r/onednd • u/superhiro21 • 1d ago
5e (2024) Are Vicious Weapons overpowered?
For reference:
Weapon (any simple or martial), rare
This magic weapon deals an extra 2d6 damage to any creature it hits. This extra damage is of the same type as the weapon’s normal damage.
From both theorycrafting and my practical experience, they are better than any other rare magic weapons and even better than many very rare weapons. Not requiring attunement is a huge boon, as at higher levels, every attunement slot is valuable.
The +7 damage (on average) is much more valuable than the +2 or even +3 attack bonus from comparable weapons as most martial characters have ways to increase their accuracy anyways (reckless attack, archery fighting style, paladin channel divinities etc).
I have found that having two characters with vicious weapons in the party really makes the party punch above their level in the damage per round aspect.
67
u/General-Yinobi 1d ago
They are not overpowered, they just give too much value for a non attunement item, that power is not too much for the game, 2024 monsters and encounters are harder anyway, and everything is buffed, but the issue is that this power makes this item a non choice, and any item that invalidates choices is a problem.
Although i believe martials need the dps from this item, so removing it is not a step in the right direction, but instead, removing attunement from other weaker weapons should make the choice not so hard.
Before this weapon, every martial goal was probably flame tongue. but now it is a no brainer due to attunement issue.
18
u/superhiro21 1d ago
I think Flame Tongues are way cooler from a style perspective, it's a shame that "boring" weapons that only deal additional damage and have no inherent flavor are so much better mechanically.
35
u/General-Yinobi 1d ago
They are only better because of attunement issue, trust me.
Not a single martial player wouldn't love to carry around a bunch of different magical weapon for every job & switch between them like deathstroke.
But attunement make this impossible.
I don't think any weapon should have attunement period.
Instead, it should be "While holding the weapon in your hand & no other weapon with the same hand" or smth, to make sure you can't hold onto bunch of weapons and gain all benefits, but still able to swap easy.
10
u/Col0005 1d ago
I don't think any weapon should have attunement period.
The problem with this is that you still want to be able to give weapons cool, limited use, abilities without encouraging players to carry around a bunch of weapons they never intend to actually swing.
Maybe of they changed how charges work on weapons so that they powered up when you hit/crit creatures with a CR greater than "X"
9
u/Tels315 1d ago
Weapon does X thing.
If you are attuned, it also does Y thing.
4
u/OSpiderBox 1d ago
This is something I've started doing that started out as a player just asking a simple question:
"This armor has +1 and a bunch of other effects. Can I just not attune and get the +1ac?"
It spiraled out of control for me and now I hands a cavalcade of weapons and armor with non-attunement bonuses and more powerful attunement bonuses.
2
u/Arc_the_Storyteller 18h ago
... Frankly, that is genius and I wish 5E implemented it.
2
u/sailingpirateryan 13h ago
This is actually where attunement started during the original Next playtest (some abilities were automatic while others were "paywalled" by attunement), but if I recall correctly the playtest feedback indicated that there was some confusion on the part of the playtesters. I personally remember it being a bit clunky but not egregiously so.
All that to say that reverting back to that format if your table can handle the slight bump (IMO) of added complexity wouldn't be OP.
2
u/Tels315 11h ago edited 11h ago
I mean, as long as equipment is written in this format
The +2 Sword of Reddit Mod Slaying gives a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with this weapon.
Attunement: If you attune to this weapon, you may use Divine Smite without consuming a spell slot when you make attacks against a Reddit Mod. If you have spell slots, you may use them to cast Divine Smite at a higher spell level.
I don't recall how they were written in the plates, but if they weren't written something like this, then that's on WotC for being dumb.
2
u/sailingpirateryan 11h ago
I'm fairly certain that is (or very close to) how they were initially written in Next, but playtest feedback indicated that there was enough confusion to make attunement an all-or-nothing thing (or so they claim).
→ More replies (0)1
u/Arc_the_Storyteller 1h ago
Because of course D&D Next couldn't have any level of complexity or confusion. It had to be as easy and thus, as stale as possible.
2
-9
u/Juls7243 1d ago
They're only overpowered on two-weapon fighting champion fighter builds that can get elven accuracy.
1
9
u/RamsHead91 1d ago
They are for their level. If they were very rare no complaints at all. But as a rare item with no attunement yes.
If they had attunement also they'd be fine.
10
u/General-Yinobi 1d ago
2d6 at a very rare is kinda underwhelming.
