By the rules nothing, you have hit the limit, the weapon simply can not hold more enchantments. Are you guys seeing different rules then me? It states clearly no single weapon can have modified bonus, inclunding enhancement which the spell is exceeding +10 total.
Again
PRD
"Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once."Notice the +10 max, also notice where it states modified and it does not say while being crafted, as ya often add ablitys after it is made. It does not matter how or where the modified ablitys come from your limit is +10
There was simply no need to reprint it 15 or 20 times when it's already in the reliant section of the book. I am still not seeing a sentence
saying {this may exceed the normal maximum}
And yet the +5 limit is mentioned in multiple places, when according to you there was no reason to reprint that over and over again....
My point is simple yet you keep avoiding it. Why do the rules reiterate the +5 limit, but not the +10 limit?
According to you, there is no reason for they to reiterate the +5 limit either since it is also in what you refer to as "the relevant section". But the +5 limit gets mentioned in other places, but the +10 limit does not.
Not to mention that this is hardly what I would call "the relevant section". That is from the section on crafting weapons and armor which to me implies that these rules are specifically about the crafting of weapons and armor.
Context is important. By pulling that same rule you quoted out of context, I can claim that casting keen on a sword increases its market value because "Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item".
Also, by pulling the section you quoted out of context, I can claim that the keen spell only works on +1 or better weapons because "A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus."
No you have not. The books says clearly what the max is, you have yet to show anything where it says you may ignore or exceed this, nothing.If you can show me where it says those spells/abilitys may ignore the normal rules for weapons please do show me. All you have is "well it never says we must use the normal rules" which is not a good argument.
The book clearly states what the maximums are for a crafted weapon or armor.
Whether or not the limits in the crafting rules apply to spells and temporary abilities that are added to a weapon or armor is unclear.
I believe we actually are reading it differently from you, and that should be reason enough for clarification.
I too am intrigued by Charender's point. The +5 limit is repeated in several instances. The +10 modified bonus is not. This leads to a contradiction. Clearly repeating a relevant rule is not an issue and so we are lead to think that this rule of +10 only applies to the section it appears in once. Buying and Crafting.
more of the same
Well first off, the +10 is not just crafting. It it was you could never add new ablitys or improve a magic weapon ever. The section is clear about a weapon not being able to have bonus exceeding +10 including any enhancement bonus
I have shown you where the rules are located for a weapons max bonus
You guys are still not showing anything other then "Well it does not stat we must follow the normal rules for weapons"
Oddly enough the disintegrate spell does not say it kills me only I am dust so it must mean I can still take actions as it does not say I am dead. Which is the same type of augmenter you guys are using. "The rules do not say to use the normal rules so it must mean it does not use the normal rules."
Sorry unless it stats it is an exception to the rules it follows them
|
I would make the argument personally that Seeker's interpretation is correct based on the following logic:
Some (all?) references in the book to the idea of a magic item having bonuses/abilities refer to the "magic item" section of the book.
For instance, under Divine Bond the section tells the reader to refer to the section on magic items for seeing the list and description of the relevant abilities.
Now under Magic Weapons we have the following text:
Now the section doesn't say "crafting" or anything like that. Sure it talks about what it might take to make them but the section is, IMHO, first and foremost, the reference section on what magic weapons are and how they work. (See Paladin example). If this section is said reference, and that section says what is posted above, then why would it be logical in any capacity to think that any effect overrides something stated in such clear terms? (clear as in a lack of "wiggle room" terms not clear as in obvious, as the conversation implies it is not obvious.)
As a further example, the section also says that there cannot be multiple instances of the same enchantment, by the logic that temporary effects can stack on/exceed permanent ones then can a Paladin have a bane/bane weapon? Both rules are in the same paragraph...
By the rules nothing
Let me ask you a second question, then:
What makes the possibility that greater magic weapon can break the rules different from the fact that detect secret doors can break the rules, or the fact that endure elements breaks the rules, or the fact that tongues breaks the rules?
