+2 to hit / +0 to damage or vice versa?

[Adamantine Dragon]

So, instead of enhancing a magic item to provide a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage, what do you think about splitting that into separate enhancements that are not tied together so that you could purchase a +2/+0 or a +0/+2 weapon enhancment?

If you allowed it, what would you charge for it? Would the attack bonus be more or less than the damage bonus? And why?

[Aelryinth]

the bonus to hit is stronger...just do the math on Power Attack.

-1 to hit for +2 damage, +3 if 2H.

I'd grab the +2 to hit, PA and turn it into +6 damage, as opposed to taking the +2 dmg, not Power Attacking, having the same hit chance, and doing 4 less damage.

Better off leaving things as they are.

==Aelryinth

[osinbar49]

If a player asked for an item like that, I would ask a lot of questions first. Why do you want to do this? How does it work? If I was satisfied with the answers, I would ok it. The price would be the same as for a +1/+1 weapon, in all likely hood. I don't understand your third question.

[Roberta Yang]

Similarly, compare [Greater] Weapon Focus to [Greater] Weapon Specialization. A bonus to hit is worth more than an equal bonus to damage.

If I were redesigning the weapon enhancement system I'd just get rid of the boring flat enhancement bonuses entirely. Splitting them in two doesn't change much.

[John Spalding]

I would be wary of splitting it at the +1 level mostly because the +1 mw enhancement bonus to hit gets absorbed in a magic weapon.

Thus the +2/+0 would have exactly that, a +1/+1 player gets that, but the one you describe as +0/+2 actually gets +1/+2. Because 1/+2 is strictly better than +1/+1, you are getting something for nothing.

At higher levels you have to start making DR decisions- how do you determine if it overcomes silver/cold iron/alignment DR? is it the max of the two, the minimum, or the average.

Also, how does a spell like magic weapon interact with the spell?

I don't oppose the idea, but you do have to answer some questions if you go forward with that.

[galahad2112]

You might want to check out this thread "splitting weapon bonuses"

[galahad2112]

To actually answer your questions, though, I would break down the pricing structure as (1500 x bonus squared) / (500 x bonus squared), and a requirement that the weapon be at least +1/+1 before any bonus splitting occurs. This pricing allows flexibility, but still retains the vast majority of the cost, thus not granting TOO unfair an advantage for splitting the bonus.

[Dabbler]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

So, instead of enhancing a magic item to provide a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage, what do you think about splitting that into separate enhancements that are not tied together so that you could purchase a +2/+0 or a +0/+2 weapon enhancment?

If you allowed it, what would you charge for it? Would the attack bonus be more or less than the damage bonus? And why?

I would allow an item to have a bonus to hit and not damage, as a reduced functionality item - for example, it's what I'd suggest the bodywraps of mighty strikes use instead of only applying to limited numbers of attacks per round.

[Serum]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

So, instead of enhancing a magic item to provide a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage, what do you think about splitting that into separate enhancements that are not tied together so that you could purchase a +2/+0 or a +0/+2 weapon enhancment?

If you allowed it, what would you charge for it? Would the attack bonus be more or less than the damage bonus? And why?

Compare a +0/+2 weapon enhancement to flaming or corrosive. Those enhancements are generally considered suboptimal.

[Sigismund Rothschild]

Sorry, wouldn't allow it. First why play by the numbers (Roll Playing), I would have the player describe the item and tell me what materials are going into it and spells are being cast. He gets what he gets, it's the DM's choice, it's not about min/maxing your character to "win" or creating a Munchkin. Try Role Playing the idea and concept of the item.

[wraithstrike]

I see no reason for it, and I would have to make a price for both sides. Too much work, and it is not worth the effort.

[Vestrial]

Sigismund Rothschild wrote:

Sorry, wouldn't allow it. First why play by the numbers (Roll Playing), I would have the player describe the item and tell me what materials are going into it and spells are being cast. He gets what he gets, it's the DM's choice, it's not about min/maxing your character to "win" or creating a Munchkin. Try Role Playing the idea and concept of the item.

DM's choice? Sounds fun. I love to spend resources and time just to hope the DM gives me what I want...

But even if you do "DM's choice," what if the player says, "I enchant this rapier to be incredibly accurate, but not as damaging, and I spend these resources (8k worth of magic ingredients). What's he get then?

To the OP, in one of the little paizo downloads there is an enchant for +0/+1 for half the cost of a +1/+1, so on the damage side it's fine. I think I'd allow it on the to-hit side as well, if for no other reason than missing is just annoying and not very fun, even if the math works out that +hit is better than +damage. I would probably say it's unique, like the elemental enhancements, to prevent the temptation to rush straight to a +10/+0 weapon...

edit: It was not a paizo product, it was genius games, "loot 4 less."

[Adamantine Dragon]

Hmm... I'm torn.

By the straight mechanics and potential for munchkining the system, I'd probably say "no, not worth it".

But since there are so many magical means to boost one or the other alone, it seems to me that enchantments that allow boosting one but not the other should be allowed.

So, roll playing tells me "no".
Role playing tells me "yes".

Hard call.