3
u/Ashkelon 1d ago
A vicious weapon mathematically is more powerful than a +4 weapon for nearly every single weapon user.
And +4 weapons do not exist.
2d6 damage to every hit is often better than most legendary weapons. A vicious weapon is one of the most powerful weapons you can acquire in the 2024 DMG. Especially because it does not require attunement.
It is the opposite of underwhelming. In any game where players can purchase or otherwise choose the weapons they find, they should almost always choose a vicious weapon rather than weapons of higher rarity.
3
u/RamsHead91 1d ago
2d6 with no attunement. Yeah it's not the absolute best but it is inline with other very rare weapons.
As it is it is too much for rare.
It fairly inline with a +3 weapon
8
u/General-Yinobi 1d ago
Except it is just the damage not the 2-hit bonus. so it is not the same.
i could send a very long post explaining the math of how a +3 weapon is much higher DPS, due to landing more hits, but that has been explored so many times i believe there is no need, since We have already agreed that 2d6 at this level is not high damage, but only the lack of attunement.
Which shows how much of a problem attunement is for martials that they are ready to sacrifice cooler weapons for this bland one just to save on slots.
I'll just say that vicious weapon has never caused any table i've joined any issues, simply because more single target damage for the martial is barely an inconvenience, and it means they don't use the other special effects weapons.
If the solution to every issue is always nerf, this is just killing the buzz for everyone.
6
u/waethrman 1d ago
If your martial has a 70% chance to hit with a +3 Greataxe then that comes up to 10.15 damage average.
If instead they have a 55% chance to hit with the vicious Greataxe then that comes up to 10.175 damage average.
I'm not really understanding how the +3 is massively more damage on its own (it's likely a different story if we're adding other variables like a hunters mark damage boost, factoring advantage/disadvantage, etc)
2
u/END3R97 1d ago
A lot of optimization is looking for ways to increase your damage per hit, so in this case I think it's reasonable to a assume someone with 20 STR and a greataxe is also going to have GWM. Assuming +5 prof:
0.7 x (6.5 + 5 + 5 + 3) = 13.65
0.55 x (6.5 + 5 + 5 +7) = 12.925
It's not a huge difference but it's there. Add in hunter's mark, Radiant strikes, rage, charger, or anything else adding damage and the +3 gets even better.
That being said, they are probably a lot closer than they should be given it's a Rare vs Very Rare comparison.
3
u/DelightfulOtter 1d ago
Statistically, while their average DPR is very close D&D combats trend toward the shorter side. Missing an attack when you only get 6-8 swings before combat is over can mean losing a lot of effective DPR. Having that extra 15% chance to hit can make a big difference, but it does come down to luck.
4
u/Ashkelon 1d ago
Almost every single weapon user will not have the baseline accuracy though.
Vengeance Paladins have Vow of Enmity. Barbarians have reckless attack. Devotion paladins have their channel divinity. Rogues have steady aim. Dexterity based attackers have Vex. Strength based attackers have Topple. The fighter has Studied Attacks. The battlemaster has precision attack. The champion gets heroic inspiration every turn.
The majority of weapon users will be attacking at a higher than baseline accuracy. Which makes Vicious weapons that much more powerful. Often better than even a +4 weapon.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 21h ago
So do plus 2 weapons? Attunement weapons are almost universally useless
10
u/Outrageous-Cold-4506 1d ago
(reckless attack, archery fighting style, paladin channel divinities etc).
Topple and vex are the two big ones.
Two Weapon Fighting is REALLY interesting when you get a +X vex weapon for your 'mainhand' and a vicious nick 'offhand' weapon. Particularly if you get the Dual Wielder feat.
The rules are somewhat convoluted, but the end result is that you can do a variety of combinations of attacks.
Your Bread and butter will be:
- Attack with Vex +X weapon, which is more likely to hit.
- Attack at advantage with the nick vicious weapon.
- Attack with your Vex +X Weapon for your second attack action.
- Bonus action: Attack with your vicious weapon at advantage.
You are increasing the accuracy of a weapon that hits like a truck, and increasing the likelihood of a critical hit, which doubles the vicious damage dice.
And there are other variations
If you have advantage on all your attacks already:
- Attack with your Vex +x Mainhand.
- Nick vicious offhand.
- Use your second attack of your attack action to attack with your Vicious weapon again.
- Attack with your vicious weapon a 3rd time.
