Which weapon abilities are worth it?


Advice

51 to 100 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Rycaut wrote:
How do people generally play the "command to activate" part of weapons with special powers? I've noticed that people tend to forget to spend a round to activate their weapon's special powers. In many cases there is time before battle closes but in many other cases there may not be.

Dunno how "most people" do it. I always thought it was the first thing you do in the morning, right after breakfast and before the spellcasters learn their spells, because it does not have a duration ("the effect remains until other command is given") and the flame does not harm the wielder, so you can keep your flaming bow flaming for the whole day if you want. Free torch also. The only time you'd need to use it in combat is when you give the flaming property during combat (magus arcana pool or paladins bonded item, for example).

@Adamantine Dragon: I truth you and your Math-fu more than enough to believe that your Character indeed take more adventage from shocking that from +1 enhancement. You are quite good in these things, and you know your character way better than I do. But I still doubt it's the case for most other characters. Your druid might benefit from it (Does he has deadly aim?), but I can't see how it does benefit a pure archer (or a melee guy, for that matter) more than a +1. Specially when DR and elemental resistance start to be present in the game.

Gustavo, I think I have been pretty clear that I consider "deadly aim" to be a very poor feat for archers, and in particular I consider it an actual trap feat for non full-BAB archers (like my druid).

You could make an argument that the +2/+2 weapon is better against DR opponents. I haven't run the math on that. So far my experience with my level 9 druid is that DR has not been a significant issue. And the very, very few times it has come up, it has usually been against bosses. In boss fights my druid rarely uses her bow. That's when she drops all pretense about being an archer and reveals her true nature as a cosmic reality warping nature goddess in full regalia.


Oh, one other point on the energy enchantment vs another +1/+1 on the weapon... even if they were more or less equivalent in overall damage (which I believe they are not) just for the pure role playing potential I'd probably go for the energy bow.

I absolutely love the visuals associated with energy weapons. I play it to the hilt. My druid will frequently cast "call lightning" and then use her bow all lit up with electrical crackling energy just for the pure drama of it.


Paladins: I have their powers come into play activated.

Energy: I prefer Shocking Burst and Thundering. Especially since in my groups' settings Pantheon this fits into my favorite Deities who are the Storm God/Goddess. Which in my groups upcoming Mythic Playtest I will be playing a Godling Fighter who is the Storm Goddess's child.

Deadly Aim is one of those Feats that is more for the Archer Specialist who does nothing but shoot their bow. At least to me.


Just to be clear: My buddy (playing an Elf Ranger who only really uses his bow) should or should not take Deadly aim?

Personally I thought "Power Attack for Bows" sounded great.


Rynjin wrote:

Just to be clear: My buddy (playing an Elf Ranger who only really uses his bow) should or should not take Deadly aim?

Personally I thought "Power Attack for Bows" sounded great.

Rangers are full BAB combat characters. Archer rangers gain free feats for archery and have access to solid buff spells. A well built archer with the right sort of archery equipment is as good a candidate as you can find for Deadly Aim.

I'd still take just about any other archery feat available first, but if I were playing a pure archer ranger I'd eventually take Deadly Aim myself, once I was hitting on a roll of 4 all the time without it.


I'm asking because he's level 6 now and we're like 3k Exp away from leveling (which is like 2/3 of a session the way we've been going lately) and he wants advice for what Feat he should take as he already has most of the archery feats he qualifies for that he can think of (Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Precise Shot...and as I'm looking at his char sheet he already has Deadly Aim so the point is moot.)

Yeah well okay this was pointless blather then. He had Eleven Accuracy before, he must've changed it at the last minute, it's a new char introduced last session because his last char got taken back to the Inferno by his daddy Asmodeus. Weird session.


I personally would take improved precise shot before deadly aim. Probably clustered shots too. Just off the top of my head.


Clustered Shots I'll definitely recommend. Improved Precise Shot won't be available until level 11 though.

Yeah but anyway, I prefer the special weapon abilities to the enhancement bonus any day. Not really because they're always better (though I still prefer acid damage to +2 hit/damage) but because they're more interesting than just static bonuses.

Sovereign Court

@Rynjin: Rangers can take Improved Precise Shot as a bonus feat at level 6, if they've taken archery as their combat style. It's one of the major perks of rangers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First off, a ranger can select improved precise shot with his 6th level ranger feat. A +4 to hit will almost always work out to mean more damage than deadly aim, or any other feat you can stick in that 6th level slot.

