Hi everyone. GMing a non PfS group of lvl 3 players, and the inquisitor is looking at getting an adoptive composite longbow.
Acording to the rules it needs a +1/+1 enchantment before adoptive can be added, pushing it past his budget. So I'm considering allowing enchantments to be added to weapons without needing the +1 enchantment.
If I do this I want it to be consistent, not just giving preferential treatment to one player.
What are your experiences with this? Is it game breaking? Are there a bunch of enchantments that needs to be balanced out if I do this?
Just trying to make sure that being nice now does not bite me later.
3.PF has so many rules that it can be broke any number of ways - intentionally and otherwise. I cite as evidence all the Errata and FAQs ( plus all the FAQs that haven't been FAQ'd yet despite multiple threads and years of "help" posts on the messageboards). Personally I found the whole WBL thing to be game-breaky.
I got around this very problem by simply applying the Masterwork Weapons concept.
Worked out fine for my group though we were playing 5E, but my cousin worked out something similar for his campaign which is 3.PF Eberron based.
Specifically it has some cost but not nearly so costly as to preclude even 1st level PCs from benefiting.
Quark Blast wrote:
I got around this very problem by simply applying the Masterwork Weapons concept.
I am a bit confused. What is this "Masterwork weapons" concept that would help with WBL? The link you posted just talks about how a weapon must be Masterwork before being made a +1. This is a rule that has always been in the game and I'm not seeing what it has to do with "getting around" WBL? Do you mean to say that you allowed weapons to gain abilities without a +1 so long as they weapon was masterwork?
If I had to guess...
Quote: A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities. Quote: A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. I suppose if you squint at it a bit... XD
If it's your game it won't hurt anything too much as long as you apply it across the board (barring a rare property based on the weapon's enhancement bonus). Just remember you are going to have more powerful ability weapons as the properties will be easier to acquire (minimum 2,000 gp savings but each + saved is exponential). As long as you are prepared to handle it.
It's like if you decided to make horses 50% cheaper. You aren't losing any value (unless you sell horses). They still work just as well, they'll just be more common and prevalent since they're cheaper.
I mean, it's worked fine for the amulet of mighty fists (though that comes with the caveat that an amulet is generally more expensive then a weapon because it applies to multiple attack types).
Generally speaking, though, this won't likely affect your game balance much. Most of those weapon abilities aren't nearly as powerful as the simple mathematic advantage of having a bonus that lets you hit more often.
GM Rednal wrote: If I had to guess...
Quote: A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities. Quote: A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. I suppose if you squint at it a bit... XD
You are brilliant!
Yes, you got it. Why have two concepts taking up rules-space that do nearly the same thing, only they don't. It's just more crunch getting in the way.
So in my campaign, as it was (it's not anymore), a smith who can craft a "masterwork" item functionally creates a magical +1 item. More proficient smiths can create items of greater plusness; prices rise accordingly.
Thewms wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I got around this very problem by simply applying the Masterwork Weapons concept. I am a bit confused. What is this "Masterwork weapons" concept that would help with WBL? The link you posted just talks about how a weapon must be Masterwork before being made a +1. This is a rule that has always been in the game and I'm not seeing what it has to do with "getting around" WBL? Do you mean to say that you allowed weapons to gain abilities without a +1 so long as they weapon was masterwork? See my previous post and as for WBL...
It just requires the GM to throw gobs of loot at the PCs and ramps the game up to "rocket tag" that much sooner. Instead of playing E6 or something similar with the rules, jettisoning WBL as a requirement to be met as PCs level up worked out fine. I fluffed a few things so that they weren't a bunch of destitute hobos scraping by.
So for example, you helped out Prince Popper by running to ground those pesky troll raiders out on the far reaches of the duchy and as a reward you get access to the Prince's armorer or alchemist or etc.
I've never used Wealth by Level in my home games. I've been running a 3.5 home game for years, and have introduced a few PF modifications into it, but WBL isn't necessary as long as you're gauging the challenge of the encounters you create carefully.
As far as omitting the requirement for +1 enchantment, it will have an impact. I played in a 3.p game that used the very "squint" that GM Rednal cited above, where the rule was that the masterwork enhancement bonus satisfied the enhancement requirement for enchanting. The consequence was lots of +0 keen, flaming weapons and so forth. I wouldn't say it was game breaking, it meant that PCs hit a bit less often but did more damage when they landed a blow. I'm personally not in favour of +0 keen weapons. You might get maguses and smitey paladins doing too much damage at low levels with cheap 15-20 threat ranges.
I've run using the concept of Magical Infusion as an enchantment that can be placed on a weapon (an enchantment that provides a +1 or higher bonus), but you can go right ahead and have a flaming weapon without one.
However, a non-infused weapon does not penetrate DR/Magic, so there's still an incentive to have a +1 on your weapon.
I found it three effects:
1) It made lower-level loot more interesting. When you find a magic sword, it could be anything, not merely a +1 because that's all the party could afford at level 4.
2) It gave PCs more options about what sort of weapons they wanted.
3) It made monsters with DR/Magic more interesting, since you could no longer guarantee most all of the party having magic weapons by a certain level.
Reverse wrote: I've run using the concept of Magical Infusion as an enchantment that can be placed on a weapon (an enchantment that provides a +1 or higher bonus), but you can go right ahead and have a flaming weapon without one.
However, a non-infused weapon does not penetrate DR/Magic, so there's still an incentive to have a +1 on your weapon.
I found it three effects:
1) It made lower-level loot more interesting. When you find a magic sword, it could be anything, not merely a +1 because that's all the party could afford at level 4.
2) It gave PCs more options about what sort of weapons they wanted.
3) It made monsters with DR/Magic more interesting, since you could no longer guarantee most all of the party having magic weapons by a certain level.
This is not a bad way to do it. I especially like item 2) - giving the players choices that don't break the game is always a plus.
I had the same concern supervillan did and your infusion work-around is a good fix for that. For my campaign, since the PCs are already the heroes, this really didn't happen to break anything. It also helped that my one rules-lawyer/"crunchy munchkin" (<-- his phrase, he wasn't too keen on rules-lawyer) went for full casters. The Magewright in my cousin's Eberron game does something similar. Well, did when the PCs were lower level - she has better things to do with her talents at this point.
I see only a couple of "problematic" special ability for the weapons:
-Bane if your campaign has many enemy of the same creature type (up to 4) it's cheaper to get bane weapons than +2 weapons, and you get an extra +2d6 damage.
-Spell storing may also be a problem, not only as weapon but as a sort of refillable potion: 2300 gp for a dagger that can hold a cure serious wound (cast by your friendly cleric in town for 150 gp) is competing against a potion of cure serious wound that cost 750 gp, so if you use it at least 4 times you are breaking even, and the dagger can also be used for all the others 1-3 spells.
I only see an issue with ammunition and weapons that use ammunition.
My take on your premise, hope it helps. You could treat the specific "rune stone" in question as an heirloom item.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