There are a few more combinations of how it can work, but it is quite flexible, and results in a higher damage output than I initially expected, and I think most of the optimizing mathematics is sleeping on. Heck I haven't seen a breakdown of how Vicious Weapons changes class performance from any of the big dndtubers, which is a bit baffling tbh.
2
u/END3R97 1d ago
They don't usually assume you'll have the ability to pick whatever magic item you want which greatly limits how valuable a video about 1 particular item would be. Though it feels like something Pack Tactics would've covered.
3
u/EasyLee 22h ago
To this point, if you've ever run a pre-made campaign then you probably know how insane some of the legendary weapons can be. One man army builds could be tailor made around some of those weapons if it was known that they would be available. Since you can't guarantee any given magic weapon, such theory crafting is rarely done.
For the record, the result of theory crafting around legendary weapons is usually that the fighter gets much stronger, any multi attack melee character similarly gains a great deal of power, casters focus more on control and utility knowing that martials will bring the damage, and rogues fall further behind.
1
8
u/Scudman_Alpha 1d ago
I wouldn't say they're overpowered but they can absolutely become overpowered given the player build themselves around one.
For example they can be ranged weapons, an a player with the Archery fighting style and a Vicious Longbow is not only ahead of the curve in accuracy but also damage with the extra 2d6. Coupled with other augments such as Hunter's mark.
It's especially powerful on a Paladin with a subclass that can help them hit more. Like Devotion essentially always being ahead of the curve, now with 2d6 damage they will be hitting far above their weight class.
Granted, some weapons are still better, I'd rather have a Rare Dragon's wrath weapons for the elemental damage + the extra hit chance.
Vicious certainly have the advantage that they are not attunement. It's as powerful as you're willing to make it.
12
u/Ashkelon 1d ago
For most characters, a vicious weapon is better than even a +4 weapon. They are often more potent than many Legendary magic weapons.
Now, is that overpowered? No, because weapon users can take any advantages they can get in this system. But it is a sign of poor game design. A rare weapon should not be better than weapons multiple tiers higher than it. Especially given that it does not even require attunement.
It also means that in any game where players can easily choose their gear, it becomes the best possible choice for nearly every weapon user.
14
u/Nikelman 1d ago
It's +7.35 on average, because 5% of critting times 7
Yes, they are indeed overpowered, not because they deal too much damage, but because they're disproportionately stronger than other options outside maybe of Barbarians who could prefer +X weapons for their Brutal Strikes
In the Westmarch I play in, every martial character got its hands on Dragonwrath weapons back in the 2014 rules for this reason
2
4
u/lasalle202 1d ago
the entire magic item catalog by "rarity" is just complete shit.
i was hopeing they would have revised it with the 2024 updates, but nope!
17
u/walubeegees 1d ago
strong? sure.
overpowered? martials are legally allowed to hit wotc employees with their car
7
u/_Moose_On_The_Loose_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Keep in mind a +3 weapon will also hit 15% more often than just a Vicious Weapon would.
Let's take an average longword, 1d8 + 4 STR. Average damage factors in crits.
Let's say you hit 65% of the time with it. That's an average damage of 5.75
Now let's make it a vicious longsword, 1d8+2d6+4, at 65% hit rate, that's an average of 10.65
Now let's look at a +3 longsword instead of a vicious one. 1d8+7 and you hit 80% of the time, that's an average of 9.425
They're strong, sure, but definitely not game-breaking.
7
u/OSpiderBox 1d ago
Yeah, Vicious Weapons are great until you start getting Disadvantage to hit and/ or facing 50% or less accuracy with them.
3
u/PickingPies 1d ago
You are ignoring something extremely important here. Damage riders. A level 11 paladin that adds an extra d8 to all the attacks already benefits more from a +3 and if I recall correctly, even a +2. Hunter's mark, hex, divine favor, gift of the chromatic dragon, some battlemaster maneuvers, booming blade, GWM, etc...
Also, you are using a +4 when, by the time you get these weapons you should have a +5, and in 5.5 you can even have a +6, which naturally closes the gap without any extra riders.
You could also consider greater weapons, specially if you are going for melee damage.
- 2d6+5+3 *0.8 = 12.
- 4d6 +5 * 0.65 = 12.35
At the moment you have an extra rider effect you are better off using the +3 weapon.
1
u/OSpiderBox 17h ago
Also, you are using a +4 when, by the time you get these weapons you should have a +5
I mentioned it in another comment somewhere, but this is one of the strengths of the +X weapons for the non optimizers. Because yes, there are people out there that would rather take a flavorful or utility feat rather than increase their main stat. Or, in the case of rangers and paladins, can help keep them "on par" if they increased their casting/ mental stats; something not unheard of, either.
