RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere but now I'm not so sure. When creating a magical weapon (or armor), I thought that the weapon had to +1 first before it could be anything else. In other words, I didn't think it was possible to have a keen longsword WITHOUT the +1, making the minimum market price modifier for a keen weapon +2 (since keen is worth +1 and the weapon must be at least +1 to start with).
Am I crazy? Is this rule somewhere in the RAW? Also, if something CAN be keen (or flaming, or bane, etc.) WITHOUT being +1, does it still count as a magical weapon for bypassing DR? Input appreciated. Thanks!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's correct. From the SRD:
A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
A lot of DM's (myself included) sometimes disregard the rule because we want to use those enchantments on lesser weapons, but it's not core to do so. Allowing them on weapons without a +1 enchantment does increase their power slightly. One balancing item is to have them not penetrate Magic DR if they don't have a +1.
I got a question Sebastian, what about the Holy ability? For 8k I can get a longsword that will give me a +2 and 2d6 against anyone evil. Do you ignore the +1 prerec for all the abilities or just the +1 market modifiers?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I got a question Sebastian, what about the Holy ability? For 8k I can get a longsword that will give me a +2 and 2d6 against anyone evil. Do you ignore the +1 prerec for all the abilities or just the +1 market modifiers?
It applies for all of the special abilities, regardless of how much they cost. Also, I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question - a holy weapon only provides +2d6 damage, not a +2 to hit or an additional +2 to damage. From the SRD:
A holy weapon is imbued with holy power. This power makes the weapon good-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all of evil alignment. It bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the holy power upon their ammunition.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I got a question Sebastian, what about the Holy ability? For 8k I can get a longsword that will give me a +2 and 2d6 against anyone evil. Do you ignore the +1 prerec for all the abilities or just the +1 market modifiers?It applies for all of the special abilities, regardless of how much they cost. Also, I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question - a holy weapon only provides +2d6 damage, not a +2 to hit or an additional +2 to damage.
Yes, David, I think you may be confusing Holy with Bane here. A bane weapon counts as having an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls 2 higher than normal for the weapon and deals an additional 2d6 damage against the creature type it is coded to. Against all other creatures, the bane property has no effect (but other enhancements on the weapon function normally). Holy simply makes the weapon good-aligned and deals an extra 2d6 damage to evil creatures. Nothing more.
A weapon could have both Holy AND Bane on it, in which case (assuming the creature in question was both evil AND of the creature type the Bane is coded to) the weapon's effective enhancement bonus would increase by 2 AND would deal an addtional 4d6 damage (2d6 from Bane and 2d6 from Holy).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, David, I think you may be confusing Holy with Bane here. A bane weapon counts as having an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls 2 higher than normal for the weapon and deals an additional 2d6 damage against the creature type it is coded to. Against all other creatures, the bane property has no effect (but other enhancements on the weapon function normally). Holy simply makes the weapon good-aligned and deals an extra 2d6 damage to evil creatures. Nothing more.
Ahhhh...thanks FS. I still think you would need to put a +1 enhancment bonus on the weapon before putting on the bane special ability. As FS points out the Bane weapon description states:
Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus.
Which implies that the weapon must have a straight enhancement bonus before the bane property can be added.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Hmm... this gets me thinking about a possible new enhancement: Lifebane. Basically, it's like a Bane weapon in all respects except that instead of a specific creature type, it is effective against ALL living creatures. I'm thinking a +3 market modifier would balance this (since it's kind of like just adding +2 to the regular enhancement and giving it flaming and frost... but the damage type would not be of a particular energy type). Plus, it obviously wouldn't function against undead and constructs.
I'm trying to think of a pertinent spell to be required for this particular enhancement and the best thing I can think of is chill touch but that seems kind of weak. Slay living is another possibility. I dunno, something to think on. I don't think it would be too unbalancing given the market modifier attached. Any one else have an opinion?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmm... this gets me thinking about a possible new enhancement: Lifebane. Basically, it's like a Bane weapon in all respects except that instead of a specific creature type, it is effective against ALL living creatures. I'm thinking a +3 market modifier would balance this (since it's kind of like just adding +2 to the regular enhancement and giving it flaming and frost... but the damage type would not be of a particular energy type). Plus, it obviously wouldn't function against undead and constructs.
I'm trying to think of a pertinent spell to be required for this particular enhancement and the best thing I can think of is chill touch but that seems kind of weak. Slay living is another possibility. I dunno, something to think on. I don't think it would be too unbalancing given the market modifier attached. Any one else have an opinion?
It's definitely at the high end of the curve. You're basically trading the restriction of only being effective against living creatures against the benefit of an extra d6 of damage. Alternately, you are could view it as a holy/unholy variant but without the ability to penetrate DR.
I think it falls between +3 and +4. +3 is probably slightly aggressive, but I think +4 is too expensive. I'd probably make the energy type negative.
Edit: I also like slay living as a pre-req.
|
Hmm... this gets me thinking about a possible new enhancement: Lifebane. Basically, it's like a Bane weapon in all respects except that instead of a specific creature type, it is effective against ALL living creatures. I'm thinking a +3 market modifier would balance this (since it's kind of like just adding +2 to the regular enhancement and giving it flaming and frost... but the damage type would not be of a particular energy type). Plus, it obviously wouldn't function against undead and constructs.
I'm trying to think of a pertinent spell to be required for this particular enhancement and the best thing I can think of is chill touch but that seems kind of weak. Slay living is another possibility. I dunno, something to think on. I don't think it would be too unbalancing given the market modifier attached. Any one else have an opinion?
Antilife shell or something similar might be a possibility.
Also, there is a way around the enhancement bonuses if you are using Artificers from Eberron. The infusions don't require an enhancement bonus, but you can still apply a special property -- at least temporarily.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I think it falls between +3 and +4. +3 is probably slightly aggressive, but I think +4 is too expensive. I'd probably make the energy type negative.
Edit: I also like slay living as a pre-req.
Yeah, making the energy type negative makes sense. Plus, it allows things like death ward to protect against it. Say... CL 9th, slay living, and caster must be non-good for creation guidelines? I also kind of like Moff's suggestion of antilife shell but I believe that is a 7th level spell or so and I'm pretty sure that only druids and clerics with certain domains have access to it, so in the interest of keeping things more available (without being ubiquitous), slay living fits the bill nicely.
Hmm... there's a thought though. Since, as you said, +3 might be a little aggressive, maybe if we used antilife shell, a spell which is decidedly LESS available than slay living, the inaccessability would offset the 'aggressive' +3 modifier. What do you think?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, making the energy type negative makes sense. Plus, it allows things like death ward to protect against it. Say... CL 9th, slay living, and caster must be non-good for creation guidelines? I also kind of like Moff's suggestion of antilife shell but I believe that is a 7th level spell or so and I'm pretty sure that only druids and clerics with certain domains have access to it, so in the interest of keeping things more available (without being ubiquitous), slay living fits the bill nicely.
What about giving it a drawback too? Something like you can't benefit from positive energy (aka healing) for 24 hours after using it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What about giving it a drawback too? Something like you can't benefit from positive energy (aka healing) for 24 hours after using it.
I think that's a little bit harsh. Maybe the wielder (if living) has their Constitution reduced by 2 (or 4?) as long as they wield it and for 24 hours afterward. Basically reduces their max HP by 1 (or 2) per hit die and also gives a penalty to associated skills and saves.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think that's a little bit harsh. Maybe the wielder (if living) has their Constitution reduced by 2 (or 4?) as long as they wield it and for 24 hours afterward. Basically reduces their max HP by 1 (or 2) per hit die and also gives a penalty to associated skills and saves.
Considering that holy/unholy weapons give a negative level (which, IIRC, causes hp reduction), I think it should be on par with that type of effect.
Just in case no one actually noticed, but I do beleive that to get through DR/magic, you must have a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus. Casting continual flame on your sword doesn't work.
As such, houseruling that lesser (+1) properties can be applied without the normal +1 enhancement bonus works fine, as they won't get through DR/magic. Much like the fire from a flaming +5 sword still hurts a golem, even if the sword doesn't get through the DR over admantine.
If we follow the paradigm set by natural armor (that is, creatures without natural armor have a base natural armor of +0), then bane also works, as it will be a +2 weapon dealing an extra +2d6 against its chosen foe, but against anything else, it is simply masterwork.
Also, one might want to consider some of the powers from D&D online, such as lesser bane, greater bane, and pure good/law/chaos/evil. If anyone wants a rundown on those, I can post some stats.
...the minimum market price modifier for a keen weapon +2 (since keen is worth +1 and the weapon must be at least +1 to start with).
The MODIFIER for keen is +1. Start with a +1 enhancement bonus, add a +1 for keen, and your +1 keen longsword costs 8000 gp. Start with a +3 longsword, add keen, and it costs 32,000 gp (as a +4 weapon: +3 enhancement, +1 for keen). Right?
I actually like the idea of taking the +1 requirement further: an item must have at least as many actual enhancement bonuses for each virtual bonus.
I actually like the idea of taking the +1 requirement further: an item must have at least as many actual enhancement bonuses for each virtual bonus.
Hey! I like that! In 3e, one had a reason to get an enhancement bonus above +1 (DR 30/+3, for example). That reason is now gone. Why have a +2 sword in 3.5e? Honestly? There is NO REASON anymore. A +1 holy sword is now a million times better than a +3 sword, unless you yourself are evil, or you go around fighting a lot of animals.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Note that requiring an enhancment bonus equal to the special ability bonus effectively eliminates any +3 bonus special abilities from being used by non-epic characters. It also makes it impossible to stack many special abilities (no flaming holy swords, no unholy keen axes, etc).
Hey! I like that! In 3e, one had a reason to get an enhancement bonus above +1 (DR 30/+3, for example). That reason is now gone. Why have a +2 sword in 3.5e? Honestly? There is NO REASON anymore. A +1 holy sword is now a million times better than a +3 sword, unless you yourself are evil, or you go around fighting a lot of animals.
Or your DM is evil and if you buy that +1 Holy Sword you will suddenly find yourself fighting a lot of animals.
Note that requiring an enhancment bonus equal to the special ability bonus effectively eliminates any +3 bonus special abilities from being used by non-epic characters. It also makes it impossible to stack many special abilities (no flaming holy swords, no unholy keen axes, etc).
Um... Why? Pre epic you are limited to a total enhanement bonus of +5, but your total enhancements can add up to +10. So no +6 Greatswords, but +4 Flaming Burst Holy Greataxes are fine (Or even +1 Keen, Flaming Burst, Shicking Burst, Holy Scimitars).
I actually like the idea of taking the +1 requirement further: an item must have at least as many actual enhancement bonuses for each virtual bonus.Hey! I like that! In 3e, one had a reason to get an enhancement bonus above +1 (DR 30/+3, for example). That reason is now gone. Why have a +2 sword in 3.5e? Honestly? There is NO REASON anymore. A +1 holy sword is now a million times better than a +3 sword, unless you yourself are evil, or you go around fighting a lot of animals.
I would rather have a +3 Sword over a +1 Holy Sword Anyday. roughly the same average damage, and more flexibility.
Assuming a Greatsword, a +3 Sword does 2d6+3+STR for 10+STR average Damage.
The +1 Holy Greatsword does 2d6+1+2d6 for 15+STR Average Damage.
On first glance it looks like the +1 Holy is better, but then remember the +3 Sword has +2 better to hit. If we powerattack that away to give them the same to hit modifier, the average for the +3 Greatsword is 2d6+3+4 for 14+STR Average Damage, which is about the same as the +1 Holy Great Sword. And this is against ALL creatures, and also gives you the flexibility of a better to hit of they have a high AC.
In general, straight enhancement bonuses are better than d6 damage bonuses, and Holy is basically just 2 d6 damage bonuses that are situational (only against evil).
I would rather have a +10 Greatsword, than a +5 Holy, Flaming, Shocking, Thundering Greatsword.
On first glance it looks like the +1 Holy is better, but then remember the +3 Sword has +2 better to hit. If we powerattack that away to give them the same to hit modifier, the average for the +3 Greatsword is 2d6+3+4 for 14+STR Average Damage, which is about the same as the +1 Holy Great Sword. And this is against ALL creatures, and also gives you the flexibility of a better to hit of they have a high AC. I would rather have a +10 Greatsword, than a +5 Holy, Flaming, Shocking, Thundering Greatsword.
I was always a sucker for big handfuls of dice. You're quite right for Power Attack; well put. For your "standard" paladin with a longsword and large shield, though, "holy" still has an edge, in my opinion.
Mevers has it right- straight enhancement bonuses are still quite good. You get a beneficial "double taxation" benefit from the increased attack bonus and increased damage. Also, it works unconditionaly. If a magic weapon works against something at all, your's will do just fine. No worrying about fire resistance or alignment or creature type or what have you.
To tell the truth, I don't see what the big deal about flaming/frost/etc. weapons is. The extra d6 doesn't get mutliplied on criticals and is fairly insignificant by the higher middle levels, and all but negligible at the high levels. Especially once almost every creature has at least energy resistance 5 in most types, which gives you a 1 in 6 chance of actually harming the thing at all with your special ability, and even then it will only be 1 damage. Getting a critical won't help, either.
Now, holy and bane are really good, I admit. But, again, you have to weigh their increased power against one type of creature vs. increased power regardless of what you fight.
Another, often overlooked element to consider is sundering. You can't sunder a +2 sword with a +1 sword. Even if it's +1 unholy and vorpal, it still can't sunder a +2 weapon. So, for anyone concerned with this at all, getting straight enhancement bonuses will always be better. I realize it's not overly common, but it is a factor. Similarly, if you allow the house rule of weapons with special abilities but lacking simple enhancements (something I have never done and likely will never do), a balancing factor may be allowing them to be sundered by masterwork or better (or even normal, for that matter) weapons.