To clarify that question:
The rules state that, in order to detect a secret door, you need to make a Perception check of a certain DC. They also state that exerting yourself when the temperature exceeds a certain amount has negative effects. They also state that you have to know a language (through automatic languages, bonus languages from high Intelligence, or ranks in Linguistics) to speak, understand, read, or write that language.
Detect secret doors says that you know the location of every secret door within the 60' cone. It does not say that you do not have to make a Perception check to find the secret doors.
Endure elements says that you can exist in areas with hot or cold temperatures with no ill effects. it does not say that you do not have to make Fortitude saves to avoid taking nonlethal damage.
Tongues says that you can speak and understand all languages. It does not say that you can ignore the rule that states you have to know a language to speak or understand it.
So, what makes greater magic weapon different from those?
---
Also, a third question, and please don't take this as an excuse to not answer the second:
What is the effect of a +5 dragon bane longsword against a dragon?
As a further example, the section also says that there cannot be multiple instances of the same enchantment, by the logic that temporary effects can stack on/exceed permanent ones then can a Paladin have a bane/bane weapon? Both rules are in the same paragraph...
Actually Divine Bond makes that specification as well.
These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack.
Interestingly enough that same sentence says that the bonuses from Divine Bond are added to any properties the weapon already has... This really makes me think that they can go over the +10 limit. So long as you don't go over +5, as that's a stated limitation of the effect.
You guys are still not showing anything other then "Well it does not stat we must follow the normal rules for weapons"
These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack.
Seeker, there is the line that says Divine Bond adds to what's already on the weapon. I believe that's what you wanted us to find.
Every rule has something that breaks it. And this is a system. As Zurai very cleverly stated earlier, it seems pretty obvious to me that Divine Bond bypass the rules for magical weapons.
It's a temporary bonus, I don't see the problem with it.
These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack.
And now it's plain writen there. That is unrefutable.
Ah man, I am agreeing with SoSL, and disagreeing with Zurai. ;)
There is nothing written that says Mr.Pally or any other temporary affect can break the rules.
Detect Secret Doors specifically impart the information to you. By saying "you know....." it bypasses the need for the check. That is just an affect of casting the spell.
Endure elements and Tongues assume common sense is in place. As an example the only reason for the fort save are the ill effects.
There is nothing in GMW that even hints at being able to bypass a rule.
IIRC bane does 2d6 and is +2 higher for the purpose of hurting that creature.
Against a non dragon it adds +5 to attack and damage.
Against a dragon it adds +7 to attack and damage, and adds an additional 2d6 of damage.
I think saying its +2 for the purpose of that creature counts as an explicit exception to the rule.
If the weapon could get around the +10 rule that easily I would just get the weapon up as high as I could(using affects such as speed) and then make a wand of GWM that would add a +5. A wand split up 3 or 4 ways cost wise should be affordable, especially if there is a crafter in the party.
These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack.Seeker, there is the line that says Divine Bond adds to what's already on the weapon. I believe that's what you wanted us to find.
You still have not found it. It says they are added to the weapon properties. It does not say you may exceed normal weapon property limits. So the +10 max is still in effect.
Let me ask you a second question, then:
What makes the possibility that greater magic weapon can break the rules different from the fact that detect secret doors can break the rules, or the fact that endure elements breaks the rules, or the fact that tongues breaks the rules?
Nothing save the fact it does not say you may exceed the normal limits. The spell does not allow you to bypass the normal restriction unlike the spells you listed.
Each of those spells allow you to bypass something, and what they bypass is stated . No where in the magic weapon write up does it say " this may exceed to normal +10 limit on magic weapons"
The spell gives you an enhancement, which the magic weapon section says can not exceed a max total of +10. If it allowed that it would state it.