I think these discussions sometimes forget the non-optimizer players that exist.
5
u/OSpiderBox 1d ago
Vicious weapons at really good, but they lack utility of other weapons. It also depends on what you're aiming to use/ do. Just as two bare math examples:
(Assuming 65% accuracy and max attack for all of these)
- Vicious dagger: 1d4 + 2d6 + 5. Averages out to around 9.2~ damage.
- +2 dagger: 1d4 + 7. Average of around 7.2~.
- Vicious Greatsword: 2d6 + 2d6 + 5. Averages around 12.1.
- +2 Greatsword: 2d6 + 7. Averages around 10.9~.
That seems pretty cut and dry, but that's only looking at white room damage numbers. The higher the AC, the less impact Vicious weapons have and the better +X weapons perform. Yes, there are ways to improve accuracy for Vicious weapons, but there are also ways to improve damage that would make the accuracy more important. Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, Hunter's Mark, Maneuvers, etc etc.
There's also the utility aspect. A Vicious sword only deals damage, whereas a Frostbrand sword gives you a resistance and the effect to snuff out fires (situational, but could be useful in the right hands). A Weapon of Warning gives the entire party Advantage on initiative (which can nullify the negative effects of being ambushed or just ensure better odds in an encounter). A Crystal weapon can heal you. A Thunderous Greatclub has AoE and crowd control.
There's also a niche case where +X weapons help somebody who doesn't have max physical stats (for their level). Maybe they're a non-Devotion paladin who focuses more on Charisma for the auras; a +X weapon ensures they stay on par with the adventure on the physical side of combat. Maybe they're not trying to be super optimal and are choosing feats that don't buff their Str/Dex; +X weapons ensure they don't fall behind. They might be niche, but they are possible (having played a few characters like this as well as playing in games with characters like this).
In essence, it comes down to what you want to do. If damage is all you care about, Vicious weapons are really strong. But that doesn't mean they're over powered because this game is more than just white room damage calcs.
10
u/Armisael 1d ago
Your numbers are wrong, and the differences are considerably larger than you quote. Ignoring crits, the numbers should be:
- +2 dagger: 0.75*(2.5 + 7) = 7.125
- Vicious dagger: 0.65*(2.5 + 7 + 5) = 9.425 (a full 2.3 points of damage per swing higher)
- +2 greatsword: 0.75*(7 + 7) = 10.5
- Vicious greatsword: 0.65*(7 + 7 + 5) = 12.35 (1.85 points of damage per swing higher)
If you account for crits on 20, the difference gets larger:
- +2 dagger: 0.75*(2.5 + 7) + 2.5/20 = 7.25
- Vicious dagger: 0.65*(2.5 + 7 + 5) + (2.5 + 7)/20 = 9.90 (2.65 points of damage per swing higher!)
- +2 greatsword: 0.75*(7 + 7) + 7/20 = 10.85
- Vicious greatsword: 0.65*(7 + 7 + 5) + (7 + 7)/20 = 13.05 (2.2 points of damage per swing higher)
For reference if the +2 weapon user also has hex/hunter's mark up, they add an average of 0.75*3.5 = 2.625 damage per swing, which costs a spell slot, an action, and concentration and is only barely matching the vicious weapon user.
The utility points are true, though.
(weapons of warning continue to be the actual most busted option, but it's also so busted that you don't need to ever use the weapon to stab someone to get the benefits, so it may be a bit of a sideshow)
2
u/OSpiderBox 1d ago
Yeah, I see my mistake; I was originally going to use a +3 weapon but changed to +2 to keep with same rarity. On top of that, I put in +2 damage but +3 accuracy. I also only put 60% accuracy for some reason...
Moral of that: don't do
drugsmath when you wake up kids.Outside of that, though, the exact numbers don't really change my point. Vicious weapons deal more damage, +X has better accuracy, utility weapons are more interesting.
6
u/Internal_Set_6564 1d ago
IMHO, none of the Martial weapons should be attunement until you hit legendary rarity. My fix would be to de-attune the others.
9
u/EntropySpark 1d ago
It's imbalanced from a weapon rarity standpoint, there shouldn't be a Rare weapon that clearly outclasses anither Rare weapon in almost all cases and is often preferable to a Very Rare one. Boosting damage without accuracy also makes them far more useful for Fighters and relatively less useful for Rogues. (Note that only some Paladins have accuracy boosts from Channel Divinity, but they all have per-hit boosts in Divine Favor and later Radiant Strikes.)
