"Holy" Avenger bonus..?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....

Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.

But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.

Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)

Crysofolex the Badgermancer
"Badgers - make me SOUP"
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Murf wrote:

> Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....
>
> Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.
>
> But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
> is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.
>
> Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
> Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)
>
> Crysofolex the Badgermancer
> "Badgers - make me SOUP"
>

The +2d6 part *IS* the holy part.

CH
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Murf wrote:

> Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....
>
> Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.
>
> But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
> is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.
>
> Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
> Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)
>
> Crysofolex the Badgermancer
> "Badgers - make me SOUP"
>

And the "Holy" ability is a flag that allows it to bypass DR of certain
creatures.

CH
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Murf" <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109595946.926645.287820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....
> Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.
> But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
> is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.
> Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
> Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)

The 3.5 DMG does not mention the bonus damage at all; it just refers to
the weapons as having the Holy property. I think it's fair to say that 3.0
has a typo; consider that the weapon is "just" a +2 holy sword in the hands
of nonpaladins, so it would be strange indeed for the weapon (I always
assume they're greatswords) to go from doing 2-12+2-12+2 (6-26) to
2-12+1-6+5 (8-23). The weapon did more damage in the nonpaladin's hands!
Hardly sensible.

-Michael
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QRJUd.280$L17.140@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Murf" <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109595946.926645.287820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....
>> Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.
>> But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
>> is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.
>> Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
>> Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)
>
> The 3.5 DMG does not mention the bonus damage at all; it just refers
> to
> the weapons as having the Holy property. I think it's fair to say that
> 3.0
> has a typo;

I believe there is something in the FAQ or errata that confirms this.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:QRJUd.280$L17.140@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>"Murf" <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1109595946.926645.287820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....
>>>Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.
>>>But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
>>>is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.
>>>Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
>>>Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)
>>
>> The 3.5 DMG does not mention the bonus damage at all; it just refers
>>to
>>the weapons as having the Holy property. I think it's fair to say that
>>3.0
>>has a typo;
>
>
> I believe there is something in the FAQ or errata that confirms this.
>
The 3.0 DMG errata, page 4 of 6 has two entries for this:

>p. 188, The description of a Holy Avenger states that it is a “holy
(+1d6 points of bonus holy damage against
>evil creatures)” CHANGE +1d6 to: +2d6

and:

>p. 188, The description of the Holy Avenger reads, “this holy (+1d6
points of bonus holy damage against evil
>creatures) becomes a +5 longsword...”
>CHANGE to: this weapon becomes a +5 holy (+2d6 points of bonus holy
damage against evil creatures)
>longsword

The FAQ is silent, but then it would be.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:58:56 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Murf" <rob_murfin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1109595946.926645.287820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Am I reading this correctly in the 3.0ed DMG....
>> Any weapon with the "Holy" ability does +2d6 dam vs naughty evil types.
>> But - the description of the Holy Avenger states that (I paraphrase) it
>> is also a "holy" weapon and therefore does +1d6 damage.
>> Is this a typo or is a +5 Holy Aveneger "Less holy" than a meagre +1
>> Holy Sword in this context? (ie the bonus damage)
>
> The 3.5 DMG does not mention the bonus damage at all; it just refers to
>the weapons as having the Holy property. I think it's fair to say that 3.0
>has a typo; consider that the weapon is "just" a +2 holy sword in the hands
>of nonpaladins, so it would be strange indeed for the weapon (I always
>assume they're greatswords) to go from doing 2-12+2-12+2 (6-26) to
>2-12+1-6+5 (8-23). The weapon did more damage in the nonpaladin's hands!
>Hardly sensible.

Actually, in the hands of a non-paladin, it is just a flat +2 sword.

If you want more damage, then the Holy modifier is the better way to go,
with +2d6. If the only thing a Holy Avenger did was give the bonus damage,
then that would indeed be screwed up...but the weapon is considerably more
powerful than that given all of its other abilities.

There is a further difference in that a Holy weapon bestows negative levels
on evil creatures attempting to use it, where the Avenger does not
(although I'd probably rule that it did).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:038721tsqqrvepc3s5uj5op5mm7ojplj5m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:58:56 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> > The 3.5 DMG does not mention the bonus damage at all; it just refers
to
> >the weapons as having the Holy property. I think it's fair to say that
3.0
> >has a typo; consider that the weapon is "just" a +2 holy sword in the
hands
> >of nonpaladins, so it would be strange indeed for the weapon (I always
> >assume they're greatswords) to go from doing 2-12+2-12+2 (6-26) to
> >2-12+1-6+5 (8-23). The weapon did more damage in the nonpaladin's hands!
> >Hardly sensible.
>
> Actually, in the hands of a non-paladin, it is just a flat +2 sword.

Well, that punks my original typo argument for 3.0. Come to think of
it, there might have been a 3.0 FAQ entry on the topic - given the Sage, he
probably vetted the 1d6!

> If you want more damage, then the Holy modifier is the better way to go,
> with +2d6. If the only thing a Holy Avenger did was give the bonus damage,
> then that would indeed be screwed up...but the weapon is considerably more
> powerful than that given all of its other abilities.
>
> There is a further difference in that a Holy weapon bestows negative
levels
> on evil creatures attempting to use it, where the Avenger does not
> (although I'd probably rule that it did).

Please be careful with edition, here. Avengers are Holy in 3.5 and thus
do, in fact, do all the things that Holy weapons do.

-Michael
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:33:26 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:038721tsqqrvepc3s5uj5op5mm7ojplj5m@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:58:56 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"

>> If you want more damage, then the Holy modifier is the better way to go,
>> with +2d6. If the only thing a Holy Avenger did was give the bonus damage,
>> then that would indeed be screwed up...but the weapon is considerably more
>> powerful than that given all of its other abilities.
>>
>> There is a further difference in that a Holy weapon bestows negative
>>levels on evil creatures attempting to use it, where the Avenger does not
>> (although I'd probably rule that it did).
>
> Please be careful with edition, here. Avengers are Holy in 3.5 and thus
>do, in fact, do all the things that Holy weapons do.

Well, in the hands of a Paladin, it *does* get the Holy descriptor as far
as damage goes. In 3.0, when you do the diablo-esque suffix of Holy, the
weapon does the +2d6, and bestows negative levels on evil people. Not that
Holy was as important in 3.0 as 3.5, since there were only a tiny handful
of monsters (mostly devils with regeneration countered by holy) that really
required it in any fashion.

The avenger does not mention that restriction. I think it should, and would
rule that it did. An avenger is, IMO, *more* holy than a mere holy sword.
But then I've long held the opinion that really rare and superior weapons
like that should default to being intelligent (though not default to having
special abilities because of their intelligence).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I grant the possibility of lazy reading upon first read but:

Sometimes in a description of a weapon, say an axiomatic + something
else weapon, it wouldn't specifically say it deals an extra +2d6 damage
to chaotic creatures. That extra damage is presumed understood because
"axiomatic" is written in italics. Therefore, when I read of the Holy
Avenger and saw the +1d6, I figured it was an extra 1d6 damage on top
of the "normal" +2d6 for a total of +3d6 damage against evil creatures.
Since it is a Holy Avenger, it didn't seem out of place.

Gerald Katz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom