This isn't Warcraft. The end cap of Level 20 does not define the norm of the game. Most campaigns terminate well before the level 15 mark. PFS characters retire at level 12. So again for the vast majority of paladin players this is not an issue.
If nothing matters after level 12, then why are there rules for level 20?
If you don't care about the rules being consistent at levels above 12, then don't reply to threads concerning that. It clearly doesn't involve you.
If even one player is affected by this, then it is a rules issue, and this is the rules forum. There is no valid reason to try and suppress the question.
EDIT: Although for the record, the speed enchantment is indeed a bad example. Just replace speed with other single +3 to +5 equivalent enchantment. The actual enchantment doesn't matter as long as it does apply to the arrow.
EDIT: Although for the record, the speed enchantment is indeed a bad example. Just replace speed with other single +3 to +5 equivalent enchantment. The actual enchantment doesn't matter as long as it does apply to the arrow.
There's actually a lack of high plus-equivalent enchantments for ranged weapons. Aside from Speed and Brilliant energy, they're all +2 or lower.
Regardless, no one who is arguing it can never go above +10 (including the devs) has said what would happen if you shot a +1 holy axiomatic evil-outsider-bane brilliant energy arrow from a +5 flaming burst icy burst chaotic-outsider-bane longbow. By my rules, the arrow would be an effective +5 flaming burst, icy burst, holy, axiomatic evil-or-chaotic-outsider-bane brilliant energy weapon. That's a +18 (+19 if you let the banes stack, which I wouldn't). And legal per "Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."
::fires a brilliant-energy arrow for +7 +6d6 +1d6 fire +1d6 frost +2d10 fire on crit +2d10 frost on crit damage::
EDIT: Although for the record, the speed enchantment is indeed a bad example. Just replace speed with other single +3 to +5 equivalent enchantment. The actual enchantment doesn't matter as long as it does apply to the arrow.There's actually a lack of high plus-equivalent enchantments for ranged weapons. Aside from Speed and Brilliant energy, they're all +2 or lower.
Regardless, no one who is arguing it can never go above +10 (including the devs) has said what would happen if you shot a +1 holy axiomatic evil-outsider-bane brilliant energy arrow from a +5 flaming burst icy burst chaotic-outsider-bane longbow. By my rules, the arrow would be an effective +5 flaming burst, icy burst, holy, axiomatic evil-or-chaotic-outsider-bane brilliant energy weapon. That's a +18 (+19 if you let the banes stack, which I wouldn't). And legal per "Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."
::fires a brilliant-energy arrow for +7 +6d6 +1d6 fire +1d6 frost +2d10 fire on crit +2d10 frost on crit damage::
Your rules directly contradict the actual rules:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
As you say, that specific arrow is a +18 equivalent. That's greater than +10 and, thus, not allowed. There exists exactly no method to determine exactly which enchantments transfer, however, and that IS a problem.
The reason for the limitation to +10 is simple...so casters don't have an unbreakable advantage over non-magical characters. The cleric with the +1/+9 weapon casting GMW should not have an advantage over the warriors with +5/+5 weapons.
As for arrows, they are CONSUMABLE RESOURCES. If you want to make up a bunch of +10 arrows, yeah, you'll do incredible damage...and money is just flying out of your pocket. Furthermore, it's a trick anybody can use, and hence there are no balance questions.
Arrows have always stacked that way.
As for the +1/+8 weapon with GMW on it...yes, it'd improve to +2, and that's all.
As someone else mentioned, the biggest advantage of having these abilities to add things to a weapon is you don't need an expensive weapon! The Paladin can make do with a +5 adamantine sword, saving himself 150,000 gp, which can buy a WHOLE lot of other stuff. The fighter, on the other hand, has to get the uber sword. Ouch.
==Aelryinth
As for the +1/+8 weapon with GMW on it...yes, it'd improve to +2, and that's all.
This is not a valid result of the spell as written. As written, greater magic weapon improves the enhancement bonus to a specific value determined by caster level; assuming it's cast at CL 20, that value is +5. There is no scale, no steps along the way where you can get off early. There's also no support for it failing to function at all.
As for the +1/+8 weapon with GMW on it...yes, it'd improve to +2, and that's all.This is not a valid result of the spell as written. As written, greater magic weapon improves the enhancement bonus to a specific value determined by caster level; assuming it's cast at CL 20, that value is +5. There is no scale, no steps along the way where you can get off early. There's also no support for it failing to function at all.
That's like saying you can't shoot out a less effective spell if you want to.
If the most you can put into something is +2, then +2 is all that goes in, and the rest is wasted. There's no "MUST" be +5. IT can't break the wall, so it goes right up to it and stops. It conveys +2 just as easily as +5, it'll simply do the +5 if there's no restrictions.
==Aelryinth
There's no "MUST" be +5.
Actually, yes, there is. A CL 20 greater magic weapon can only give a weapon a +5 enhancement bonus. You could choose to cast it at a lower caster level to reduce the enhancement bonus, but if you do cast it at CL 20, +5 is the only valid result.
Claiming otherwise is as erroneous as claiming that you can create a +2 enhancement bonus to Constitution by casting bear's endurance or allow 3rd level spells through a globe of invulnerability. There's a very clear, precise method for resolving spell effects: read the spell, then do what it says, taking care not to do anything it doesn't say to do.
Greater magic weapon says "This spell functions like magic weapon [Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.], except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5)."
