I couldn't find a thread on this topic,so apologize if it hasn't already been discussed.
I recently played (again) Icewind Dale 1&2 and noticed that back in those days weapons enhancement could be split between to hit and to damage,like a a +3 to hit/+1 to damage longsword.
That possibility seems to be disappeared with the coming of 3rd ed. (and 3,5 and PF).
Is there a specific reason?
Wouldn't magic items crafting be much cheaper that way?
Icewind dale did not follow the rules to a T. It has stacking limits for bonuses also.
Crafting might be cheaper that way if you only wanted to be very specific with the weapon, but I am sure the would would work out so that if you got a +1 to attack and damage it would not be cheaper.
IIRC Icewind dale 2 is based off of 3.0, and I am sure 3.0 did not allow the weapons to be made like that. As for 2nd edition I don't think it did either, but don't quote me on that.
You could simulate the split enchantments by adding in two new special abilities.
Accurate. +1 equivalent for pricing. +2 on attack rolls with that weapon.
Damaging. +1 equivalent for pricing. +2 on damage rolls with that weapon.
So a +1 accurate weapon costs the same as a +2 weapon, but has +3 on attacks rolls, and +1 on damage rolls.
A +1 Accurate Damaging weapon costs the same as a +3 weapon, has +3 on attack rolls, and +3 on damage rolls. However, its still only a +1 weapon for overcoming DR.
To answer your question directly, Gandal, no, that's no longer supported by the rules.
You could simulate the split enchantments by adding in two new special abilities.
Accurate. +1 equivalent for pricing. +2 on attack rolls with that weapon.
Damaging. +1 equivalent for pricing. +2 on damage rolls with that weapon.So a +1 accurate weapon costs the same as a +2 weapon, but has +3 on attacks rolls, and +1 on damage rolls.
A +1 Accurate Damaging weapon costs the same as a +3 weapon, has +3 on attack rolls, and +3 on damage rolls. However, its still only a +1 weapon for overcoming DR.
Accuracy and damage really do not have the same value. As written, the weapon enhancements you're describing are not balanced.
To price weapons easily for homebrew should be fairly strightforward - since the price of a magic weapon is 2 x bonus squared x 1000, just rule that it's a 2-part enhancement, at 1/2 price for each part (bonus squared x 1000). So, that +3/+1 sword would be (3 squared =9 x1000) + (1 squared =1 x 1000), for a total cost of 10,000.
The formulae you're quoting are not meant to be used that way. Accuracy is significantly more powerful, point per point, than damage. The weapon you're describing would be underpriced, not to mention gimicky and unnecessary.
Accuracy and damage really do not have the same value. As written, the weapon enhancements you're describing are not balanced.
I've used those for years, and never found a problem with either one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you, personally, have not had a problem with them doesn't mean they're balanced. You're clearly not the type of munchkin that takes an unbalanced idea and runs with it. The level of imbalance inherent in those abilities isn't egregious, but it is there. It's an individual's use or abuse of an ability that demonstrates its lack of balance
But mathematically, those abilities are imbalanced. Accuracy is quite strong, and Damaging is fairly weak.
I agree with Brogue, in that they are unbalanced. A +1 attack is roughly the equivalent of +5% damage, meaning that so long as you are dealing more than 20 damage a hit, the attack is more valuable. Substantially so in many cases, such as Sneak Attacks or high level Power Attackers.
The damage bonus is quite weak, especially when you have the options of elemental powers, which deal an average of 3.5 extra damage instead of 2 for the same price.
It isn't totally broken, especially if you are limited to one copy of Accuracy, but it is off mathematically.
@ Brogue
You're absolutely right, accuracy is vastly more powerful than damage.
As to the weapon being gimmicky and unnecessary, I don't really see what you mean. I mean "necessity" is a relative term... but I think I get your point, just not the specifics of the delivery. But that's not really crucial, is it?
Nah. :)
So, while I agree with your points, I did specifically state that this was for application in HOMEBREW. With that in mind, it's really not that silly.
I differ with you on that point, but that's a preference thing and not really of import. The thing about Homebrew is that it's highly preferential. Personally, I dislike this stuff in my homebrew, so to say that it's acceptable as a blanket rule for homebrew isn't necessary correct, but I get your point. ;-)
Personally, I start getting worried about slippery slopes and all that when the item creation formulae get tossed around. For some people, and some groups, it's not a problem. They work just fine. For others, it's like an excuse to start acting crazy.
In regards to the application of creating a magic weapon with different bonuses to attack and damage, I would think that a +3/+1 would be more expensive than a +2 weapon, but not as expensive as a full +3 weapon. Sure, perhaps this is a little bit on the cheap side (but not by all that much). I mean, let's take the extreme example of a +10/+1 weapon. It's 101,000. A standard +7 weapon is only 98,000. Perhaps a splitting the difference fee could apply. A revised formula:
cost = (1000 x attack bonus squared) + (1000 x dmg bonus squard) + (1000 x [difference between attack and damage bonus] squared)It makes that +3/+1 sword a total cost of 14,000. In the extreme example, the +10/+1 weapon would cost 182,000. Of course at the point of getting to the extreme example, it's kind of ludicrous to split the difference that much, seeing as how a +10/+5 weapon would end up with a final cost of only 150,000. And a +10/+9 weapon would be exactly the same cost as the +10/+1 weapon.
I'm just trying to offer a solution that wouldn't be terribly unbalanced, and I think that my revised formula would accomplish that nicely. Of course, the most bang for the buck is at only a -1 difference, but this would always give the option. I'm not suggesting that this is a perfect solution, merely an idea for the OP to base a homebrew option off of.
Eh, honestly? If the DM's OK with it, and the players are OK with it, do it. Have fun. :)
Something important to consider, though, is if your "Accurate" weapon is going to bypass damage reduction at the same rates that a "real" magical weapon will. Once you start getting there, that's a huge chunk of the value of a magical weapon.
Thanks for the extremely accurate and useful replies everyone.
No problem. Hope you have a good game. :)
