Bladed Gauntlet and Mercurial Greatsword shafted by senseless errata!?

[Anubis]

I will now offer PROOF that the original versions of the bladed gauntlet and the mercurial greatsword are fair and balanced, making the errata unnecessary and senseless.

First, one must consider the differences between simple, martial, and exotic weapons. Style? No. Power is the key. Martial weapons are usually more powerful than simple weapons, and exotic weapons are similarly more powerful than martial weapons.

For example, look at the bastard sword. It is a Medium exotic weapon and can be wielded in one hand, yet it offers 1d10 damage. That is more than the similar longsword, which is a Medium martial weapon. The ONLY exception to the power rule appears to be the kukri. (Why ANYONE would use this weapon is beyond my understanding. It is worthless and inferior to ALL simple and martial weapons in every way!)

With that said, let us examine both the bladed gauntlet and the mercurial greatsword. This is the proof I offer.

Exotic weapons offer a power boost over martial weapons, but usually cost a feat to use. In terms of power, if you accept the errata on the bladed gauntlet, it becomes inferior in almost every way to the rapier, a martial weapon. That does not follow the general rule of exotic weapons being more powerful. See for yourself. [Rapier, Medium Martial, 3 lb., 1d6/18-20/x2 crit; Bladed Gauntlet, Small Exotic, 4 lb., 1d6/19-20/x2 crit] See my point? Considering the errata, there is now no logical reason WHATSOEVER to pick the bladed gauntlet over the rapier. (For those of you who believe that the bladed gauntlet being immune to disarming is reason for it to be exotic, I point you to the normal gauntlet, a simple weapon with the same quality. Besides, the rapier is a Medium weapon that the Weapon Finesse feat may be applied to, making such arguments completely invalid as both weapons have special properties.)

This is proof that the bladed gauntlet must have a threat range of 17-20. That is the quality that makes the weapon an exotic weapon. I will admit, however, that because the rapier is Medium and not Small, perhaps it is not the best comparison. Want more proof, then? Compare the damage of the bladed gauntlet and the handaxe. [Handaxe, Small Martial, 5 lb., 1d6/x3 crit] Assuming an 11 is needed to hit, out of 40 attacks, the handaxe will average 20 hits with 2 threats and 1 critical hit for an average of 77 damage; the bladed gauntlet will average 20 hits with 8 threats and 4 critical hits for 84 damage. That's only 0.35 more points of damage per hit, even with the threat range of 17-20! How is that unbalanced, considering the bladed gauntlet requires a feat to be used properly?

The mercurial greatsword is slightly easier to find proof for, but is also much less of a problem. Let's compare the original mercurial greatsword to the greatsword. [Mercurial Greatsword, Large Exotic, 17 lb., 2d8/x4 crit; Greatsword, Large Martial, 15 lb., 2d6/19-20/x2 crit] Again, assuming an 11 is needed to hit, out of 40 attacks, the greatsword will average 20 hits with 4 threats and 2 critical hits for an average of 154 damage; the mercurial greatsword will average 20 hits with 2 threats and 1 critical hit for an average of 207 damage. Remember, however, that the mercurial greatsword weight three more pounds, requires a feat, gives HUGE penalties for using it untrained, and costs twelve times more than the scythe. Considering the mercurial greatsword is exotic, is it not reasonable for it to do 2.65 more points of damage per hit? How would that be unbalanced considering what must be put into it?

I have given proof that the errata on the bladed gauntlet and the mercurial greatsword is unnecessary and unfair. I rest my case.

 

[PenguinKing]

You took a confrontational tone and used the word "proof" too much. -5 points.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[Crothian]

Where is it stated that exotic weapons have to be more powerful then martial weapons? I always figured exotic weapons, were, well, exotic, thus needed special training.

 

[Wippit Guud]

So, the hand crossbow and the repeating crossbow should do more than the heavy crossbow...

And the whip so do more than... well, than a punch...

 

[Fade]

The mathematics of crits are quite simple really, not needing damage calculations. A 20 x2 crit crits 5% of the time and increases damage by 100%, so damage goes up 5%. A 20 x3 crits 5% of the time and increases damage by 200%, so total damage increases by 10%. A 19-20 x2 crits 10% and increases 100%, so total damage goes up 10%.

In this way, 20 x4 (up 15%) can be shown to be superior to 19-20 x2 (up 10%). The increased damage is thus balanced by a feat. Whilst the difference may seem small, it is the same as the difference between a falchion and a greatsword, or a axe and a pick.

Comparing a bladed gauntlet to a rapier is incorrect, as the rapier is medium and the gauntlet small. It should be compared to the shortsword. I agree that an 18-20 crit should be used to balance the difficulty of using the gauntlet, but 17-20 is too far, since it is increased twice, whilst the cost of using the weapon has only been increased once.

 

[Anubis]

Where is it stated that exotic weapons have to be more powerful then martial weapons? I always figured exotic weapons, were, well, exotic, thus needed special training.