What is the effect of a +5 dragon bane longsword against a dragon?
well +5 to hit and you would deal 2d6+5 extra damage vs dragons.
why do you ask?
more of the same
Well first off, the +10 is not just crafting. It it was you could never add new ablitys or improve a magic weapon ever. The section is clear about a weapon not being able to have bonus exceeding +10 including any enhancement bonus
I have shown you where the rules are located for a weapons max bonus
You guys are still not showing anything other then "Well it does not stat we must follow the normal rules for weapons"
Oddly enough the disintegrate spell does not say it kills me only I am dust so it must mean I can still take actions as it does not say I am dead. Which is the same type of augmenter you guys are using. "The rules do not say to use the normal rules so it must mean it does not use the normal rules."
Sorry unless it stats it is an exception to the rules it follows them
You equivocating, which means your a reaching for strawmen arguements. Try to limit youself to statements that were actually made.
The question is not if being turned to dust means dead as part of the normal rules. The question is if the +10 limit is part of the normal rules, or if it is meant to be a special case.
In the second sentence of the relevant section you quoted, it mentions the market value of the item. Since temporary effects do no increase the market value of an item, that strongly implies that that paragraph is talking about permanent effects. Further, the whole thing is in the section of the book that deals with permenant magic items. That forms the context in which later statements should be interpreted. A good author who wanted to be sure the statement was clear would have put the +10 limit in a separate paragraph to separate it from the current context and/or would have made a statement specifically mentioning temporary effects.
If I take the second to last line of the paragraph in a vacuum as an absolute, I can safely conclude that keen weapon cast on a non-magical sword will fail because "A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus."
On the other hand, the wording of the actual statement is a very strong absolute. Perhaps strong enough to override the context established 2 sentences before.
If it was obviously broken to allow it, I would be more inclined to agree with your interpretation, but from a balance standpoint, it doesn't seem particularly game breaking either way.
So I stand by my statement that it is very unclear if the +10 limit applies temporary effects or not.
Ah man, I am agreeing with SoSL, and disagreeing with Zurai. ;)
Its been an odd few weeks
IIRC bane does 2d6 and is +2 higher for the purpose of hurting that creature.
Against a non dragon it adds +5 to attack and damage.
Against a dragon it adds +7 to attack and damage, and adds an additional 2d6 of damage.I think saying its +2 for the purpose of that creature counts as an explicit exception to the rule.
Here we disagree once more. I would say the +2 would not exceed the +5 limit as it is an enhancement and it does not state it ignore the rules. For a +1 bonus allowing it to go epic is damned cheap. your still getting the 2d6 even if the +2 caps out
damned handy for a +3 longsword/+5 vs dragons though
So I stand by my statement that it is very unclear if the +10 limit applies temporary effects or not.
And I stand by mine. it is very clear unless your trying to make it into a loophole.
So I stand by my statement that it is very unclear if the +10 limit applies temporary effects or not.And I stand by mine. it is very clear unless your trying to make it into a loophole.
So, do you believe that the Keen weapon spell cannot be cast on a non-magical weapon?
"A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus"
We agree to disagree until a clarification is made, and this is the reason a clarification is needed.
I find it strange that they go so far to point out you can't go above +5 with divine bond, and that it's affects do not stack, and that the properties granted by divine bond add onto existing properties. Yet they leave out the sentence regarding going over +10 bonus equivalents.
A clarification would be useful as it would affect GMW, Bane, keen, and divine bond.
I would say the +2 would not exceed the +5 limit as it is an enhancement and it does not state it ignore the rules.
Here is the problem you're having. Spells and abilities do not need to state they are breaking the rules in order to break the rules. Pretty much every single spell in the game breaks the rules; they would be pointless if they didn't. And, yet, only a very small fraction (if any; I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I won't say "none") of spells state that they are breaking the rules explicitly.