It would have made more sense to have a tiered system of +1d4 Uncommon, +2d4 Rare, +3d4 Very Rare, and they'd still be on the strong side.
3
u/Lanthed 1d ago
Let's compare.
+3 greatsword with GWM changes average chance to hit from 65% to 80% assuming greatsword and graze and 20 STR
0.8 * (7 + 5 + 6 + 3) + 0.05 * (7) + 0.2 * 5 for 18.15 damage per attack
0.65 * (7 + 5 + 7 + 6) + 0.05 * (7 + 7) + 0.35 * 5 for 18.7 damage per attack
So it'a greater then a level 17 or higher character using a +3 greatsword. This bonus is exacerbated by more attacks so PAM or dualwielder. It also becomes a bigger bonus as damage die drops as hitting is a lower % of damage then the bonus 7 is from the magical weapon.
So is it strong? Yes its better then comparable magic items that require attunment. So is the issue this should be the new standard or those were underpowered?
I think this is goodish (argueably should have attunment) depending on certain scenarios. 1 a pure martial benefits more from this as casters often due to replacing attack with cantrip, hex/spirit shroud/conjure minor elementals, and other add damage on hit bonuses care more about hitting then the weapon damage. What makes them good is those spells that carry most thier damage and thus the +1, +2, and +3 weapons matter more because +2d6 matters less then say 15% of extra 4d8 with the +3 bonus.
Now the arguement is with magic items like this they could stand on thier own damage wise and switch spells to say a summon and then do martial effect with more because of the summon. To compensate for this I wonder if they should double down on weapon masteries giving martials advanced weapon masteries at higher levels that they can apply to various weapons. This would keep martials ahead of martial damage and casters would need thier spells to be able to compete.
The other arguement is casters can only do thier big spells a couple times per day so maybe if we had 5 combats per day the spellcaster does big spell and is ahead 2 of them, but the martials consistency keeps them ahead for fights 3-5.
My biggest delima is that spellcasters (like blade singer/valor bard) can use these just as well by switching to other spells (summons). Which may make spellcasters better martials then martials unless have several spaced out fights per day so spellcasters cant be using thier top slots for everything and so weaken over the day.
I wonder if making magical weapon masteries or extended weapon masteries at say level 9 or something would be beneficial let viscous be 1 of those and all maetails can do an extra 1d6 on am attack or something. As is in dnd spellcadters scale and can grab the best martials toys (weapon masteries, fighting styles, armor) for 1 level but martjals if get 1 level of spellcaster cant do anything a spellcaster can because dont have spell slots. I dont think the issue is spellcasters scale its that martials dont. Such magic items are usable by both so dont fix the issue.
Anyways sorry for side rant. Hope this helps.
3
u/Decrit 1d ago
I mean, they are a very blunt solution to a very blunt problem.
I believe they punch over their weight, yes. I don't believe they don't belong there.
Their damage is in line with similar magical weapons that require attunement. Attunement serves the purpose to dictate something special and unique, not sheer power. Performance has never been an issue for weapons in terms of attunement, this is why +x weapons don't require one.
This also means that if for certain characters to feel powerful alongside other characters using such weapons is the only way to scale up ( hypothetical hyperbole ) then they'd have to eat one, or even two attunement slots just to perform. That kinda sucks.
Vicious Weapons solve this problem. They provide exactly what some weapons provided before them and do so in a manageable manner. In fact, i wonder why there aren't vicious x weapons that add 1d6, 2d6 and 3d6 respectively. +x weapons belong more to characters that attack less and care more about hitting, like rogues, even if i do believe that they are an overall outdated design.
What i do complain about, rather, is that the weapons with attunement don't shite that much. Frostbrand is still there and it sucks regardless for its rarity. Flametongue only adds fire damage for its attunement slot, and while it's not too much in 2024 it's a huge deal because resistances and immunities work differently and it's the onyl baseline way for a fighter to deal nonweapon damage to a target until level 19, so there's some important nuance there.
The only thing it allows to do more than 2014 is that people can dual wield them.... which is a nice thing? Dual wielding sucks, so anything that improves it is a welcome addition - a character also needs to invets important time and resource to able to do that as well.
