Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Magic ammo creation and balanced weapons


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew


Hello. I hope this is the correct section for this.
I have two questions, and I thought I'd save time by putting them in one place
1. When creating magic ammunition, would it be too powerful to remove the "+1 enhancement before special abilities can be applied" rule and replace it with "usable with magical weapons only"? I personally see little problem in it. By the time you are buying/crafting magic ammo, the character will almost always have a magic weapon to fire them from, which doesn't stack anyway.

2. Balanced weapons. I want to add a weapon enhancement for a game. +1 bonus, melee or ranged. Whenever using two weapon fighting or any attack that uses both weapons and the twf penalties (fighter's double strike for example) the weapon gets +2 to hit and damage. Alternately, it increases the enhancement bonus by 2. Any thoughts?

*edit* edit, added the "usable by magic weapons only" as I realised it could be abused, giving 800 villagers a single arrow of dragonbane each for example

Sczarni

1) Why are you buying / crafting magic ammo enough for this to be an issue? Aside from specialty ammo such as ghost touch there's really no reason. Put the enchantment on your weapon and use mundane ammunition. That being said I wouldn't allow it in my game. For weapons the +1 costs 2000g and a +1 enchantment on top of it costs another 6000g for a total of 8000g. What you want to do is basically give them 8000g worth of ammo for 2000g. They would either have four times as much ammunition or they would take the 6000g they saved and spend it elsewhere on enchantments on other gear making them even more powerful. Horribly game breaking? Probably not. Necessary? Absolutely not. If it aint broke don't fix it.

2) There is already an enchantment which will add +2 to your attack rolls. It's a +2 enhancement bonus. You're basically asking if you can get a +2 bonus with a +1 enchantment. I would not allow it in any of my games, personally, and if your GM will let it slide please let me know. I want to come play with you guys. I have a TON of ideas to run by him. *Evil cackle*


1. It's for any ranged character who uses situational arrows. First room, iron golem "all I have are normal arrows and a flaming bow, damn" next room, demon "all I have are normal arrows and a flaming bow" etc etc. having bane/elemental/different material arrows are ALWAYS useful

2. It's only effective when dual wielding, and there are other enchantments that do even better. Bane for example it gets +2 enhancement AND +2D6 damage. I didn't think the net +1 enhancement while dual wielding only would be that powerful. The other option would be "two weapon penalties with this weapon are 2 less" but that's weak for a +1 bonus in my opinion


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

0) Actually, this is not the correct section. What you are looking for is Suggestions and Houserules.

1) Yes, the extra +1 is pretty much redundant, and having situational projectiles is always a plus for a ranged character. However, given the sheer amount of oomph Pathfinder has added to ranged combat, I find that 'redundancy markup' on magical ammunition something you should be able to stomach.

2) Comparing apples to oranges. That 'dual wielding' enchantment, giving an effective +2 for the price of +1, is something that will be usable in almost every fight, as a two-weapon character build is unlikely to not dual-wield his weapons whenever possible. Your bane example, on the other hand, is effective only against a narrow choice of possible enemies. See that difference in quality?


The two weapon fighter in my group spent most of his time charging, having to reposition, struggling not to get swallowed, etc. just because you hold two weapons doesn't mean you'll always be able to use them both. It was quite rare he managed to perform a full attack action. I know bane is less useful in most situations, but the extra 2d6 damage seems to balance that out. Ah well. I'm mostly asking for opinions on these things before I ask my gm, so I'm not basically saying "hey, can I have this insta-win mcguffin?"

Then again, this was the gm who gave my changeling rogue a ring of infinite use dimension door >.> that wasn't even asked for

Sczarni

Situational arrows are nice, yes, but they're just that. Situational. Typically you don't switch up monster types that often. If you're in a campaign going from dragons to golems to undead to demons and devils to... holy crap. If you try to prepare a little bit for every scenario you're not going to be fully prepared for anything. Switching things up now and then for a little flavor is fine but if things are changing so often you feel the need to stash ammunition for whatever encounter you can think of then you may want to speak to your GM about a little consistency in the game.