Secondly, Deadly Aim is a great feat. Anyone nay-saying it either hasn't used the DPR calculator or plays in a homebrew campaign against a lot of high ACs. Remember that math wins on this discussion every time.

You should know when it's appropriate to use it though, so run some DPR calculations each level to figure out when it's OK to use it (typically anything with an extremely high AC it's better not to use it, find that number each level).

Here is a DPR calculator: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgTxYrw61edAdGNxbnNWSXJUWUlGOG E4N0JUSVVZeHc&hl=en#gid=4

Just use the file tab to save a new copy and you can keep all the formatting.


Lastoth wrote:

First off, a ranger can select improved precise shot with his 6th level ranger feat. A +4 to hit will almost always work out to mean more damage than deadly aim, or any other feat you can stick in that 6th level slot.

Secondly, Deadly Aim is a great feat. Anyone nay-saying it either hasn't used the DPR calculator or plays in a homebrew campaign against a lot of high ACs. Remember that math wins on this discussion every time.

You should know when it's appropriate to use it though, so run some DPR calculations each level to figure out when it's OK to use it (typically anything with an extremely high AC it's better not to use it, find that number each level).

Here is a DPR calculator: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgTxYrw61edAdGNxbnNWSXJUWUlGOG E4N0JUSVVZeHc&hl=en#gid=4

Just use the file tab to save a new copy and you can keep all the formatting.

Heh, the definition of "high AC" changes according to your BAB ranking. And it changes by more the higher level you go. Which is why Deadly Aim is generally OK for full BAB builds but not so hot for lesser BAB builds.

Believe me, I'm all about the math Lastoth...


Yes, but he's already chosen his level 6 Bonus Feat, so that's not an option again until level 10 anyway.


In my typical Campaigns Deadly Aim is excellent though I tend to run CR-determined-by-Class-Levels Monsters...


If you don't pick manyshot at 6th level you're silly. A free arrow with no penalty? Yes please


My PFS Ranger (level 11) has the Impervious quality and a fortifying stone added to ALL his bows - it's just so tempting for a GM to try and sunder the weapon of the guy putting out 200+ damage per round!


You can take manyshot at level 7. You cant take IPS at level 7. See?


David Haller wrote:
My PFS Ranger (level 11) has the Impervious quality and a fortifying stone added to ALL his bows - it's just so tempting for a GM to try and sunder the weapon of the guy putting out 200+ damage per round!

You do know it takes a weapon of equal or greater enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon right?

From what I've seen most NPC magical equipment stays pretty low powered, and considering it's a CMB check (which a lot of NPCs aren't particularly good at) against your probably rather nice CMD I'm thinking those enchantments are largely a waste for most people.


Abraham spalding wrote:
David Haller wrote:
My PFS Ranger (level 11) has the Impervious quality and a fortifying stone added to ALL his bows - it's just so tempting for a GM to try and sunder the weapon of the guy putting out 200+ damage per round!

You do know it takes a weapon of equal or greater enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon right?

From what I've seen most NPC magical equipment stays pretty low powered, and considering it's a CMB check (which a lot of NPCs aren't particularly good at) against your probably rather nice CMD I'm thinking those enchantments are largely a waste for most people.

I generally find that most characters - even at high level - use weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus in PFS; money tends to go to adding weapon abilities rather than enhancement bonuses.

The durability add-ons are fairly inexpensive (my +1 Impervious, Holy, Evil-Outsider Bane composite longbow, for example, has its cost increased only about 10% by the add-ons), and they add a certain measure of peace-of-mind for archers with expensive weapons.


dotting


The durability add-ons are excellent in campaigns like mine where there is nothing held back.


The requirement to have a greater enhancement bonus to sunder a weapon is from 3.x... pathfinder just gives more HP/hardness for enhancements unless someone can show me where I missed it.

I specifically looked since i made the sunderarian for PFS, (you get the loot at the end even if you break it during). And with an adamantine greatsword on a 2HF archetype fig/barb he pretty much breaks anything with his 2d6+22 at level 5.

When he gets greater sunder at 6th, the overflow damage will hit the target, and weapon/shieldless BBEGs who have taken damage usually make the GM cry.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

The requirement to have a greater enhancement bonus to sunder a weapon is from 3.x... pathfinder just gives more HP/hardness for enhancements unless someone can show me where I missed it.

I specifically looked since i made the sunderarian for PFS, (you get the loot at the end even if you break it during). And with an adamantine greatsword on a 2HF archetype fig/barb he pretty much breaks anything with his 2d6+22 at level 5.

