| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. |
From the thread here.
Basically, my thesis is that the masterwork quality alone is sufficient per RAW to allow for the addition of magic abilities.
The rules state:
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
The masterwork quality description:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
Furthermore down the same block of text:
All magic weapons are automatically considered to be of masterwork quality. The enhancement bonus granted by the masterwork quality doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus provided by the weapon's magic.
All that is mentioned re: enhancement bonuses is that an item's magic enhancement doesn't stack with the masterwork quality. You can tell the developers were already thinking about how these mix yet no where is it stated that the enhancement bonus from masterwork alone doesn't qualify an item to receive additional abilities. Otherwise, it's the same type of bonus.
|
You do need at least one level of magical enchantment to add a special ability to a weapon or armor.
EDIT: As a point of clarification, the enhancement bonus for masterwork is for attack rolls only, not damage. As such it is a limited enhancement; it does not grant an enhancement bonus to damage. An enchantment of +1 is a full enhancement bonus as it adds to both attack rolls as well as damage rolls.
Additionally, in the Magic Items section under Magic Weapons, it does state:
All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.
This would seem to indicate that a masterwork weapon must also have additional magical enhancement to be magical weapons, and therefore be able to have special abilities added to them.
Where is that specified?
|
as stated in the post this was brouht up in...
Craft Magic Arms and Armor (Item Creation)
You can create magic armor, shields, and weapons.
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th.
Benefit: You can create magic weapons, armor, or shields. Enhancing a weapon, suit of armor, or shield takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in the price of its magical features. To enhance a weapon, suit of armor, or shield, you must use up raw materials costing half of this total price. See the magic item creation rules in Magic Items for more information.
The weapon, armor, or shield to be enhanced must be a masterwork item that you provide. Its cost is not included in the above cost.
You can also mend a broken magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the raw materials and half the time it would take to craft that item in the first place.
i repeat:
The weapon, armor, or shield to be enhanced must be a masterwork item that you provide.
i'm going to have to side with Buri until someone offers better evidence (meaning clearer rules).
I think it's spelled out pretty clearly...
1) A weapon must be of masterwork quality to be magically enhanced to a +1 weapon.
2) A weapon must have a magical +1 enhancement to have any other magic weapon property bestowed upon it.
So, to create, say a +1 flaming longsword...
Start with a masterwork longsword, use Craft Magic Arms and Armor to enhance it to become a +1 longsword, then enhance it again to add the flaming property.
You can't have a sword that's just flaming; it needs to be +1 first.
|
|
It just indicates that they 'may' have overlap, and if so this is what you do.
This would seem to indicate that a masterwork weapon must also have additional magical enhancement to be magical weapons, and therefore be able to have special abilities added to them.
Except it is listed in the magic items section as a masterwork bonus, not an enhancement bonus. Could it be made clearer? Sure.
And to use armor as a parallel, since the creation feats were also mentioned, while it does state that masterwork weapons, armor and shields are required as items for enchantment, for magical armor it does clearly state (in the same language as weapons) that armor requires a +1 enhancement in order to have special abilities applied to them. As masterwork armor has not such enhancement given from the masterwork quality, it must therefore be enchanted to at least +1 before any special ability is added.
zylphryx, while yes, the bonus may be limited in some ways, it's still a +1 enhancement bonus.
Also, you're right about armor. Masterwork armor does not provide any sort of enhancement but masterwork weapons do.
The difference lies in the fact that a magical +1 weapon has the bonus at all time. It is a permanent bonus. A masterwork weapon only has a bonus while wielded. Due to the fact that the masterwork weapon cannot meet the prerequisite of having the +1 bonus at all times, it cannot have the additional properties added.
2) A weapon must have a magical +1 enhancement to have any other magic weapon property bestowed upon it.
Nowhere is it stated the enhancement has to be 'magical.' If this is stated, kindly quote it, please.
|
|
And to use armor as a parallel, since the creation feats were also mentioned, while it does state that masterwork weapons, armor and shields are required as items for enchantment, for magical armor it does clearly state (in the same language as weapons) that armor requires a +1 enhancement in order to have special abilities applied to them. As masterwork armor has not such enhancement given from the masterwork quality, it must therefore be enchanted to at least +1 before any special ability is added.
the creation feats specify that armor is an exception to the previously defined rule.
i see your point but i'm not convinced. honestly i'm surprised that people are arguing for spending more gold. seems like an easy misread to me and as a GM i'd allow either. if the player hadn't figured it out then they pay more. if they do then so much the better to them for actually reading the books and making my job easier! the Game isn't the items, so i don't see this as a big deal. my interest in determining a "correct" way to do it is for handling it in PFS only.
As much as I know that RAI a +1 is needed to add more stuff.....
I am at a loss to find the fault in Buri's argument.
You have to have the magical +1 enhancement bonus added to an item before adding item properties. It is stated in numerous places, and implied in even more. The OP is taking the text out of context to manipulate the rules.
Under Magus describing a Magus arcane pool, upon reaching 5th level the magus can apply weapon properties. Part of that text includes the following:
If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added.
Based on this RAI seems abundantly clear. RAW is a bit fuzzy, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it is indeed a duck. I don't believe the magus arcane pool is an exception to the rule, it is just clarified better.
"Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls."
Here are some follow ups based on segments of this statement:
"Wielding it": Can you wield it while adding magical bonuses?
"provides": Is "provides" the same thing as "has"?
"a +1 enhancement bonus": This is the linkage used in favor of not requiring a +1 magical enhancement bonus.
"on attack rolls": This is caveat some are using against it.
Emphasis on "wielding it" and "provides".
Does this help identify a path of lesser resistance for arguing against masterwork being enough for special abilities?
No, masterwork is not sufficient. It's an unfortunate conflation of terms.
"+1 Enhancement Bonus" is as much a name for the ability as it is the description.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but the term "enhancement bonus" in the Magic Weapons section only refers to the term as used near the beginning of the chapter:
A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.
Again, from this paragraph alone, we know that the enhancement bonuses discussed in this chapter, that is, the magic weapon's enhancement bonuses, are in reference to the enchantment granting between +1 and +5 that all magic weapons possess.
But if you insist on your RAW interpretation, recognize that you'll get no benefit out of it, because by the same RAW interpretation a masterwork flaming weapon still costs 8,000 gp:
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
This is verified on the table:
Add to the enhancement bonus on Table: Weapons to determine total market price.
A masterwork weapon has a +1 enhancement bonus, right? That's your argument?
Then by the same argument, a masterwork flaming weapon has a modified bonus of +2, and so costs 8,000 gp to create.So I'm not sure what you were trying to get to by twisting the rules for the magic weapon enhancement bonus out of recognition, but using it to get a weapon priced too cheaply doesn't work.
Here's the best implication of intent I know off the top of my head. If I recall correctly, I think magus has the same type of text.
Link (Emphasis Mine)
The first type of bond allows the paladin to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level. When called, the spirit causes the weapon to shed light as a torch. At 5th level, this spirit grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For every three levels beyond 5th, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +6 at 20th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5, or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, and speed. Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property's cost (see Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities). These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. The bonus and properties granted by the spirit are determined when the spirit is called and cannot be changed until the spirit is called again. The celestial spirit imparts no bonuses if the weapon is held by anyone other than the paladin but resumes giving bonuses if returned to the paladin. These bonuses apply to only one end of a double weapon. A paladin can use this ability once per day at 5th level, and one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 5th, to a total of four times per day at 17th level.
This ability requires a magical +1 enhancement bonus before weapon properties can be added. A masterwork weapon's bonus would not qualify.
|
|
The difference lies in the fact that a magical +1 weapon has the bonus at all time. It is a permanent bonus. A masterwork weapon only has a bonus while wielded.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems.html
To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. Some items, once donned, function constantly. In most cases, though, using an item requires a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. By contrast, spell completion items are treated like spells in combat and do provoke attacks of opportunity.
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
still siding with Buri... both magic weapons and masterwork weapons function the same from what i can see for purposes of the +1 enhancement bonus requirement.
Under Magus describing a Magus arcane pool, upon reaching 5th level the magus can apply weapon properties. Part of that text includes the following:
If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added.