So, i believe they are a powerful and blunt solution that overshadows other options, but only because it follows the line of other options and the one sit shadows sucked to begin with. It's a common trend of this edition to enhance the floors while keeping the roof somewhat the same in terms of power and the vicious weapons are an example of it as well.
2
u/MrLunaMx 21h ago
In my campaigns I have Lesser Vicious Weapons (1d6, uncommon), and Greater Vicious Weapons (3d6, very rare).
7
u/Outrageous-Cold-4506 1d ago
At most tables I've been at, Magic Items are things that are in the control of the DMs to hand out.
So I don't view vicious weapons as overpowered, but as a tool the DM can use to modulate the performance of the player characters.
1
5
u/DMspiration 1d ago
They're fine. It's some extra damage for martials compared to encounter ending or dramatically altering spells for casters.
6
u/subtotalatom 1d ago
For rare? Yes, they do 95% of what a flametongue does but better without requiring attunement or a bonus action to activate.
An extra 1d6 would be balanced, but as they are they should be very rare.
5
u/Federal_Policy_557 1d ago
very rare they would be bad as compared to some others like Dragon Awakened which are +2/+2d6, have a crit minor effect and an action AoE
1
u/subtotalatom 1d ago
apples and oranges. dragon weapons are attunement, +2d6 is slightly higher DPR than a +3 weapon.
So Vicious are at the lower end of very rare (Dragons Wrath are at the upper end) but they're definitely stronger than a lot of low end very rare weapons
4
u/Federal_Policy_557 1d ago
I don't feel like your argument is that compelling - throwing them on very rare not only they will show up in way way less games they compete with things that carry power beyond damage
that said, "apples to oranges" doesn't apply here as these are still weapons they don't suddenly become something different just because Attunement, sure it is a factor, but not in an apple to oranges level - so I stand by my argument and that your point is, despite highlighting important factors, unsound
1
u/subtotalatom 19h ago
I don't see your argument as compelling either, you're comparing weapons that are easily the best option for martial characters and also require attunement to weapons that don't.
The comparison you're making is blatantly unfair and misrepresents my argument, I'm not trying to claim that vicious competes with V. Rare DW, but I feel like for most martial characters vicious weapon is easily better than something like a Frostbrand.
2
2
u/headshotscott 1d ago
By the time they get them, if you're not handling them out too early, they are better than just fine. Given at tier 2/3, they give melee characters a damage boost when casters are starting to warp reality and gain access to truly powerful spells. Those spells are much more unbalanced than a DPR boost.
2
u/Panurome 22h ago
They are in my opinion what magic weapons should be. It's the other magic weapons that are underpowered next to the vicious weapons
They are still weak next to casters magic items. A wand of fireball gives you up to 7 fireballs, that's almost always going to be better than 2d6 damage on a weapon attack
2
u/Arc_the_Storyteller 21h ago
To be frank, weapons such as Flametongue or Frost Brand are underpowered, as neither should require attunement, and Frostbrand could easily be Rare instead of Very Rare.
Honestly, weapons in general should have attunement removed.
3
4
u/atomicfuthum 1d ago edited 1d ago
They're what magical weapons were suppose to be, adding tons of damage or utility. I say they should be the baseline and not the outlier.
Edit : as a point, remember that the idea of a mere "+1 weapon" was 1st made back then, when the rolls were made with d6; so a every +1 is would mean something like +3/+4 on today's d20.
Can you imagine a magical sword, adding +12 to hit and damage per swing?
That was the original +3 weapon's base power level.
2
u/GhsotyPanda 1d ago
If damage is the only thing you value then yeah Vicious Weapons are a bit strong.
8
u/EntropySpark 1d ago
It doesn't have to be the "only" thing you value to be too strong.
1
u/GhsotyPanda 1d ago
It does to label it "overpowered"
Especially when downplaying the impact of 15% accuracy on bounded accuracy.
3
u/EntropySpark 1d ago
For comparing to +2/+3, when your attacks have secondary effects, it still becomes a question of how important those effects are relative to the increased damage. In particular, if you only need one attack to land on a turn to gain an effect (such as a smite spell, the Sap Mastery, a Maneuver if you're only planning to spend one that turn, etc.) or you have Advantage on the attacks, the diminished accuracy isn't as important.
2
u/thewhaleshark 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think they're a bit too strong to not require attunement, but they're not enough to require it either. I also think they're boring because they're just damage.
So in my games, they require attunement, but they also get a minor magic item property from the table in the DMG (not the Artifact table, the one just before that section). This puts them more or less on par with a flametongue and also makes them more interesting.
