zerupsy's page

zerupsy wrote:

JohnHawkins wrote:

A +1 Corrosive, Keen, flaming, Shockign weapon is a +5 weapon worth a good 50000gp about 50% more than a pc of that level should have in total. It may be that if he has much more equipment your problem with his power level is because he is massively overequiped for his level. In general 25% of wealth on a weapon would be typical so I Would expect a +1 Flaming weapon rather than the +5 weapon described.

Breaking it down
+1 enchantment
flaming (another +1 enhantment)
corrosive (another +1 enchantment)
Keen (another +1 enchantment only possible on slashing weapons)
Shocking (another +1 enchantment)
total +5 weapon worth 50,300gp

Note there is no reason why he could not have a +1 Brilliant Energy weapon
+1 enchantment
Brilliant Energy (+4 Enchantment) it is a +5 weapon, or he could just have a +5 weapon for the same cost

No. The weapon would be +1 from the mwk and the +4 enchantments. You don't put a +1 then another +1 just for flaming.

John Hawkins is correct. The weapon must be masterwork before you can add a +1 enchancement bonus and it must have a +1 enhancement bonus before you can add flaming or any other magical property to it. You absolutely do put a +1 then another +1 just for flaming.

that makes no sense.

We don’t actually know what level the PC is - the example was 8th level, but the example character only had a +4 equivalent weapon, whereas the actual character has a +5 equivalent weapon and we don’t know his level. So making assumptions about WBL might be inappropriate.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

A +1 Corrosive, Keen, flaming, Shockign weapon is a +5 weapon worth a good 50000gp about 50% more than a pc of that level should have in total. It may be that if he has much more equipment your problem with his power level is because he is massively overequiped for his level. In general 25% of wealth on a weapon would be typical so I Would expect a +1 Flaming weapon rather than the +5 weapon described.

Breaking it down
+1 enchantment
flaming (another +1 enhantment)
corrosive (another +1 enchantment)
Keen (another +1 enchantment only possible on slashing weapons)
Shocking (another +1 enchantment)
total +5 weapon worth 50,300gp

Note there is no reason why he could not have a +1 Brilliant Energy weapon
+1 enchantment
Brilliant Energy (+4 Enchantment) it is a +5 weapon, or he could just have a +5 weapon for the same cost

No. The weapon would be +1 from the mwk and the +4 enchantments. You don't put a +1 then another +1 just for flaming.

I will never give another example again since only one person actually answered my question and everyone else wanted to nitpick every other detail of the example instead.

it would be a +1 Shocking Corrosive , Flaming, Keen weapon with only +1 to hit and damage.

thank you. this is what i was trying to find out

okay, i understand how the gold works. yes he has paid the right amount for the enchantments.

his enchantments for the weapon are shocking, corrossive, flaming, and keen. my question is if each of those would "consume" a +1 making the weapon only get a +1 enhancement bonus to attack. or he would still get the +4 even with the enchantments?

that was just an example. the fighter in my group is very defensive built. full plate, tower shield, etc. i'm running the "rise of the runelords" campaign and he's put a lot of gold into his weapon in order to actually hit and do damage. i was just using this as a hypothetical to make sure i was doing the math correctly for enchantments.

so i'm noticing that my pc's are getting a lot of bonus to hit and damage and it's getting hard to keep the fights challenging for them.

my main question is i think i was told the wrong way how enchantments work. from what i understand, enchantments function like slots. you must buy the +1 enhancement bonus before you can put a +1 enchantment on your weapon. and that the enhancement bonus adds to the weapons attack bonus/damage. the question is if that enhancement bonus continues to apply after the enchantment is added.

okay so lets say my fighter is level 8. he has mwk flail that has four +1 enchantments on it. his strength is 18. he has weapon training (Mace). and the "weapon focus" feat. so would his attack bonus be:
D20+BAB(8)+Str(4)+Taining(+1)+Enhancement(4)+Feat(1)
and 1D8+Str(4)+Enhancement(4) damage

or, since there are enchantments would it be:
D20+BAB(8)+Str(4)+Taining(+1)+Enhancement(1)+Feat(1)
and 1D8+Str(4)+Enhancement(1) damage

i'm sorry if this is too convoluted.

This has been answered correctly several times, but perhaps this will help explain. Although making an attack and casting most spells are both standard actions, they are not the same action.

You only get multiple attacks from a high BAB when taking the full attack action. You don't get multiple standard actions when taking the full attack action, only multiple attacks. So the fighter can't swing his sword twice and drink a potion instead of making a third attack. He can either drink a potion and use his move for something else, but he can't combine drinking a potion with his attack routine.

Casting a spell is just like using a potion as far as that goes. It takes a standard action, of which you only have one in a turn. There is no 'full spell casting action' where you spend a round casting multiple spells, which would be like the full attack action.

At least one of the reason this 'full spell casting action' doesn't exist, is that spell power scales a whole lot faster than an attack does. Getting even a second spell in a round via quicken spell is considered a very powerful option. Allowing a wizard to cast 2 or 3 spells a round, basically without any cost at all, would be extremely unbalancing. Spells are plenty good enough, even at just one a round.

this is exactly how i interpreted it. but they do not. the part of the rules they use to justify their reasoning is this:

"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone."

this is the part they are referring to. because of how this is worded, both of my friends are claiming that it means multiple spells, one "spell" per "attack" action you could make in a full attack action. i have already had one of these people quit because of this and the other one, idk exactly where she stands on it.

understandable with the spell effects generating multiple attacks. but the thing we are stuck on is multiple spells themselves.

"Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

because it is worded this way, they feel that this means they can cast multiple attack based spells. for example, lets say i cast a spell that requires a ranged touch attack. i would use my bab in the roll to make the attack. now lets say my character has a +6/ +1 bab. the pc's (who also gm their own games) are saying that i can use a full attack action to cast two attack based spells, one with the +6 bab and the other with the +1 bab.

My sister taught me Pathfinder about 3 or 4 years ago. While I have played a few characters, I am new to running a campaign. My sister is letting me use her Rise of the Runelords module. In a recent game night, one of my PC's brought up the subject of multiple attacks. The topic was of having multiple BAB's and full attack actions vs regular attacks. And said PC mentions that you could possibly cast multiple spells in one round, if said spells required "attack" rolls and you used your BAB. I can see the logic of this but it doesn't feel right and want another's opinion.

so i have a three part question.

If a spellcaster has a high enough BAB and can use a full attack action to attack multiple times, can they possibly cast multiple attack-based spells?

If so, would each spell have to be the same kind or can it be differing spells?

and lastly, if multiple spells are allowed, would each spell take up a spell slot or would it count as one spell for the trun?