Talk:Razor Axe (3.5e Equipment)

Notations on Tinkering

This weapon was discovered to be unfinished (along with five other weapons by the author). As such, through some community effort, it has been reworked, keeping with the initial spirit of the item. Here are some notes on the thoughts behind it's design.

• Based loosely off of the greataxe, it's base stats are representative of this. As the razor axe is an exotic weapon, the real payoff for the feat is the special stuff the weapon does. As a base weapon, it would deal 2-12 base damage, rather than the greataxe's 1-12. Same critical modifier, two-handedness, and slashing damage. Oddly, the small version of this weapon deals a lower maximum damage along with the higher minimum (2-8 for a razor axe to 1-10 for the greataxe).
• Including the masterwork cost and making the razor axe a masterwork-only weapon is probably a bit of an odd choice. This was mostly to prevent 1st level characters from walking around with one, which in itself isn't a big deal. Since the Exotic Weapon Proficiency is the real cost of the item, dropping the price would be reasonable. In addition, I'm not currently happy with the price. Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.
• The armor-lessening condition needs a name. This is partly to clarify that it's a condition in itself (like paralyzed, grappled, blinded or stunned) and partly because saying "bad guy number three is already critical-armor-chop-penaltied" is really lame. Thoughts on this would be appreciated. In addition, the means of this being a temporary setback is four-fold. One: If used against the PCs, they don't get hosed mid-adventure. Two: Keeping track of armor HP is a pain. Three: You can't whittle down armor more and more. Four: It continues to be useful at high levels and lends some incentive to straight enhancement bonuses over fancy enchantments.
• The trip thing: Well, tripping opponents happens. Many weapons do this, not a big deal. Making great use of it for the razor axe requires more feats (Combat Expertise, Improved Trip) and still leaves you with that base -2 penalty on it. However, if it succeeds, you get to cleave your trip attack. A nifty mechanic, and while likely not going to come in to play often, sounds like fun for a PC. I had considered making a notation for characters with Great Cleave for more tripping, but, it's probably not necessary. Any thoughts on this are welcome.

So, I believe that's about all I have to say on this at the moment. --Ganteka Future 19:16, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I've been webless for quite some time and it's nice to see someone else is taking an interest in my work :).

1) It was loosely based on the greataxe, yes. I hadn't thought of the small version doing comparatively less damage, perhaps it is advisable to let it deal 1d10 damage, to be equal to the greataxe?

2) I think dropping the masterwork component of the price is reasonable because of the arguments mentioned.

3) Yes, it would be cool to give it a name. However, cutting bindings and such would be... well, pretty damn hard, eh? Personally, I envisioned it more like the giant can-opener it was. My response shall be fourfold as well. One: PC's without access to "Mending" deserve to be hosed mid adventure. It's a friggin' cantrip in four different classes. Second: you wouldn't be keeping track of armor HP, you'd be getting an armor penalty. Instead of +3, your armor would provide a +2 bonus to AC. It's not that difficult, many sheets have a special spot devoted to armor bonusses to AC. Usage of a pencil is advised. Third: Yes, you can. It'd stop giving penalties to AC, though, because you cannot get less than zero on your armor bonus. Fourth: I do not see the problem here. I do not see the solution, either.

4) I guess this is a fair change to the original design, even though I have not yet checked what the exact difference is. Sounds like a good way to take my idea and having it make sense mechanically.

I hope to be able to add more to the discussion soon. Please do continue making sense of my ideas, it was never my strongest point :). It's better to have a realistic working thing than... well, something that doesn't. Deranged. 00:29, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the changes to the small damage to match that of the greataxe as well as drop the price down to some new number. As for the four-fold comments, I suppose I'll just lump the response to that in a big pile here and sum it up after. The original design of the weapon did allow for armor to be slowly whittled down in AC. This was changed as the core rules of DnD don't even allow you to attack armor and damage it while someone is wearing it, not even with sunder. To allow one special weapon in the game with the ability to circumvent that rule would be mean and cheap. By making it no longer a straight penalty (which would stack as it was originally written), it was changed to a condition (which doesn't stack, for example, being sickened twice doesn't make you double the penalty). It also keeps it in the realm of the function of a mundane weapon, rather than a special enchantment or some such thing. The hosed armor goes back to a similar problem with rust monsters, in that, it wrecks stuff. As it was originally written, a PC could end up with totally wrecked armor after after a couple rounds. With no mention of write-arounds for things like adamantine armor and hardness and all that, it was just broken and didn't work. In addition, [[SRD:Mending|mending sadly wouldn't work as a fix, as armor is too big of a target. In addition, the change from a penalty to a condition is preferred in that it prevents someone's armor from dropping too low from several attacks and making them nearly auto-hits. Auto-hits are bad. As it was, a 1st level warrior could walk up to a mighty high-level armored dude with magical adamantine platemail and mess it up with a mundane version of this weapon. That's just very wrong. Point Four doesn't factor in as a problem at all.

So, in conclusion, one point one mending doesn't (or rather, didn't) work. We don't need to worry about it now anyhow with the re-write. On point two, this is a matter of convenience. +2 to AC instead of +3 isn't armor HP, and the reference to that was one of merely the working options in the overhaul, and worth mentioning in the design notes as it was not chosen for specific reasons. If you don't know how many HP your +3 magical mithral chain shirt is offhand, it's gonna slow the game down when you go look it up. That's the pain involved there. I've never actually seen a character sheet that includes a spot for armor HP. Since you can't actually attack worn armor anyways, it's also rather limited to have it on there to take up space (yes, you could track it in the Special Qualities box, but, just one more thing to keep track of, and again, a pain). Though yes, most character sheets do have a spot for Temporary AC. I use it all the time (mostly for Rage or cat's grace), with a pencil of course. On point three, as originally written, you could drop AC down to 0 with this weapon. As I explained (hopefully clear enough), this was bad. As it stands now, no, this weapon can't slowly whittle down AC. Point Four was a good thing that was worth mentioning on why it was designed the way it now is.

If you want to see the original version, go here. You'll have to look at it in edit mode since the weapon template has since been changed to a new template and won't preview. Sorry for the rambling. --Ganteka Future 01:38, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Crud, I forgot that one of the reasons it shouldn't outright damage armor is for looting purposes. It's not a big reason, but, getting damaged armor, for use or sale, isn't as worthwhile. --Ganteka Future 01:43, December 31, 2009 (UTC)