You also have to take into consideration the balance between ranged and melee classes. There was already another thread a while back where a GM didn't want to let the ranger walk around all day with his bow in his hand because that allowed the ranger his full attack action in the first round whereas the melee had to draw and move up. Granted this is the advantage of playing ranged, but if you allow the ranger to have quivers of arrows for every situation at such a low cost pretty soon your melee characters are going to want their weapons at that cost as well. It might be a little easier to imagine a rogue with 10 daggers, all with different enchantments, on a bandolier, but what about the fighter? Ghost touch shortsword, flaming short sword, bane shortsword, etc.

As for your dual wielding enchantment I wouldn't use it even if it were written into the book as RAW.

+1 enhancement bonus (prerequisite for any enchantment)
+1 balanced weapons enchantment
------------------------------
+2 total for cost calculations

For eight grand I get an enchantment that gives me a +2 when I dual wield, or...

+2 enhancement bonus

For eight grand I get an enchantment that gives me a +2 all the time.

Sczarni

Quote:
1. When creating magic ammunition, would it be too powerful to remove the "+1 enhancement before special abilities can be applied" rule and replace it with "usable with magical weapons only"?

To more directly answer this question: Yes.

If you remove the +1 requirement you're reducing the cost of brilliant energy weapons by 16,000 gold, minimum. It would only take two batches of arrows before the players essentially got a "free" batch of brilliant energy arrows because of the discount.

If they wanted to add another +1 enchantment on top of it the discount grows to 20,000 gold since they're paying fifty grand instead of seventy grand.

Edit: Math is fun, yay!


Straight to the point:
  1st. I do not think abusive depending on the type of campaign that your group plays. In my games we do exactly that, removing the need of +1 before adding another spell. But power is limited to adding only ONE enchantment on ammunition. And it is for the same reason, variability for the archers. We do it 'cause when we realize that its contribution to the fight takes place in small chunks of damage, damage reduction hurts a lot and makes things unfunny.

Corren28 said wrote:
... Typically you don't switch up monster types that often. If you're in a campaign going from dragons to golems to undead to demons and devils to... holy crap...

I think he was using an exaggerated example, not literal. The opponents change over several encounters and not every minute hehe. And on balance between meelee and ranged classes. In my experience it is easier to build a meelee stronger than an archer. Without heavy optimization of course. And damage reduction affects a lot more archers than meelees in general. Remembering always, this occurred in the games where I've attended. Your experience may be different but here isn't overpowered.

2nd. Don't make an enchantment. Make or ask for a magical iten like Bracers of Archery Lesser or Greater that aplies to dual wielding.

Fun for Everyone!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ultimate combat wrote:

Clustered Shots (Combat)

You take a moment to carefully aim your shots, causing them all to strike nearly the same spot.

Prerequisites: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When you use a full-attack action to make multiple ranged weapon attacks against the same opponent, total the damage from all hits before applying that opponent's damage reduction.

Special: If the massive damage optional rule is being used (Core Rulebook 189), that rule applies if the total damage you deal with this feat is equal to or exceeds half the opponent's full normal hit points (minimum 50 points of damage).

Archers aren't weak at all.

Sczarni

I just don't understand the need to reinvent the wheel is all. Why do you need to make an enchantment or magic item (especially a magic item) to do what a +2 enhancement bonus already does? You can put a +2 on the weapon and it works all the time, why waste a magic item slot on it?

If you're playing a ranger why are you making special ammunition? Go into Arcane Archer. Every non-magical arrow you fire can become fiery, cold, or shock enchanted at your discretion. At later levels you even get fiery, cold, or shocking burst and can be aligned to overcome DR depending upon your character's alignment (a lawful character can't align their weapons chaotically).

As for stuff like DR5/-, I refer you to Diego and clustered shots.

Essentially it's up to your GM and what (s)he wants to allow. Like I said, I just don't understand the need to reinvent the wheel.


I didn't know about this talent. Thank you guys!

But about Arcane Archer, maybe he doesn't wanna be an arcane archer, who knows?! hehe

And a amgiacal iten that gives you +2 competence bonus is diferent from +2 enhancement on the weapon. I actually would make the iten +1 because it aplies to both weapons. In this case it's not reinventing the wheel, it's following the examples presented to us in the core.