When he gets greater sunder at 6th, the overflow damage will hit the target, and weapon/shieldless BBEGs who have taken damage usually make the GM cry.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ljny?Sunder-Harder-than-you-think

Can't link on my phone, but there you go


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

The requirement to have a greater enhancement bonus to sunder a weapon is from 3.x... pathfinder just gives more HP/hardness for enhancements unless someone can show me where I missed it.

I specifically looked since i made the sunderarian for PFS, (you get the loot at the end even if you break it during). And with an adamantine greatsword on a 2HF archetype fig/barb he pretty much breaks anything with his 2d6+22 at level 5.

When he gets greater sunder at 6th, the overflow damage will hit the target, and weapon/shieldless BBEGs who have taken damage usually make the GM cry.

CRB pg. 468, second column, under "Damaging Magic Weapons".

Yes, this should be in the "Sunder" section, but it's not!


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Gustavo, I think I have been pretty clear that I consider "deadly aim" to be a very poor feat for archers, and in particular I consider it an actual trap feat for non full-BAB archers (like my druid).

Well, that might be true, but it is, then it is a bad argument for the +1d6.

Deadly aim change +1 to hit for +2 to damage. Flaming (or shocking) change +1 to hit for +2.5 to damage. Except it is not subject to critical hits, and it's subject to energy resistance. If Deadly Aim is a trap feat for non-full BAB, then shocking is a trap magic enhancement, for exactly the same reasons. If shocking does more damage, mathematically, then Deadly Aim also does more damage.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

His character is not a devoted archer. Taking Deadly Aim would torch his ability to hit below what is reasonable. Since he would miss more, and is less likely to crit, Deadly Aim is not an option.

For a full BAB character with lots of TH to spare? Oh, yeah, take it.
==
The purely highest damage enhancement at high level against living foes is Wounding. Every 2 hits is 2 Con. For a 20HD creatures, that's 20 HP and -1 Fort save. There is no other enhancement that cheap that can do +10 HP/hit. And the only thing it doesn't work on is undead and constructs.

Ghost Touch is +100% damage against Incorporeals, who are always among your most dangerous foes with their touch attacks. You MUST kill them fast.

If there are two Enhancements with the 'dueling' name, then the one published last has precedence. I'm betting that's the Equipment Guide, so it would supercede PFS.

Agile for Dex to Damage, and Guided for Wis to damage, are incredibly valuable for Rogues and cleric/monk/druids.

A barbarian without a Furious Weapon is dumb.

As far as Bane goes, I wish they'd break out the pseudo-Bane effect of a Sunsword against Evil...+2/+2. That would be my #1 +1 Enhancement. Um, and the double damage against undead/negative energy creatures. Hoo,boy, what that can do to undead.

Brilliant is a humanoid killer. It only works against PC's and NPC's, as they are pretty much the only things wearing armor. Against a high level humanoid, it can be like +15 to hit. Against undead, it's better off using a rock. Against a Dragon, you might as well not even have a glowing sword.

==Aelryinth


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

So... is it the opinion of everyone that the standard, boring old energy boosts of 1d6 extra damage per attack aren't worth it?

Because I sure like those. Particularly "shocking" since it tends to have fewer monsters who are immune to electricity than from fire or ice.

I mean 3.5 extra damage per hit seems pretty nice to me.

Actually, flaming can be nice. Good vs undead and trolls, can hack thru webs and what not. I rarely buy it, but if I find one, I keep it.

The thing is, if the critter has any sort of ER at all vs that element, it's pretty worthless. And, since a +2 adds to your chance to hit and damage, it's better.


Aelryinth wrote:
The purely highest damage enhancement at high level against living foes is Wounding. Every 2 hits is 2 Con.

I don't think you meant wounding. The way I read it, there's bleed, but no CON damage.


All in all I boils down to what a Build requires or what fits the theme.


Aelryinth wrote:


The purely highest damage enhancement at high level against living foes is Wounding. Every 2 hits is 2 Con. For a 20HD creatures, that's 20 HP and -1 Fort save. There is no other enhancement that cheap that can do +10 HP/hit. And the only thing it doesn't work on is undead and constructs.

Well, that'a how wounding worked in D&D 3.5; in Pathfinder, wounding does bleed damage, and is considerably less potent than the 3.5 version (where it was a must-have once you could afford the +2 enhancement).

(My Living Greyhawk Fighter/Ranger/Holy Liberator/Templar LIVED by his +3 keen, wounding, holy adamantine greatsword... in PFS, not so much!)


