Why the requirement of +1 on items?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I know this has been baked into the rules for umpteen years, but seriously, why do you need a +1 magical bonus on your sword before you can put any non-bonus magical enhancement on it?

It feels like all this does is make Divine support casters weaker than they should be.
I absolutely do not want to spend an entire spell slot just to give you a +1 bonus, but that's all (Greater) Magic Weapon/Vestment is going to do from levels 1-11 (ie: the huge majority of your career).

It seems so wasteful and dumb. Am I the only one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I'm following you.

The rule for the +1 enhancement bonus requirement before further enchantment only applies to magic weapon/armor creation. It doesn't apply to any temporary spell caster upgrades during combat.

For example, you don't have to cast Magic Weapon on a sword before you cast Align Weapon onto the same sword.

So, there's no reason to keep Magic Weapon/Vestment memorized if you don't want it.


What Saldiven said... Methinks you might be reading the rules incorrectly?

Silver Crusade

Saldiven wrote:

I'm not sure I'm following you.

The rule for the +1 enhancement bonus requirement before further enchantment only applies to magic weapon/armor creation. It doesn't apply to any temporary spell caster upgrades during combat.

For example, you don't have to cast Magic Weapon on a sword before you cast Align Weapon onto the same sword.

So, there's no reason to keep Magic Weapon/Vestment memorized if you don't want it.

Align weapon doesn't confer a weapon ability.

I believe what they would like to do is use magic weapon to (for example) give a weapon the "flaming" property rather than a +1 enhancement bonus.


Not quite.

Why no "Shocking Longsword?" Why MUST it be a "+1 Shocking Longsword?" Etc.

The argument about Magic Weapon/Vestment is simply that I wish it were better.
If the party is level 10, everyone is going to have a magic weapon. So when I cast my level 3 spell, Greater Magic Weapon, it's only going to give a +1 bonus. That's a HUGE waste of a spell slot - nearly any other buff spell would be better.
However, if you could enchant weapons with abilities without the required +1, then that GMW is suddenly worth a +2, and feels a lot less "wasteful."


No reason in the rules other than that's just the rules. An in-character reason could be the extra magic(like flaming) needs to be put on a base or it just won't stick to the weapon.

Silver Crusade

Neo2151 wrote:

Not quite.

Why no "Shocking Longsword?" Why MUST it be a "+1 Shocking Longsword?" Etc.

The argument about Magic Weapon/Vestment is simply that I wish it were better.
If the party is level 10, everyone is going to have a magic weapon. So when I cast my level 3 spell, Greater Magic Weapon, it's only going to give a +1 bonus. That's a HUGE waste of a spell slot - nearly any other buff spell would be better.
However, if you could enchant weapons with abilities without the required +1, then that GMW is suddenly worth a +2, and feels a lot less "wasteful."

The first part of your argument I get, but you've just confused me a bit with you GMW issue. GMW gives you a flat +1 per every 4 caster levels (max +5)...are you trying to say you wish to use GMW on an already magical weapon, and the fact that a +1 weapon would only become a +2 (due to non-stacking bonuses) is annoying? Whereas if you just had a plain shock sword (no enhancement bonus) it would be the equivalent of a +3 weapon (+2 enhancement, +1 shock)? I mean, I guess that'd be nice, but it's not something I'm overly ruffled about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always assumed it was a a balance issue.

An extra d6 of damage grabbed as soon as you can shell out 2k gp would have been a bit much in the early days of 3.0 as well as modern groups playing at a similar optimization level. It would also be a bit explosive of ranged weapons since for 4k gp you could have a d6 of two different elements on your weapon and ammo.

On a more practical level +1 rainbow swords with GMW cast on them are pretty popular and dropping the +1 would just make them better.

Sovereign Court

Degnanigans wrote:

I always assumed it was a a balance issue.

Yes - it's a balance issue - because that first +1 only gives damage as it's already masterwork. The opportunity cost of d6 elemental is meant to be +1 accuracy & damage both.

It's the same reason that there's no +1 req for the Amulet of Mighty Fists. There's no way to get masterwork fists/claws, so you're already giving up both accuracy & damage before you get the base +1.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Degnanigans wrote:

I always assumed it was a a balance issue.

Yes - it's a balance issue - because that first +1 only gives damage as it's already masterwork. The opportunity cost of d6 elemental is meant to be +1 accuracy & damage both.

So why does armor have the same +1 minimum enchantment issue? Mwk armor only helps with ACP.

Sovereign Court

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So why does armor have the same +1 minimum enchantment issue? Mwk armor only helps with ACP.

Probably internal consistency.

Besides - on armor it's extremely rare that the extra enchantments are worth it before you already have it at +5, so it's mostly moot for armor.


Its simply the same as a feat tax. They feel flaming et al is too strong for someone who can only afford a +1 bonus, so they make its value at minimum a +2. Same for armor.


Without the +1, I am pretty sure it doesn't count as magic.

Basically, you have your shocking longsword, but it is useless against DR/magic ro incorporeal creatures. And that would be silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

Without the +1, I am pretty sure it doesn't count as magic.

Basically, you have your shocking longsword, but it is useless against DR/magic ro incorporeal creatures. And that would be silly.

Only because the rules say you need a +1 first. If you could put special properties on without the +1, a shocking weapon would be just as magic as a +1 weapon.


Yeah, it's basically just a "This is how we want it to work" reason. It's like people having to do their daily routine in a very ritualistic and specific pattern.

"I want to have a Shocking Longsword please."

"TOO BAD, I NEED IT TO BE A +1 BEFORE I CAN CONSIDER MAKING IT ALL GLOWY AND SPARKLE IN THE SUNLIGHT!"

If you're playing a home game, you're more than welcome to dish that rule out, because mechanically speaking, you won't be missing too much (and truthfully +1's are going to be more valuable than properties more than half the time anyway).

Our group has decided to reduce the Maximum Enhancement Bonus to +5, and you can add abilities regardless of it being a +1 weapon or not, and so far (although I liked having the +10 limit more) it's still pretty functional.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why the requirement of +1 on items? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.