Based on this RAI seems abundantly clear. RAW is a bit fuzzy, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it is indeed a duck. I don't believe the magus arcane pool is an exception to the rule, it is just clarified better.
Even this does not dictate the source of the enhancement. I still don't see why masterwork alone couldn't work as it does, in fact, confer a +1 enhancement bonus. I think the modifier of 'on attack rolls' doesn't really matter since it's still a +1 enhancement bonus. No where am I claiming a magical enhancement to both attack and damage rolls is equal to the masterwork enhancement bonus but neither is a +2 competence bonus to Disable Device compared to a +4 competence bonus to Disable Device. They're still competence bonuses.
Masterwork only gives an enhancement bonus to hit. Not a full enhancement bonus to hit and damage like enchanting the weapon does. Since Masterwork is a special, limited enhancement bonus it does not qualify restrictions your quoting.
As precedent I put forth every single magical weapon ever published in 3.X and Pathfinder products, to the best of my knowledge.
I would assume that if adding magical effects were possible by mastercraft alone that somewhere in all the 3.X/Pathfinder world of products there would be such weapons. But there are not.
That is good enough proof of RAW and RAI to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rules state that to make a magical weapon, you have to start with a masterwork weapon. The rules also state that to add a special ability, the weapon must first have a +1 enhancement bonus. Either these two rules are redundant, or Buri is wrong.
Even this does not dictate the source of the enhancement. I still don't see why masterwork alone couldn't work as it does, in fact, confer a +1 enhancement bonus. I think the modifier of 'on attack rolls' doesn't really matter since it's still a +1 enhancement bonus. No where am I claiming a magical enhancement to both attack and damage rolls is equal to the masterwork enhancement bonus but neither is a +2 competence bonus to Disable Device compared to a +4 competence bonus to Disable Device. They're still competence bonuses.
The enhancement bonus on a masterwork weapon is not a magical bonus, though, which is what the ability demands. The source of the enhancement bonus does not matter, but its nature does. It must be magical.
still siding with Buri... both magic weapons and masterwork weapons function the same from what i can see for purposes of the +1 enhancement bonus requirement.
Again, you've missed the very first paragraph of the Magic Weapons rules.
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
As defined in the rules, every magic weapon has this bonus; it's basic to how a magic weapon is defined. And its cost is also defined in the rules.
The following paragraphs in the Magic Weapons chapter refer to the "enhancement bonus," and again they're clearly talking about the +1 to +5 bonus to attack and damage that's just been defined for magic weapons. You can't read that chapter but forget that the first paragraph is even there at all.
And finally, there's not really any counter at all to the argument that EVEN IF you count the masterwork property as a "+1 enhancement bonus," in the exact same paragraph the rule says you have to add the enhancement bonus when adding special abilities. SO EVEN IF you ignore RAW, RAI, and logic all three to insist on this madness, adding a +1 ability to a masterwork weapon costs 8,000 gp.
The rules state that to make a magical weapon, you have to start with a masterwork weapon. The rules also state that to add a special ability, the weapon must first have a +1 enhancement bonus. Either these two rules are redundant, or Buri is wrong.
And as Avalon pointed out, the value of the item would remain unchanged in either case. The only thing that would change as a result of the OP's misinterpretation is that the enhancement modifier of some magical weapons would not apply to damage.
|
|
This thread is further evidence of the shortfalls of playing Rules As Written only. It's clear what the intent of the rules are (that a weapon be a +1 magical weapon prior to the application of special abilities) based on the fact that there aren't any flaming logswords, only only +1 flaming longswords.
-Skeld
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
There we go. Now, that's clear. Thanks!
zylphryx, while yes, the bonus may be limited in some ways, it's still a +1 enhancement bonus.
Also, you're right about armor. Masterwork armor does not provide any sort of enhancement but masterwork weapons do.
yes, but masterwork gives a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls only it is not the same as the so-named "+1 enhancement bonus" that you magically add to a weapon for 2000gp.
I agree the writers could have been more clear in their distinction between the two, but they are fantasy writers, not lawyers...
I cant actually prove you are wrong per RAW (especially without my book on me), but the intent has always been to have everyone make their weapons magic first, and then add magic properties to your now magic weapon.