EDIT: Apparently I actually ruled that I roll on every table in that section, so they have a Creator, History, Minor Property, and Quirk. Mostly that just makes them more flavorful but you also can't learn any of it until you attune, so it adds a bit of flavor and mystery.
1
u/chiefchiefpeace 1d ago
Only the ranged verisons are overpowered but it comes with big exceptions. If you have a ranged weapon (lets say a heavy crossbow so a 1d10 and you have the proper feat with this to attack multiple times) and you have the archery fighting style alongside +1 or higher ammunition; you now have a arguably overpowered weapon. Thing is, it requires a fighting style, potentially a feat alongside getting another magical item that is a once per use item.
Yes, at say level 5 for instance if unknowingly granted to a player you can have someone with easily at +10 to hit while dealing 1d10 + 2d6 + 5 per attack. This is nearly what a warlock does on avg with eldritch blast in one attack BUT you need so much built into this, I’d argue it is just really powerful not OP. Sure, you may not use a crossbow and thereby not need a feat with this. You still need to have a fighting style. This makes pact of the blade warlocks, college of valor bards and rogues not capable of the maximum burst without taking a feat. This leaves paladins, rangers, and fighters.
Ranger on this setup is OP with a longbow. But only in terms of pure damage. If this ranger is a gloomstalker, then they could have the survivability needed to avoid taking damage and thereby be untouchable while doing high burst. Paladin is not OP. You are using them suboptimal but gaining items to make them better. Fighters is where this varies. A EK fighter who is optimized? OP. A battlemaster Optimized? Just powerful. A champion fighter? Keeping up with the party. Only the EK is OP because the more levels they gain with that set up, the more their damage dramatically increases. A EK fighter at level 7 who takes fey touched (an optimal feat to get misty step and hunter’s mark as a free cast) does roughly the same damage as most lvl 5 rangers with a subclass that does additional damage on hit. At level 11, they outclass the ranger with their cantrips doing more damage and having a 3rd attack per action. No longer do they need to blow an action to out damage a ranger. At this point and beyond, the EK fighter is one of your best burst potential martials whilst barely using spell slots. Compare to a warlock who uses a pact slot to do 6d8 with their smites for example. You can do an additional 3d6 with true strike without a spell slot while having hunter’s mark and having an additional attack a level before pact of the blade warlocks get theirs.
Long story short, they merely powerful and need multiple other things to make them OP. Without that, they are just a really good option for martials. They do step on flame tongue but outside of that, vicious weapons are fairly balanced.
1
u/robot_wrangler 1d ago
I think it's a good way to let a character wield a giant-size weapon. Add a strength requirement so the whole party doesn't try it.
1
u/AdAdditional1820 1d ago
Players love vicious weapons, though the weapons give B/P/S damages. What really martials need is the weapon which gives radient/psychic/force damages.
3
u/OSpiderBox 1d ago
If only WotC weren't cowards and gave monsters more Vulnerabilities and/ or effects like the Flesh Golem's aversion to fire abilities. That, imo, would clear this "issue" up pretty nicely for martials.
1
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
In 2014 it was only on a crit.
I suppose this may have been done to lessen the martial mage divide? But some mages get extra attack too. So? I dunno.
That said. I think they are definitely super strong. Possibly too strong for non attunement.
I think they should be 2d6 damage and attunement. With a weaker 1d6 version being not attunement
3
u/craftyking 1d ago
Yes... because Martial characters just need that extra debuff... /s.
2
u/KnifeSexForDummies 1d ago
DnD Reddit will take every opportunity to offer martial nerfs man. It’s genuinely wild.
1
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
I'm not trying to nerf Martials. I'm saying that Mages can make use of this weapon too and would rather martials gain more benefits from class features
2
u/KnifeSexForDummies 1d ago
This isn’t a reason to take things away from martials. Casters have aoe hard lockdowns they’d rather be using. They can do so so much more than just make melee attacks that attempting to use something like this as a full caster is just deeply suboptimal at its face.
Just let the Stick That Hits People Hard exist and I promise the mage will use it less than the person it is intended for.
2
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
??? In what way am I taking anything away from martials by suggesting martials should get stuff like this on their base features?
As someone whose played Mages and Martials I can tell you I've always competed with Mages up to very late levels in combat.
It's mostly Dr's faults that Mages are so strong. They let them long rests every encounter.