D&D is an exception-based ruleset. You take the general rule ("weapons may not exceed a +5 enhancement bonus or +10 total enhancement bonus equivalent"), then apply the more specific rule to that ("A paladin may add +X effective enhancement bonus to his weapon Y times a day"). The specific rule automatically overrides the general rule without needing to explicitly say so. If you require explicit permission to override rules, the system falls completely apart because very few things give that explicit permission, while a great many things are designed to break the rules.
sorry, no It does not over ride a rule unless it states it does. No where in anything you have shown does it say it ignores the basic rule of how much magic a weapon can hold.
Nothing you showed in your examples brakes the rules, they stat just how they effect them.
sorry, no It does not over ride a rule unless it states it does. No where in anything you have shown does it say it ignores the basic rule of how much magic a weapon can hold.
Nothing you showed in your examples brakes the rules, they stat just how they effect them.
I gave you a perfect example. The Keen Edge Spell.
If I take you same strict interpretation of the rules, then Keen Edge cannot be cast on a non-magical weapon because as quoted in the rules "A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus"
Keen Edge gives the Keen special ability to a weapon.
I believe that in the case of spells and effects it is better to assume that they do what they say they can unless there is an exception listed within the spell.
No where in anything you have shown does it say it ignores the basic rule of how much magic a weapon can hold.
Could you at least do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote and responding to that? This quoted statement clearly shows that you didn't bother to read before you responded, because I spent an entire post talking about why this isn't needed.
|
Based on the precedent from 3.5e where anything exceeding a +10 total bonus was considered "epic level" and was vastly more, I'd go with Seeker's interpretation. Yes, I know that the 3.5 limitation doesn't automatically apply, but this strikes me as something that may have changed simply by accident/poor wording rather than as a deliberate design change.
No where in anything you have shown does it say it ignores the basic rule of how much magic a weapon can hold.Could you at least do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote and responding to that? This quoted statement clearly shows that you didn't bother to read before you responded, because I spent an entire post talking about why this isn't needed.
It is needed, and every example you gave spelled out just what it bypasses. That spell does not spell out bypassing the limit so it does not.
There are two things at play here:
Enhancement bonuses and special abilities.
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5.
So a weapon can never have an enhancement bonus above +5. Period.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
Bold is mine. So you can have, at maximum, +5 worth of enhancement bonus and no more than +10 total of enhancement and special abilities, keeping in mind that some special abilities cost more than a +1 and that your weapon must possess a base +1 in order to have additional +1's spent on special abilities (eg., +1 frost longsword is legal, where a frost longsword is not).
Now it seems the paladin rules are causing some confusion.
At 5th level, this spirit grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For every three levels beyond 5th, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +6 at 20th level.
Ok, so paladins have the cool ability to add enhancement bonuses and special abilities to their weapon using divine bond. They can add up to +6 worth to their weapon at level 20. However, since a weapon can never have more than a +5 enhancement bonus and never more than a +10 total worth of enhancement bonuses and special abilities, a paladin can never stat her weapon above +10.
I look at this from one perspective: sure, most paladins at 20th level will likely have a weapon higher than +4, but what the ability does is give the paladin the flexibility to, for a limited time, make her weapon perfectly opposed to whatever she's fighting. So her divine bonded longsword is only a +4 longsword--but when she wants to, she can turn it into something specifically designed to thwart whatever it is she's fighting. That level of flexibility is incredibly powerful.
And that's my 2 cents.
Based on the precedent from 3.5e where anything exceeding a +10 total bonus was considered "epic level" and was vastly more, I'd go with Seeker's interpretation. Yes, I know that the 3.5 limitation doesn't automatically apply, but this strikes me as something that may have changed simply by accident/poor wording rather than as a deliberate design change.
There is no design change. This exact same thing was possible with greater magic weapon in 3.5. The spells are identical in both games, except that Pathfinder's greater magic weapon states that it does not benefit from the enhancement-bonus-penetrating-DR rules.
every example you gave spelled out just what it bypasses
Incorrect. No mention is made in detect secret doors that it bypasses Perception checks. No mention is made in tongues that it bypasses the need to be a Druid to speak and understand Druidic. No mention is made in a Rogue's Weapon Training talent (or the Talents rules) that the Rogue doesn't need +1 BAB to take it.