AvalonXQ posted the quote that explains the enhancement on magic items applies to both attack and damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is further evidence of the shortfalls of playing Rules As Written only.
No, it's evidence of the shortfalls of reading only tiny bits of the rules and then claiming that your interpretation is "Rules As Written". As you can see from some other recent posts, the "RAW" actually does get you to the right conclusion; the OP just missed it.
Blaming sloppy, misinformed interpretations on "playing RAW only" is like blaming a swollen thumb on a hammer.
Blaming sloppy, misinformed interpretations on "playing RAW only" is like blaming a swollen thumb on a hammer.
Doesn't change the fact that hammers are evil...
|
|
Again, you've missed the very first paragraph of the Magic Weapons rules.Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
As defined in the rules, every magic weapon has this bonus; it's basic to how a magic weapon is defined. And its cost is also defined in the rules.
didn't see that previous post; good explanation! everyone knows this but we just don't always think about it. even in the crafting feat description it says that the masterwork item price is included in the magic items listed cost for creation. the point of the thread was more along the lines of if the enhancement bonuses were equal. switching it to be about the item definition and not the bonus cleared it all up quickly. another case of not being able to see the forest through the trees.
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.There we go. Now, that's clear. Thanks!
You're very welcome! I'm glad we could clear this up.
Really, I am amazed to how people can discuss something for which the RAI is not just clear and common sense, but also universally apllied.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Really, I am amazed to how people can discuss something for which the RAI is not just clear and common sense, but also universally apllied.
To be fair, I once tried to argue why a monk's Flurry of Blows couldn't just use the same weapon over and over, but instead needed to alternate between two weapons just like TWF. You know what people said to me?
The RAI is not just clear and common sense, but also universally applied.
Then a matter of weeks after that came the clarification that I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Majority opinion doesn't mean squat.
To be fair, I once tried to argue why a monk's Flurry of Blows couldn't just use the same weapon over and over, but instead needed to alternate between two weapons just like TWF. You know what people said to me?
The RAI is not just clear and common sense, but also universally applied.
Then a matter of weeks after that came the clarification that I was right and everyone else was wrong.
As an aside, I've never seen this clarification. Do you have a link?
I argued for over 20 pages how crafted items should be counted against one's wealth by level. PLENTY of people were almost foaming at the mouth calling me insane, basically. There were a couple others who shared the same view I did. FAQ came through and I/we was/were right.
It never hurts to bring these things up. I simply was not aware of the description of the enhancement bonus that was quoted insofar as it applies to magic items.
Majority opinion doesn't mean squat.
That's true. Except when "majority" includes all of the developers.
Also, what was common sense about a Monk having to use two weapons? They must have never seen martial arts movies or Hokuto No Ken.
|
Really, I am amazed to how people can discuss something for which the RAI is not just clear and common sense, but also universally apllied.To be fair, I once tried to argue why a monk's Flurry of Blows couldn't just use the same weapon over and over, but instead needed to alternate between two weapons just like TWF. You know what people said to me?
The same thing a million souls (including Paizo developers who were paid to write rules in official books) told Pathfinder's developers ; which is probably the reason they didn't officially took a firm stance, and are still discussing the issue. Unless you have a link to their final decision... :b
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also, what was common sense about a Monk having to use two weapons?
You've got it backwards: I was arguing for the use of two weapons based on the rules text, and others were arguing for multiple attacks with a single weapon based on "common sense", legacy, and "everyone knows".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
which is probably the reason they didn't officially took a firm stance, and are still discussing the issue. Unless you have a link to their final decision... :b
There's a big difference between "didn't take a firm stance" and the actual event of "this is how it was ever since we previewed the monk class, but we're willing to consider making changes".
The thing with using a single weapon for multiple attacks are having to do with weapons like staves and such which are two handed weapons. You can attack multiple times with a sword as well. It's just called iterative attacks.
O_o
I'm serious. I've never played a monk, have little interest in monks, and as a result I don't pay much attention to discussions about the class. I'd love a link to that clarification.
Jiggy's link. This is SKR's response to iteratively attacking with a single weapon (or fist) on FoB.
Common sense is not common sense to everyone and there are ALWAYS exceptions to absolutes in these kinds of statements.