Aelryinth wrote:
His character is not a devoted archer. Taking Deadly Aim would torch his ability to hit below what is reasonable. Since he would miss more, and is less likely to crit, Deadly Aim is not an option.

Oh, I fully agree with that. Hit is very important, double so in non-full BAB characters.

That's why advocate for full enhancement bonus instead of shocking/flaming/corrosive etc. With non-full BAB classes, to hit > to damage imho.


But everywhere I've ever seen bleed damage says it bypasses DR, so that's something to be said for wounding.


If you successfully deal damage meaning you overcame their DR then they take the Bleed Damage which is never reduced based on DR.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I've thought about getting my Calistran bard eventually a +1 shocking, thundering whip. Though adding the dueling-pg ability has merit.

I'd call it.... Tesla's coil.


Tesla's Wrath
Bane Of Edison

Even the UE Dueling Property would be nice on a Whip.


Rycaut wrote:
How do people generally play the "command to activate" part of weapons with special powers? I've noticed that people tend to forget to spend a round to activate their weapon's special powers. In many cases there is time before battle closes but in many other cases there may not be.

How often do you hear a player say "I'll take a potion of XXX and move "? without a Handy Haversack...

There are probably lots of examples where players gloss over the actual rules to cheat, whether they know they are doing it or not.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


I'd still take just about any other archery feat available first, but if I were playing a pure archer ranger I'd eventually take Deadly Aim myself, once I was hitting on a roll of 4 all the time without it.

A 4!

Seriously! I think it's a solid Feat that's good from around an 8 and a half myself.


hairy old lady wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


I'd still take just about any other archery feat available first, but if I were playing a pure archer ranger I'd eventually take Deadly Aim myself, once I was hitting on a roll of 4 all the time without it.

A 4!

Seriously! I think it's a solid Feat that's good from around an 8 and a half myself.

Yeah, OK a "4" was somewhat of an exaggeration. An "8" is going to push it though since by the time any of my characters would consider deadly aim the penalty would be a -2 or perhaps even a -3, and that "8" becomes a "6" or a "5" and you're back in the "it doesn't damage if it doesn't hit" realm...


gustavo iglesias wrote:


That's why advocate for full enhancement bonus instead of shocking/flaming/corrosive etc. With non-full BAB classes, to hit > to damage imho.

Surprisingly, when you run the math here, it turns out that a mix of "to hit" and "damage" is the best approach. Finding out what that mix is requires careful study and modeling across a full range of AC targets and circumstances.

The idea that a +1 to hit and damage is ALWAYS better than a +3.5 to damage is simply not correct. It is better if you have a very hard time hitting. It is worse if you hit very reliably. If you are right on the margin between the two, then it's mostly a role play choice.

Of course it can be a role play choice period. There's no reason a character can't decide that straight bonuses are just better because shut up. That's a perfectly acceptable role playing choice.

It's not right mathematically or probabilistically, but the game isn't all about math or statistics.

The arguments seem to be though...


One thing to consider is the fact that so many monsters have resistance to the elements that regular +d6 element damage can actually be worse since it costs more for no effect.

Again depends on what you are fighting though.

But for this reason and the fact that a flat enhancement bonus always works and helps bypass DR I'm generally for the flat bonus, especially for non-full BAB classes.


Abraham spalding wrote:

One thing to consider is the fact that so many monsters have resistance to the elements that regular +d6 element damage can actually be worse since it costs more for no effect.

Again depends on what you are fighting though.

But for this reason and the fact that a flat enhancement bonus always works and helps bypass DR I'm generally for the flat bonus, especially for non-full BAB classes.

Abraham, this is why I prefer "shocking" to fire or cold. However, even in this case at level 9 our group has encountered very few truly DR enemies, and when we do, we can temporarily buff our weapons to help overcome it.

However, I concede that this is one of the best arguments for the pure bonus over the elemental effects. I just think it is not nearly as common at least in my own gaming experience as people make it out to be. And even when it is, the difference in DR potential between a +1/shocking and a +2/+2 sword is exactly 1 point of damage per hit, with a total of hitting once more per 20 attacks.

In our group we have decided that over the long haul the +1/shocking sword with strategically cast "Greater Magic Weapon" spells satisfies the need for overcoming DR in the uncommon circumstance of encountering DR, while still providing the extra damage against all the mooks and minions, meaning they go down much faster.

Anyway, the joy of this game is everyone gets to play as they like. I like the elemental weapons not just for their extra d6 against the vast majority of enemy combatants but because I like their flavor too.