There are two things at play here:
Enhancement bonuses and special abilities.
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5.So a weapon can never have an enhancement bonus above +5. Period.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.Bold is mine. So you can have, at maximum, +5 worth of enhancement bonus and no more than +10 total of enhancement and special abilities, keeping in mind that some special abilities cost more than a +1 and that your weapon must possess a base +1 in order to have additional +1's spent on special abilities (eg., +1 frost longsword is legal, where a frost longsword is not).
Now it seems the paladin rules are causing some confusion.
At 5th level, this spirit grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For every three levels beyond 5th, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +6 at 20th level.Ok, so paladins have the cool ability to add enhancement bonuses and special abilities to their weapon using divine bond. They can add up to +6 worth to their weapon at level 20. However, since a weapon can never have more than a +5 enhancement bonus and never more than a +10 total worth of enhancement bonuses and special abilities, a paladin can never stat her weapon above +10.
I look at this from one perspective: sure, most paladins at 20th level will likely have a weapon higher than +4, but what the ability does is give the paladin the flexibility to, for a limited time, make her weapon perfectly opposed...
The problem with that interpretation is thus.
First.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
That implies that the entire paragraph is about permanent special abilities. The paladin ability does not alter the market value of the item.
Second.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
If you take the same interpretation of this line, then spells that add special abilities to non-magical weapons automatically fail.
Third.
The first type of bond allows the paladin to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level. When called, the spirit causes the weapon to shed light as a torch. At 5th level, this spirit grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For every three levels beyond 5th, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +6 at 20th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5, or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, and speed. Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property's cost (see Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities). These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. The bonus and properties granted by the spirit are determined when the spirit is called and cannot be changed until the spirit is called again. The celestial spirit imparts no bonuses if the weapon is held by anyone other than the paladin but resumes giving bonuses if returned to the paladin. These bonuses apply to only one end of a double weapon. A paladin can use this ability once per day at 5th level, and one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 5th, to a total of four times per day at 17th level.
A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat. All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.Weapons come in two basic categories: melee and ranged. Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case, their enhancement bonuses apply to both melee and ranged attacks.
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
So the paladin ability has EVERYTHING from the weapon section duplicated except for the part on the +10 bonus limit. Why?
I look at this from one perspective
So Divine Bond (weapon spirit) is intentionally designed to force the paladin to make a choice between power and versatility, while Divine Bond (special mount) has no such choice? I cannot accept that.
Under this interpretation (which, again, breaks the exception-based design foundation of D&D and Pathfinder), Paladins are actively punished for having weapons above +4 enchantment, because it takes away their ability to use one of their signature powers. It seriously cripples the Divine Bond ability by forcing Paladins to either not use the ability at all or use a dramatically sub-par weapon.
I'll note that the iconic paladin weapon, the Holy Avenger, is almost useless to a Divine Bond (weapon) paladin, as it's a +7 equivalent. That's just plain wrong.
Look boys, it seems like you'll argue this until the cows come home and then with the errata, if it ever came like Seeker or Joshua have suggested. We're approaching draw by threefold repetition.
Wow, you asked for someone from paizo to give their take of the rules...then you tell em they are wrong based on it goes against your loophole??
Thanks for weighing in here Joshua. Is that gonna be the official take for PFS? just wondering here.
Wow, you asked for someone from paizo to give their take of the rules...then you tell em they are wrong based on it goes against your loophole??
Thanks for weighing in here Joshua. Is that gonna be the official take for PFS? just wondering here.
I didn't say he was wrong, I just asked why it was written they way it was.
Wow, you asked for someone from paizo to give their take of the rules...then you tell em they are wrong based on it goes against your loophole??