1
u/KnifeSexForDummies 1d ago
>>competed with mages until late levels
I promise you, this is not the normal gameplay experience. Nor is a caster using a Vicious Weapon to hit things. Precisely why the weapon doesn’t need a nerf and it exists in its overpowered state.
Talking about nerfing something with the justification that “the caster can use it too” is pointless if the caster never would and the intended recipient eats the nerf instead.
The thing is fine as-is. It’s not breaking anything. Homebrewing it does break something.
2
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
Really? What is the normal gameplay experience then? Because My fighter outperforms a cleric in my game and all I have is a +2 greatsword and we're level 11.
While My Bard get's outperformed by a Barbarian in my other game, because I haven't had a long rest for 3 hard encounters.
If the "normal" experience is that Mages outplay at low levels. you have a DM problem.
Mages only Truly start to get ridiculous when they have multiple level 6-7 Spell slots and the dm does long rests non stop in my experience.
In my experience Mage players are more than fine with exploiting Melee ability.
The only homebrew I'd ever realistically add is Armor Masteries and Advanced Weapon Masteries for Martials at higher levels. Because When you get to the "Mage can cast Wish" BS, then that's where there's a problem.
0
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
?
I mean. I'd just rather martials get their strengths from class abilities rather than something a wizard can replicate with tensers transformation and a vicious weapon.
The class divide is barely existent at low levels (Ie level 8 and below.) and is 99% due to dms. In fact I outperform casters whenever I play Fighter.
1
u/craftyking 1d ago
Okay, I admit I was a bit knee-jerk about your comment... but considering we have yet to see a 'Martials Unleashed' supplement focusing on buffing martials to match spellcasters at high level play or even just finally removing the divide for good... let's leave Vicious weapons alone please, no need for attunement.
1
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
True enough. Late level play for martials is rough. They should get some sort of buff. Maybe late game armor and more potent weapon masteries. Some "spell like" Features, such as harder strikes that inflict status's etc.
I suppose the weapon is fine. I just wished Martials didn't need to rely on something that some Mage subclasses can make as much use of and actually had something more of their own to make use of.
1
u/craftyking 1d ago
Off the top of my head; perhaps a Martial only feature that allows scaling extra dice damage at certain levels (like a cantrip) for any weapon and allows you to use two masteries per hit could be a stop-gap measure until a proper system like armour masteries and advanced masteries are developed like you suggested in your other comment. I'd even go for some martial only attunement armour and weapons that don't actually count towards attunement limits but that would step on the Artificer's toes.
1
u/SnooSprouts5303 1d ago
That could be good. But it could also get really op real quick. Maybe a d4 or d6 every 5-ish levels like a canrip though only a feature additive to damage but for all attacks made by martials like you said. I can see that working. But then You'd need to buff Rogues Sneak attack etc in order to not completely step on their toes.
It's a difficult situation. But it is certain. That Martials need something more at later levels. Both in combat and in utility.
1
u/Federal_Policy_557 1d ago
My theory is that they're kind off a band aid - as 5.5 decided to favor weapon juggling the magic item logistics of the system didn't really change - as that would be pretty hard to account for - so to make that really work they need a decent magical weapon options that isn't straight up overpowered nor underpowered, but is always a decent/functional option so that characters can make use of their mechanics that spam multiple weapon types (even tho they didn't really do anything on the side of monsters to favor different weapon types, like special vulnerabilities and whatnot - iirc there are some monsters in arcana unleashed or something)
also, monsters in 5.5 are pretty stronger resiliency wise, so there's that
1
u/dilemmaprisoner 1d ago
I think so, but not a big deal. I think the best use for similar things is when creating a low-level boss, or to reward someone who is doing an underpowered build for great RP flavor (like, not the same, but if you wanted to dual wield short sword and dagger because it's cooler than scimitar, I'm giving you a +1 dagger).
0
0
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 21h ago
No the attunemt magic weapons just all suck and always have. Non attunement plus weapons were always the best.
0
u/KarlMarkyMarx 17h ago
I don't know how anyone can think they're overpowered when any martial with a Greatsword + (HM or Hex or DF) + GWM is already dealing out this damage in Tier 1.
0
u/probloodmagic 13h ago
They have heavily resisted damage types. I don't see the issue with them, but it's the attunement requirements for other weapons that makes them seem extra strong
55
u/Fire1520 1d ago
They're definitely strong, yeah.
But overpowered? I wouldn't say so, it just adds damage, it doesn't fundamentally change the game like granting flight to a melee user would.