making deathkiss more powerful

[Cinos]

I haven't looked over the stats of my pretty sword in a long time, but I do love Deathkiss (Just too cool), and I intent to beef up most the cool weapons, it's not like I give out rune weapons to players without them really risking their lives for it, so I'll just make them happyer when they get the loot (Asumming they are still in one peice to do so).

Cinos

[Cinos]

I don't think you can (or should be able to) soul drink a god, but adult dragons are different. Me, I changed how soul drinking works, reducing the, uhh, instant lethality of it a bit (just so I could more freely give it to players), but kept it a powerful ability.
So far, none of my players have taken on an adult dragon yet, but have slayed several hatchlings so far (some specatcular fights too).

Cinos

[Adam of the Old Kingdom]

at the end i allowed it to do 1d4x10 damage (more straight-forward than 4d6+14). after all a sword with the supersweet name of deathkiss deserves to be more powerful! i know that may be a bit overboard, but other weapons are on par with those stats.

intersting math there.
4d6 +14 vs 1d4x10
18 to 36 with a 52% chance of 26 to 30 (with 69% of 25 to 31)
against a flat probability of 10 to 40. with a 50% of 20 and 30.

I know which I would prefer. the minimum damage on 4d6+14 is only 2 points lower than 50% of the probable damage on 1d4x10.

sorry to get all mathy on you.

[Cinos]

I have different levels of the Soul Drinking Power, but if a save fails, the damage is direct to H.P, and higher levels of it get muliplyers. This leaves it a very powerful and deadly power, but not the one hit kill to all.

Cinos

[Killer Cyborg]

i know deathkiss is a demonsword & not a runesword, but souldrinkers are supposed to have 2 major abilities of rune swords but the only other things it can do is add +1 attack & it makes it's attacks feel good.

There's your two abilities.

As for the rest, I tend to think that Rune Weapons should be able to be enchanted by Alchemists. I'd have the enchantments last only for a limited time though (d100 years maybe).

[Cinos]

I'd have the enchantments last only for a limited time though (d100 years maybe).

1-100 Year duration really come into play in your games? I would't allow an alchemist to touch a rune weapon, as after their forging, they can't be altered again (so not even another rune smith could add new things to it), and I think most rune weapons would really resent it (If you where an immortal magical item, how would you like if some one said "Yeah, you're good, but not good enought....", I think a weapon like Deathkiss would kill you for that).

Cinos

[J. Lionheart]

1-100 Year duration really come into play in your games? I would't allow an alchemist to touch a rune weapon, as after their forging, they can't be altered again (so not even another rune smith could add new things to it), and I think most rune weapons would really resent it (If you where an immortal magical item, how would you like if some one said "Yeah, you're good, but not good enought....", I think a weapon like Deathkiss would kill you for that).

Cinos

I'm inclined to agree there.

Actually, I think the entire idea of making Deathkiss more powerful is ludicrous. Look at the stats! I'm a power-gamer by most people's standards, and I wouldn't dream of augmenting that blade, much less daring to suggest it is insufficient as is.

5D6+10 damage on a successful strike that beats A.R., with a chance to shock the person into immobility with every blow, and prevent that individual from ever being ressurected once you kill them? An extra attack every round? Save bonuses? Auto-damage just from touching a person it doesn't like? Heck, it isn't even a "greatest" rune weapon, merely a "greater." If you want to augment that thing, I don't even want to know your plans for the "greatest" variety.

[Adam of the Old Kingdom]

yeah, i'm unsure if you could soul drink a god or not. i think i said this on a different string but i don't think that souldrinking should be an automatic kill & doing double damage is a better alternative but still a bit excessive if you rolled a critical strike on top of it. i prefer using soul drinking as actually taking the soul only when it's used as the last blow and it's unable to do a instant kill against an opponent with full hp & sdc unless they're able to be killed by a single attack anyways.

i think that the 1d4x10 is a bit better, but it is kind of a tough call. 1d4x10 has a higher maximum damage and a stronger chance of dealing the maximum damage, but at the same time it has a significantly lower minimum damage and a stronger chance of doing the minimum damage. i just used 1d4x10 because it was a lot friendlier when sometimes you also have to figure in ps and hth bonuses to damage and you only have to roll 1 die and don't need to add the dice together (i've grown a bit lazy at wanting to do excessive math).

p.s.- that's ok adam, i like math too. also, since you pointed it out to me the 4d6+14 is a bit better compared to the 1d4x10 than i thought ( i never really did the mathematical comparison of the 2 i just opted for the 1d4x10 out of simplicity's sake).

yeah, untill I made a spread sheet to compare the probability of 2 sests of dice rolls (plus a constant) and graph them and, provide mean and deviation stats, simplifcations like that seemed ok.