Please stop putting words into my mouth. It's getting to be a pandemic around here. I never asked for Paizo to comment on this, so don't act like you're some holier-than-thou preacher judging me for disagreeing with a Paizo-ite who has explicitly said in the past that he does not make rulings for the game in the general case when I never asked for Paizo intervention.
I mean no offense to Mr. Frost with that. I disagree with his interpretation for reasons I've already stated. There's nothing personal in it; he has, however, repeatedly asked people not to take his rulings as official except in the context of PFS, and even then only until an official rules update is published.
Zurai, I have no ideal just what your issue is with me, but I shall be ignoring you from now on. Your way to thin skinned man.
That's the problem with public declarations of ignoring someone - either you do and then look like a dick or you continue to respond and then look like a prat.
Does anyone have anything new to say on this issue?
Zurai, I have no ideal just what your issue is with me, but I shall be ignoring you from now on. Your way to thin skinned man.
If you would start discussing what has been said instead of what you make up and attribute to other people, no one would have any issues with you. People -- I'm not the only one that you've done this to and gotten a reaction out of -- do not appreciate being lied about to their face.
That's the problem with public declarations of ignoring someone - either you do and then look like a dick or you continue to respond and then look like a prat.
Does anyone have anything new to say on this issue?
He is not the first poster I no longer respond to. He really needs to not take stuff as an attack when it is not. My very being seems to offend him on some level, so I am not sure why he even responds to my posts.
He is not the first poster I no longer respond to. He really needs to not take stuff as an attack when it is not. My very being seems to offend him on some level, so I am not sure why he even responds to my posts.
I'm perfectly calm, for the record. You've managed to anger me precisely once in the years I've posted here. Perhaps it is you who are too thin-skinned if you think I'm getting upset at you?
Zurai, I have no ideal just what your issue is with me, but I shall be ignoring you from now on. Your way to thin skinned man.
That was pretty harsh, man.
Anyways, thank you Josh. I did ask for a Paizo opinion, and I appreciate it. I do think Zurai and Charender have valid points and am intrigue for a response.
I agree with Zurai. It really sounds like the Paladin's divine weapon ability is good for little more than saving gold on his primary weapon (because he may as well just be running around with a +4 weapon by level 20). It's a lot of gold, sure, but it's still doing little more than saving you money. I'm disappointed that the official Paizo clarification seems to reinforce what I had suspected before... that a Paladin is better off choosing a special mount. Nonetheless, thank you for stepping in and weighing in, Joshua. It's always appreciated.
|
|
Mmm... from reading the Divine Bond section, I've come to the following conclusion.
First, you can *either* use the bonus to raise the weapon to a +5, as per "These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5" Or!
"they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, and speed"
Not any other weapon abilities. Since this is a special ability of a class, unless it specifies that it is limited by the maximum enchantment bonus *which it doesn't*, I assume that it can stack on top of whatever bonuses your weapon already has.
Especially since the entry says "These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack."
It seems pretty clear to me. The entry about the bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, seems to me to strongly imply that that this is an overriding line of text, negating what would otherwise limit the addition of properties to a weapon, such as a +10 enchantment limit.
Meh. When I play a paladin, I tend to have multiple weapons. Maybe you could have a primary weapon and a buffed secondary weapon? Besides, there have been more than a few situations where large mounts are just flat out unusable -- like a typical narrow dungeon crawl. At least the weapon buff can be used in those situations fairly effectively.
The mount is clearly the best choice for overall usability. But I think the weapon buff isn't crap either.
|
Oooo, the Holy Avenger. Good point Zurai!
I have a few comments to possibly steer this in a more positive direction! (i hope!)
What if Divine Bond is for people who want to spend their gold on other things (i.e. armor, wondrous items, rings of greater invisibility after taking rogue levels...)?
Or for the mythical and deadly two weapon fighting paladin (a personal favorite of mine) who wields the already mythical Holy Avenger in one hand and his Light Mace in the other (for those pesky skeletons-of-doom!).