There is one factor to consider in my preference for the elemental weapons over the additional +1/+1.

My groups rarely play at a level higher than 10 or 12. After several years of playing one character with our group, we just hit level 9 and are now on yet another hiatus while I run the current campaign, so it may well be another 2-3 years before we hit level 12.

At higher levels things like DR definitely come into play more often. So if you are playing at higher levels then that might well mean that the additional +1/+1 is a better choice for you. But you still have to factor in that eventually you'll hit the +5/+5 limit and then you'll need to choose other enchantments anyway.

But for the type of gaming I do, (and I suspect it is much more common than the level 20 gaming that is so prevalent on these boards) that extra d6 against the 90% of enemies who don't have DR is pretty nice.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Surprisingly, when you run the math here, it turns out that a mix of "to hit" and "damage" is the best approach. Finding out what that mix is requires careful study and modeling across a full range of AC targets and circumstances.

The idea that a +1 to hit and damage is ALWAYS better than a +3.5 to damage is simply not correct. It is better if you have a very hard time hitting. It is worse if you hit very reliably. If you are right on the margin between the two, then it's mostly a role play choice.

It's not +1 to hit vs 3.5 damage. It's +1 to hit *and* +1 to damage vs +3.5 damage. So basically, you trade +1 to hit for +2.5 damage, not for 3.5

Quote:
Of course it can be a role play choice period. There's no reason a character can't decide that straight bonuses are just better because shut up. That's a perfectly acceptable role playing choice.

Player choices are always valid. A player might want to use a mechanically inferior feat, power, spell or weapon for whatever reasons he likes. Some people like to take trap feats. Some of them even take Deadly Aim, a feat you think it's a trap feat. Nothing wrong with that.

However, seeing the title of the thread, personal prefference or character style is not what the OP is asking for. He is not asking if a flaming weapons looks cooler than a keen weapon or a +2 weapon, he is asking if it is mechanically sound to take it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


In our group we have decided that over the long haul the +1/shocking sword with strategically cast "Greater Magic Weapon" spells satisfies the need for overcoming DR in the uncommon circumstance of encountering DR, while still providing the extra damage against all the mooks and minions, meaning they go down much faster.

Well, under your group house rule it might be better, as it is a free +1d6. RAW is different, though, as Greater Magic Weapon does not help to overcome DR.

"This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic."

Quote:
However, I concede that this is one of the best arguments for the pure bonus over the elemental effects. I just think it is not nearly as common at least in my own gaming experience as people make it out to be. And even when it is, the difference in DR potential between a +1/shocking and a +2/+2 sword is exactly 1 point of damage per hit, with a total of hitting once more per 20 attacks.

That vary largely with the DR. If the enemy has DR 10/cold iron or 10/silver, having a +3 weapon means you ignore the DR at all, while having a +2 shocking, or a +1 flaming corrosive, does not.

Also, Energy resistance is at least as common as Damage reduction. Unless your campaign is about fighting only humanoid NPC, it's quite probable that you face some kind of energy resistance. Even a mild energy resistance 5 makes the +1d6 weapons useless.

Quote:


But for the type of gaming I do, (and I suspect it is much more common than the level 20 gaming that is so prevalent on these boards) that extra d6 against the 90% of enemies who don't have DR is pretty nice.

Lots and lots of CR 9 monsters have damage reduction and energy resistance, you don't need to play at 20. Right in the AP I'm running now, Way of the Wicked, in the route from lvl 5 to 10, we have:

Treant (DR)
Feytouched elfs (DR and energy resistance)
Lillend (energy Resistance)
Mudmen (DR and energy inmunity)
Alchemic Golem (DR)
Oozes (energy inmunities)
Ceustodaemons (DR and energy inmunities and resistances)
Lightning elemental (DR and energy inmunity)
Blinking dogs (DR)
Avoral (DR and energy inmunities)
Hound of Tindalos (DR)
Silver Dragon (energy inmunity.)

Plus a few spellcasters who have stoneskin, resist energy or flame shiled memorized as default in the AP.

And this is a humanoid heavy AP. If we check Kingmaker, or Carrion Crown, there are even more monsters with Energy Resist and DR.


There's a lot to be said for the courageous enhancement. It essentially grants one half of your enhancement bonus to hit and damage every time you chug a heroism potion, which last a long time and are relatively cheap if memory serves. The fear save thing is just gravy.