Finally, Tequila, that houserule sent a shiver through my spine. Magic weapons are expensive enough as it is, but they are also well balanced. Having to match straight +'s for the practical value of special abilities on a one-for-one bonus seems dreadful to me. Almost no one will ever get more than a +2 weapon with a speicial ability due to the cost (above that they would opt for straight enhancement, and let's face it, that's nowhere near as fun at high levels as special abilities), or they will spend a disproportionate amount of their gold on weapons and leave themselves vulnerable in other areas. I can only guess the same would apply to armor and shields. That would destroy the balance of how much is meant to be spent on armor and weapons vs. other items, and suddenlt mages become much more powerful because they don't have to pass through this rule.
Do what you will, but I would never ever use that.
|
In my game we allow weapons special powers with out a +1 but they are not magical and cannot over come DR or magic.
We also do not give them the bonus HP and hardness weapons with a + get.
Also we have them lose the +1 to hit from being master work.
As for sunder if you read the new eratta or last months dragon (CLASS ACTS Barbarian) you no longer need a greater plus weapon to sunder another.
In my game we allow weapons special powers with out a +1 but they are not magical and cannot over come DR or magic.
We also do not give them the bonus HP and hardness weapons with a + get.
Also we have them lose the +1 to hit from being master work.As for sunder if you read the new eratta or last months dragon (CLASS ACTS Barbarian) you no longer need a greater plus weapon to sunder another.
Oh. Well, nevermind on that point, then.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Another, often overlooked element to consider is sundering. You can't sunder a +2 sword with a +1 sword. Even if it's +1 unholy and vorpal, it still can't sunder a +2 weapon. So, for anyone concerned with this at all, getting straight enhancement bonuses will always be better. I realize it's not overly common, but it is a factor.
Actually, I believe that's a 3.0 rule. 3.5 axed that one from the rulebooks. A +1 sword can sunder a +5 sword just fine, the +5 sword simply gains extra hardness from its enhancement bonus (woo... a whole 5 extra hardness... THAT was worth 100,000+gp... NOT).
Edit: I see someone beat me to it. I should really read the whole thread before responding on a whim...
|
|
Another, often overlooked element to consider is sundering. You can't sunder a +2 sword with a +1 sword. Even if it's +1 unholy and vorpal, it still can't sunder a +2 weapon. So, for anyone concerned with this at all, getting straight enhancement bonuses will always be better. I realize it's not overly common, but it is a factor.Actually, I believe that's a 3.0 rule. 3.5 axed that one from the rulebooks. A +1 sword can sunder a +5 sword just fine, the +5 sword simply gains extra hardness from its enhancement bonus (woo... a whole 5 extra hardness... THAT was worth 100,000+gp... NOT).
Edit: I see someone beat me to it. I should really read the whole thread before responding on a whim...
Actually it adds +2 to hardness and +10 to HP per plus so your +5 sword has +10 hardness and +50hp, not to shabby.
|
|
Actually it adds +2 to hardness and +10 to HP per plus so your +5 sword has +10 hardness and +50hp, not to shabby.Hmm. Okay, I guess that's not too bad. I bet you can tell how often we deal with sunders in my games now, huh? Hehe.
Fatespinner: Avoiding melee since 1990.
I never did either but now with not needing a greater magic weapon and adamantine ignoring the 1st 20 points of hardness I have been looking into it. My fighter/Psion with his 2 handed sword may be breaking many bad guys weapons soon. heehehe
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I never did either but now with not needing a greater magic weapon and adamantine ignoring the 1st 20 points of hardness I have been looking into it.
You might want to double-check the wording on adamantine's rules. I don't think it ignores the "first 20" hardness, I think it ignores "all hardness of less than 20" which means if something has 20 hardness, ALL of it applies while 19 hardness effectively has NONE against adamantine.
|
|
I never did either but now with not needing a greater magic weapon and adamantine ignoring the 1st 20 points of hardness I have been looking into it.You might want to double-check the wording on adamantine's rules. I don't think it ignores the "first 20" hardness, I think it ignores "all hardness of less than 20" which means if something has 20 hardness, ALL of it applies while 19 hardness effectively has NONE against adamantine.
You are right, I miss "spoke" but still pretty nasty to most weapons (even lesser magic ones).
When I ran a dwarven weaponsmith, I always manufactured +1 holy weapons.
Why?
Because I wanted to put some check against them falling into evil hands and being used in some terrible and spectacularly public crime.
Man you must have an evil DM if you, always, make sure that your not going to be framed for criomes against humanity.