A good question!

Remember, this game is not about realism or other such things, and the rules certainly do not enhance role-playing. (Players are for role-playing, rules are for balance.)

As such, the fact that exotic weapons are supposed to be more powerful is implied, not stated. If it were any other way, there would be no point to having rules governing the use of such weapons.

Other than that, just compare most exotic weapons to martial weapons of the same size. 99% of the time, the exotic weapons are more powerful in some way. (Bastard Sword vs. Longsword, Dwarven Waraxe vs. Battleaxe, Double Weapons vs. Single Weapons)

Any other questions?

 

[Anubis]

So, the hand crossbow and the repeating crossbow should do more than the heavy crossbow...

And the whip so do more than... well, than a punch...

They do! Not in damage, but in potential. The hand crossbow can be used and reloaded in one hand. (The mechanics for ranged weapons are slightly different than with melee weapons.) The repeating crossbow gets more attacks.

As for the whip . . . Put that next to the kukri! I was only looking at melee weapons before!

 

[Anubis]

The mathematics of crits are quite simple really, not needing damage calculations. A 20 x2 crit crits 5% of the time and increases damage by 100%, so damage goes up 5%. A 20 x3 crits 5% of the time and increases damage by 200%, so total damage increases by 10%. A 19-20 x2 crits 10% and increases 100%, so total damage goes up 10%.

In this way, 20 x4 (up 15%) can be shown to be superior to 19-20 x2 (up 10%). The increased damage is thus balanced by a feat. Whilst the difference may seem small, it is the same as the difference between a falchion and a greatsword, or a axe and a pick.

Comparing a bladed gauntlet to a rapier is incorrect, as the rapier is medium and the gauntlet small. It should be compared to the shortsword. I agree that an 18-20 crit should be used to balance the difficulty of using the gauntlet, but 17-20 is too far, since it is increased twice, whilst the cost of using the weapon has only been increased once.

Interesting. That shows the information using a much simpler calculation than the ones I used. I believe even your calculations support my point of a threat range of 17-20, however. I'll use parts of your formula for this.

Remember, you must account for ALL the numeric variables, not just the threat range. Let's first compare the longsword and the bastard sword once again, to compare an average martial weapon with an average exotic weapon. [Lonsword, 1d8/19-20/x2 crit, average 4.5 damage, +10% critical (0.45), adjusted average of 4.95 damage; Bastard Sword, 1d10/19-20/x2 crit, average 5.5 damage, +10% critical (0.55), adjusted average of 6.05 damage; 6.05/4.95=1.2222; Bastard Sword is 22.22% more powerful than Longsword]

Now let's compare the short sword and the bladed gauntlet, as you suggested, assuming the bladed gauntlet has the full threat range of 17-20. [Short Sword, 1d6/19-20/x2 crit, average 3.5 damage, +10% critical (0.35), adjusted average of 3.85 damage; Bladed Gauntlet, 1d6/17-20/x2 crit, average 3.5 damage, +20% critical (0.7), adjusted average of 4.2 damage; 4.2/3.85=1.0909; Bladed Gauntlet is 9.09% more powerful than Short Sword]

Hmmm . . . That appears to balance nicely. What you failed to realize was that increasing the threat range by 1 did NOT improved the weapon by one step, it only improved it by a half step. Increasing it by 2 was the proper solution to increase the power by a full step.

 

[Crothian]

I'm just using the PHB for this.

How are kamas, nunchaku, and sianghams better then a martial weapon? The only advantage these weapons have is they can be used by Monks, but Monks get them as profiecencies anyway. They are not better then most small simple and martial weapons.

Kurki is actually a really cool weapon if you've ever used one. I've always liked them. I don't think they are a waste at all. No small weapon has a better crit range.

Bastard Sword and Dwarven Warave are superior wepons. However, you don't need the EWP to use them with 2 hands. Course, then they ajust a little worse then the large martial versions.

Double weapons: You need 3 feats to make them work (ambidexterity, EWP, and 2WF). So, that really limits their power compared to a martial weapon that you devote 3 feats too.

I'm not going to go into the ranged weapons. I'm just trying to see how the Exotic weapons are being implied as being more powerful....

 

[Caliban]

Exotic weapons are exotic for one of three reasons: Either they have a one step improvement in some game mechanic, have an extra ability as compared to similar weapons, or they are just very unusual.

A kukri is a dagger with a one step improvement in the crit range. (19-20 -> 18-20)

A Bastard Sword is a longsword with a 1 step improvement in damage. (1d8 -> 1d10)

A mercurial greatsword was a greatsword with a 1 step improvement in damage and a one step improvement in the crit range. 19-20/x2 is equivalent to x3, and the Mercurial greatsword improved that to x4.

That is why the mercurial greatsword was deemed to be too powerful. Unlike every other exotic weapon, it has two improvements for the cost of the feat, instead of a single improvement.