range will never be a balance issue.
#8 skitzboy_dup May 21, 2004 19:03:52	Upon further review, I think I'll just make it a reach weapon capable of doing a trip attack that you cannot be tripped in return. That's the easiest way to incorporate it in my game without making up a special rule for it. The Improved Trip feat will still give the original +4 bonus I proposed.