I do not think this is over. But my players are sensible. If we find that a character is hurting the others by being too strong, even if within the rules, we find a new role for him that does not harm others or the others increment. It happened in the most recent story. The player himself felt too strong and came asking me how to adjust the game.

I think I got lucky with my players!


For the balanced weapon, its not equivalent to a +2 weapon, it's equivalent to a +3 weapon, but only while dual wielding, a +1 for any other situation. I think the lowering of the penalties would be an easier choice anyway, perhaps with a greater version as a +2 or 3.

as for the arrows, the entire point is that you never want a whole batch of 50 bane (demon) arrows. You want maybe 5 or 10, unless you're specifically fighting that type of creature for a campaign arc. that is the point of situational equipment.

I know of the clustered shots feat Diego, thank you. It is the one saving feature of archers. Fighters on the other hand get to simply ignore damage reduction all the time with penetrating strike. Id rather know what a creatures weakness is and use it, than simply fire enough arrows that it's a moot point anyway. difference in style I guess

Sczarni

Clarifying the balanced weapon enchantment as a +3 instead of +2 doesn't really help the case of balance. You're still asking for a +3 enhancement for the cost of a +1. Not to bash on your party's fighter but if he isn't getting his full attack very often then he's doing something wrong. Full attacks aren't exactly rare and with a minimal amount of strategy TWF fighters turn into blenders rather quickly.

Only 5 or 10 arrows of a specific type? How long will that last you, three rounds? Maybe four? It still sounds to me like your GM is changing monster types too often and forcing your group to attempt to prepare for too many contingencies. You're trying to be ready for anything that comes up and it's costing you resources to do. You can pick up 5 or 10 bane (demon) arrows, 5 or 10 fiery arrows, 5 or 10 frost arrows, etc. and when you come upon the group of frost giants the fiery arrows will be awesome to have...for the two or three rounds they last. Meanwhile the rest of your invested wealth is wasted making you a weaker character. Also see my note above about reducing the cost of higher end enchantments.

In my personal (and GM) opinion, the melee enchantment is both overpowered and unnecessary. No need to start creating enchantments to do what other enchantments in the game already do. As for the arrows there are a lot of ways I could abuse that both as a player and a GM, first and foremost being the cost reduction. That all being said, it's your character and your game. All you can do is approach your GM with the ideas and try to hash it out with him (her).


normal sword +0
+1 sword +1
+2 sword +2

+1 balanced sword +1 or +3 if dual wielding
meaning it increases by 2, but only in certain situations, making it both less and more useful than a +2 sword, depending on who uses it and when. The same could be said for bane weapons, but they ALSO get a 2D6 damage bonus, meaning the risk/reward is greater

as for the arrows. lets say, as a normal player, you DON'T know what you'll be up against next week, and we use your example of getting 50 ghost touch arrows. useful. Then we spend three months fighting iron golems, where the 5 or 10 construct bane arrows MAY have been useful. that is again the idea of situational items, you never know when you'll need them, but its better to have a bit of everything then stick all your proverbial eggs in one basket and hope that the DM lets you fight undead because you have undead slaying arrows.

I'm not arguing that the price reduction is there, I'm simply saying when its the difference between 80 gold to create a single +1 flaming arrow, and 20 gold to create a flaming arrow, enchanters would learn a way to do that, especially when the +1 is useless the second anyone picks up a +1 or better bow

Sczarni

I get what you're saying and everything I've said still applies. Just go back and re-read it.

Quote:
lets say, as a normal player, you DON'T know what you'll be up against next week

This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned consistency. You have a need to try to prepare for anything and everything and it's obviously not working out well because you're looking for ways to do it more efficiently. You shouldn't have to do this.

In any case we aren't the ones you need to convince. Go talk to your GM and use whatever angle you want. Enchantments aren't overpowered, game needs consistency, whatever. About all we can do is give you a heads-up on what's already out there to do what you're trying to do.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Magic ammo creation and balanced weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.