OK if you already have a +5 Enhancement what Weapon abilities are good.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


In our group we have decided that over the long haul the +1/shocking sword with strategically cast "Greater Magic Weapon" spells satisfies the need for overcoming DR in the uncommon circumstance of encountering DR, while still providing the extra damage against all the mooks and minions, meaning they go down much faster.

Well, under your group house rule it might be better, as it is a free +1d6. RAW is different, though, as Greater Magic Weapon does not help to overcome DR.

"This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic."

Quote:
However, I concede that this is one of the best arguments for the pure bonus over the elemental effects. I just think it is not nearly as common at least in my own gaming experience as people make it out to be. And even when it is, the difference in DR potential between a +1/shocking and a +2/+2 sword is exactly 1 point of damage per hit, with a total of hitting once more per 20 attacks.

That vary largely with the DR. If the enemy has DR 10/cold iron or 10/silver, having a +3 weapon means you ignore the DR at all, while having a +2 shocking, or a +1 flaming corrosive, does not.

Also, Energy resistance is at least as common as Damage reduction. Unless your campaign is about fighting only humanoid NPC, it's quite probable that you face some kind of energy resistance. Even a mild energy resistance 5 makes the +1d6 weapons useless.

Quote:


But for the type of gaming I do, (and I suspect it is much more common than the level 20 gaming that is so prevalent on these boards) that extra d6 against the 90% of enemies who don't have DR is pretty nice.
Lots and lots of CR 9 monsters have damage reduction and energy resistance, you don't need to play at 20. Right in the AP I'm running now, Way of the Wicked, in the route from lvl 5...

Well put. +1


I personally love the courageous ability for my barbarian. Inquisitors love it too.

+5 furious, dueling- psfg, courageous impervious adamantine falchion works wonders for barbarians. Might just throw on keen also.

It will gives a + 3 to all morale bonuses, including for rage and superstition. If however, your barbarian has at least one class level in inquisitor, then pick up a bane baldric chest item, found in ultimate equipment. Now you can bane your weapon, making the enh. +2 higher, and thus, your bonus to morale bonuses from the weapon just went up by one, making it a +4 to all morale bonuses.

In turn making your str and con from rage, superstition, saves, and any other morale bonus character bump +4 higher.


Grizzly the Archer wrote:
Now you can bane your weapon, making the enh. +2 higher, and thus, your bonus to morale bonuses from the weapon just went up by one, making it a +4 to all morale bonuses.

There is argument over this in two parts.

1. If the weapon is already +10 then you cannot give it any other abilities without dropping abilities first.

2. I've heard discussion that the +5 enhancement cap is a hard cap -- I'm not so sure on this one but felt it should be mentioned.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

That vary largely with the DR. If the enemy has DR 10/cold iron or 10/silver, having a +3 weapon means you ignore the DR at all, while having a +2 shocking, or a +1 flaming corrosive, does not.

Also, Energy resistance is at least as common as Damage reduction. Unless your campaign is about fighting only humanoid NPC, it's quite probable that you face some kind of energy resistance. Even a mild energy resistance 5 makes the +1d6 weapons useless.

Lots and lots of CR 9 monsters have damage reduction and energy resistance, you don't need to play at 20. Right in the AP I'm running now, Way of the Wicked, in the route from lvl 5...

But at level 9 you're not talking about a +3 vs a +2/shocking weapon. you're talking about a +2 vs +1/shocking. (at least in my games, but maybe we just don't tend to throw all our money at our weapons) So the dr is really a non-issue.

The trouble of DR is largely overstated when it comes to archers in general. It's really not hard to load up on arrows of various types to defeat specific DRs. (and you really don't see many /- DRs, ever)

I also think people focus way too much on average performance when determining which way to go. Firstly, because encounters, hell, even many campaigns, don't take long enough for the averages to even pan out. But also, and mostly, because rpgs are fundamentally a game of psychology, not math. You chose the option you enjoy best for the psychological benefit-- Some like the feel of just knowing that they do 1.75 dpr more than with their given choice, but they can never really appreciate that. You can't see in an encounter when your 1.75 dpr is actually relevant (and it won't be 99% of the time). But when you chose something that affords you a large swing in damage, like extra dice do, you can really notice it when they kick in... Gravity, shocking, electrical... 4d6, four or five times per round. Occasionally all those d6s are going to produce near-max results, which is going to destroy whatever your shooting at. And that's loads of fun. ;)


When it comes to ranged combat yes DR is overstated (especially since with cluster shot you shoot once with the DR appropriate arrow and then simply use normal arrows from that point), when it comes to melee weapons not so much.

51 to 100 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Which weapon abilities are worth it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.