Or for the less mythical TWF Sword and Board guy who doesn't want to spend money pumping up the spikes on his +1 Spiked Bashing Small Mithral Shield? (which I would certainly take full advantage of if i were level 20 and had the Holy Avenger and had been using this build!)
THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES!!!!
on a side note, if someone would quote me and answer, if you use a longsword and a large spiked shield with TWF, do you take a -4 on both since IIRC the Large spiked shield is a one handed category weapon?
The issue you guys seem to have is it talks about pricing, well no kidding it is the magic item section. Still +10 is the hard limit, says so in that very section. It does not matter where the enhancement comes from +10 is as high as it stacks. It limits you to +5 pure enhancement and a total of +10 for total modifier.
Unless it states it bypasses normal enhancement limits for magic weapons there is nothing unclear about it.
Charender, on keen edge spell thats a bit tricky. Ya see the spell and the ability share a close name and the same effect, however so does improved crit.
The spell does not labeled the effect as an enhancement, where as the keen ablity is labeled as an enhancement.
so the keen edge spell is not bound by the keen ablitys limits as they are not the same thing, keen being a weapon ablity can only be added to a +1 weapon. The spell keen edge while similar(so is improved crit} is not the same thing.
Now I think it should be labeled as an enhancement but for some reason is not, most likely so it could stack without issue
on a side note, if someone would quote me and answer, if you use a longsword and a large spiked shield with TWF, do you take a -4 on both since IIRC the Large spiked shield is a one handed category weapon?
Page 152, a heavy shield is one handed for a bash, the spike does not really change the size, just the effective size. So yeah longsword, heavy spiked shield would be -4/-4 with twf if ya attacked and bashed. If ya have shield mastery it would be -4/-0 for the bash
The issue you guys seem to have is it talks about pricing, well no kidding it is the magic item section. Still +10 is the hard limit, says so in that very section. It does not matter where the enhancement comes from +10 is as high as it stacks. It limits you to +5 pure enhancement and a total of +10 for total modifier.
Unless it states it bypasses normal enhancement limits for magic weapons there is nothing unclear about it.
Charender, on keen edge spell thats a bit tricky. Ya see the spell and the ability share a close name and the same effect, however so does improved crit.
The spell does not labeled the effect as an enhancement, where as the keen ablity is labeled as an enhancement.
so the keen edge spell is not bound by the keen ablitys limits as they are not the same thing, keen being a weapon ablity can only be added to a +1 weapon. The spell keen edge while similar(so is improved crit} is not the same thing.
Now I think it should be labeled as an enhancement but for some reason is not, most likely so it could stack without issue
Yeah, I noticed that as well when I looked at the detailed spell description. Notice I did not mention Keen specifically in my recent posts.
That still doesn't explain why the writers felt the need to duplicate every thing from the magic weapon section in the paladin ability description except the +10 limit. I find it very odd that they would duplicate the +5 limit, the same abilities cannot be stacked, and that the weapon must have at least a +1 bonus to have special abilities, but then they leave out the +10 limit.
eh the +10 max is basic magic info, maybe they thought the +5 was clear enough it followed the normal rules.
But not repeating info ya gonna see when ya look up the powers and how magic weapons work is not the same as saying "this ignores the normal rules for magic weapons" Just like it's not needed to reprint the finer issues with being dead every time they cover something that kills you.
It's one of those things that if it works different from normal they would state that it did.
They may decide that it does, but as of now it does not say it ignores the standard rules, so it does not. But if ya want to allow it in your game no one will come stop ya or anything...sept the ninja's
To be clear, I didn't weigh in with my "opinion."
I weighed in with both the letter and the intent of the rule. Case closed.
Now however you want to run it in *your* game is entirely up to you, of course. This is how it works in the RAW and how it will work in PFS. :-)
To be clear, I didn't weigh in with my "opinion."
I weighed in with both the letter and the intent of the rule. Case closed.
Hurray, clarity!
Yeah, man that is what he said.
Note I am not being snarky here or anything,that is just what he said