Linky<===
that link is to a graph of 4d6+14, 4d10 and 1d4x10.
the d4x10 is not supposed to be there but up off the top of the graph so I put it there so we can compare it.
you can easily see the spread of probability so if you want to drop it to one or 2 dice you can better guage what range to go for. in this case a 2d6+22 may work ok or 1d10+21.

or maybe 1d3+1X10.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'd have the enchantments last only for a limited time though (d100 years maybe).

1-100 Year duration really come into play in your games?

If you roll low enough, then it might.
But mostly it would explain why rune weapons aren't listed with with enchantments, and why they (probably) wouldn't have any when you find them.
It just wouldn't be a permanent part of the weapon.

[Killer Cyborg]

1-100 Year duration really come into play in your games? I would't allow an alchemist to touch a rune weapon, as after their forging, they can't be altered again (so not even another rune smith could add new things to it), and I think most rune weapons would really resent it (If you where an immortal magical item, how would you like if some one said "Yeah, you're good, but not good enought....", I think a weapon like Deathkiss would kill you for that).

Cinos

I'm inclined to agree there.

Actually, I think the entire idea of making Deathkiss more powerful is ludicrous. Look at the stats! I'm a power-gamer by most people's standards, and I wouldn't dream of augmenting that blade, much less daring to suggest it is insufficient as is.

5D6+10 damage on a successful strike that beats A.R., with a chance to shock the person into immobility with every blow, and prevent that individual from ever being ressurected once you kill them? An extra attack every round? Save bonuses? Auto-damage just from touching a person it doesn't like? Heck, it isn't even a "greatest" rune weapon, merely a "greater." If you want to augment that thing, I don't even want to know your plans for the "greatest" variety.

I generally agree with your assessment of Deathkiss. The problem is that Rune Weapons should be able to do anything that Alchemist weapons can do and more. A Super-Sharp, Armor Piercing, Venomblade sword is just as many rune weapons. Better, since you don't have to worry about your weapon's personality or a curse.
Rune weapons are supposed to be all that and a bag of eldritch might, but the stats usually don't back up the hype.

[J. Lionheart]

I generally agree with your assessment of Deathkiss. The problem is that Rune Weapons should be able to do anything that Alchemist weapons can do and more. A Super-Sharp, Armor Piercing, Venomblade sword is just as many rune weapons. Better, since you don't have to worry about your weapon's personality or a curse.
Rune weapons are supposed to be all that and a bag of eldritch might, but the stats usually don't back up the hype.

"Armor Piercing" is outlawed in my game. Under absolutely no condition can it be acquired. Way to powerful, for exactly the reason you suggest.

[Borast]

You want to make Deathkiss more powerful?

In the gods' names, WHY?




As for Lionheart's statement (just above this one)...

Why? Just give AP weapons the same +2 an AP bullet has in HU.

[Cinos]

Well none of us are saying Deathkiss is a weak weapon by any means, we just don't want to see such a cool weapon get overshadowed by some other weapons (after I increased it's power level, I considered it a Greatest Rune, rather than a Greater). Personaly, I'd like to see more runic weapons with cool abilities, that some lack in (some that stand out for Cool abilitys are things like Deathkiss, Trigom, and Huldric the Cleaver)

Cinos

[J. Lionheart]

Well, I don't want to argue over it, but I'll answer here to reply to questions, or make clear where I was coming from.

i forgot about the ability of deathkiss to immobilize with a touch. does that include an attack? i thought that applied to selfish characters only, for the most part i don't have my groups fight selfish characters to the death and if that happens it will be in an inn/tavern where weapons aren't even used. i presently don't even have the books with deathkiss' stats, i was just going from what i remembered so by my recollection of reading it's stats deathkiss wasn't even able to immobilize someone who failed to save vs their intelligence if you cut them with it. if the sword can do that i would prefer that to the abilities i had enchanted it with.

The shock of the pleasure of any wound from Deathkiss can immobilize, regardless of alignment. Every single successful strike has the ability to freeze a person in their tracks. Touching doesn't do it, but a cut sure will.

The "selfish" thing is her own bias - the folks she'll kill just for picking her up. Also, they're the souls she'll ask for more of.

also, like posted previously armor piercing by the apparent rules in the game doesn't really matter with most of my characters, since they changed the rules a character who rolls 3d6 for an attribute can roll up to 5d6 if they roll a high stat i've been even more inclined to allow 4d6 and 5d6 characters to roll an extra die if they roll a 21-24 or 26-30 respectively. since i like to make elves and alter the roll of the dice (reroll 1's and 2's and put your rolls where you want them) i often have pp scores that penetrate most any armor and natural armor rating except on really lousy rolls.

Well, if you're gonna change the clearly printed rules to give people uber attributes, than I agree that armor-piercing isn't worth beans. However, given as the rules state there are no bonus dice rolled for anybody who has more than 3D6 for a starting attribute, it is pretty wickedly strong in the canon world. If you're going to allow characters custom sooped up like that, than yes, everything else in the game will suck by comparison.

also deathkiss does 3d6+10 not 5d6+10, not even alot of damage by rune weapon standards. and by my rules of soul drinking you can only successfully drink the victims soul when you use a soul drinking attack to deliver the killing blow, and i'd only use it on the most heinous of characters. later on i've liked to have soul drinkers take up the role of an assassin and offer drinking a target's soul for an extra fee, but their soul being drunk was only available at the assassin's discretion.

3D6+10 base damage, plus 2D6 additional soul eating damage for any wound where it cuts the skin. Being as most combat is done with the blade, not the flat, that would be 5D6+10 per successful strike. If you want to clock people with the flat, or just waltz in and touch them, that's 1D6 added instead or 2D6.

Deathkiss is a unique weapon in that it eats souls gradually, a little at a time, rather than having an insta-kill feature like some purportedly do. When the victim dies, their soul is already gone, having been devoured over the course of combat.

also if you look at bloodrazor for instance, +1 attack isn't anywhere close to a major ability. it's one of the effects that comes into play with that weapon and one of it's 3(!) greater abilities along with doubling the spd attribute, and adding +2 to initiative.

Double Speed and +2 Init are lesser effects than +1 attack in my book. Sure you can move quickly, but +! attack adds around 12%-20% to the melee combat capacity of the wielder - continuously! If it has spells, or psionics, or cleric abilities, those run out. You can use up all your P.P.E. in a single round, have "dispell undead" while facing the living, or expend your psionic payload, but a person with +1 attack will have that attack the entire time they have that weapon, until the battle is over. In a one-on-one combat, the other, flashier powers might prevail, but on a battlefield such as the weapons were designed for, the permanent extra attack is mind-blowingly superior.

but deathkiss is a demon sword (probably extremely similar but not the same) so me as a gm and my gm agreed that there'd be a chance of being able to augment it's powers.

As the book says, there isn't any known reason why Deathkiss has the name "the Demonsword." She isn't evil, and there is no mention of a demon being used to power her. It seems to be just a post-nominal, the origin of which is lost. There also is no mention I'm aware of, of a series or type that go by "the Demonsword" In fact, the only magic weapon series I can think of, on that power level, is the wooden Chaos (Doubling Cube) series. The true "Demon Swords" are a wholly different beast - see Necrom the Undying in Adventures in the Northern Wilderness.

[Adam of the Old Kingdom]

if you want to be a stickler for it, the maximum damage for the weapon shouldn't be changed, but i can see where the probable damage or average damage could stay the same and the changing of the rolling of the dice to determine damage wouldn't matter. i think from the examples adam of the kingdom suggested that 2d6+26 or 1d10+28 and 1d3+1x10 is better than 1d4x10, but requires you to roll a 1d6 and divide it by half so that's not simplifying the damage process as much.

you can get d3's.
sure they are just cubes that have 1,2 and 3 twice but saves on calculations and minimises the math that seems to creep into RPG these days.

sorry, started serious but deteriated in sarcasm. he he.
no personal slight intended.

I'm glad you got use of the graph. I've got that spread sheet out a few times for public use since I made it. this time I used it for good instead of evil.