There's no options there. You don't get to choose anything other than the target. Thus, when you cast a CL 20 greater magic weapon, you choose the target weapon and that weapon gains a +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Period, end of story -- except that the interaction between a greater magic weapon spell and a weapon with +6 or more non-enhancement bonus equivalent enchantments is completely undefined.
What I'm arguing is that it's not a major issue as it wouldn't come up. that often and not everyone tries to cheese +9 worth of weapon enchants on a +10 capable weapon. Nor for that matter is a +10 weapon an automatic assumption even at that level. It's an extreme example, not a common one.
And what I'm saying is: SO WHAT? I get that you don't give a damn. I don't get why you seem so dead-set on never getting this rules hole resolved. If it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter if it's resolved, either, does it?
|
Kinda got to agree.
Extreme examples are worth answering because a lot of min/maxers *like myself) like to push concepts to the extreme. It comes up frequently in those circles, even if you never see it in the circles you happen to frequent.
It's like a guy sitting at a table, talking about how it doesn't matter whether this engine barely outperforms that engine or not. It might not matter to you, but to the fellows building the race car, it's pretty important.
And, actually, this exact problem has caused me to choose not to play archers, or paladins because I don't want to deal with the inevitable headache and argument.
So, hey, I'm affected in a pretty significant manner by it. It matters to me. Thus, it's worth a definitive answer and subsequent errata.
In the meantime, for weapons that exceed the normal limitations of +10, I suggest you start with the most powerful ability or tier of abilities, and proceed downward until you run dry.
Power of abilities can be determined by their enhancement bonus cost, and when you run into multiple abilities of the same tier, a simple die roll can give you an answer.
Then write it down, so you don't have to redo it for every arrow you fire :/
On a side note, while it is possible for a paladin to buy a +4 weapon and use his bond to increase the weapon power up to +10, the paladin IS still losing out on something.
He can only apply divine bond for 1 minute/level, which means he's back down to a +4 weapon after just a couple minutes. If he wants to have staying power, he has to buy the +10 weapon, and let his bond sit unused as a *backup* in case something happens to his weapon. Lame.
I'm not accepting this ruling from anyone at Paizo. The game designers should not hand out abilities that become useless once a character reaches the highest levels and obtains a quality weapon.
I will allow abilities like Divine Bond to stack with any other enhancements and abilities to temporarily raise the overall bonuses above +10. Otherwise, they should not build class special ability mechanics around adding bonuses. That means that a lvl 20 paladin or arcane duelist with a +5 vorpal weapon in essence loses one of their best special abilities. A class should not lose special abilities because of poor game design. Period.
So I'm going to assume that classes that can add abilities to weapons can exceed the +10 overall bonus for a certain amount of time per day. Punishing players for game designer choices is poor decision making for a rules judge. I won't be one of those rule judges that does his best to punish players in the name of balance by taking away their special abilities.
Maybe we just have different notions of the game. I don't think that divine bond becomes useless or the player is being punished, just because he might make choices that limites his class abilities.
I don't think having a +10 worth magic weapon is a basic situation for any paladin. While they would be better off being able to stack divine bond on top of it, the are still getting a lot out of their class ability by buying a +5 or +6 worth weapon, adding on divine bond, a spending the insane amount of gold they save on other magic items.
If they get into the situation where the can't use their ability, it is not due to poor game design, it is due to making certain choices (whether by the player or the GM) for your character.
Following the rules in this regard, is not punishing the players. It just sets a framework for whenever a certain ability is useful or not, which is exactly what the rules are meant to. There a plenty of alternatives to making your class ability obsolete, it is your choice...
It's pretty simple for me. If some lvl 20 paladin or arcane duelist happens to come upon a +5 Vorpal Weapon, I'm not taking away their special ability because of it.
It will stack above +10 for a little time every day, as it should. A poorly designed mechanic should not take away a special ability.
I'm not accepting this ruling from anyone at Paizo. The game designers should not hand out abilities that become useless once a character reaches the highest levels and...
If you think that +10 weapons should be the norm at the upper levels, well that's your style of game. I know it wasn't the style at Living City which had characters up to 20th level in play when the campaign closed down.
The argument that the ability wasn't built for Monty Haul games ergo it's useless won't buy much truck here.
Nowhere in my post did I say +10 weapons are the norm.
But if a 20th lvl plus character lays hands on a sword +5 vorpal weapon or a +5 human bane speed sword, I'm allowing them to go above +10 total bonus for a small amount of time per day.
I am not taking away a special ability that is an important part of a class. It's poor game design to incorporate a rule where a special ability can be denied, when other classes do not suffer the same type of limitation. I won't be doing that to any player of mine.
Pretty simple. It has very little to do with being "Monty Haul" or the like. And everything to do with making sure players have full access to every special ability at their disposal. And managing to obtain a nice weapon, or even worse, having spent a huge amount of gold on a nice weapon is not going to limit the use of their special ability.
Not something I will be doing. If a class feature is eliminated because of a game design choice interferes with another ruling, then it was a poor game design choice. I'd rather let my player use his special ability on his favorite sword he earned by playing a character to lvl 20 and managing to obtain it through some great adventure than tell that player "Sorry, can't go above +10 total bonus. Your special ability is useless using your favorite sword you spent 20 lvls and months of your time earning. Sorry, balance is what is most important."
Not something I'll do. Special abilities come first. If Paizo wants to balance them, then do so before they are released.
I see why this has become a strange issue. Apparently players are creating +1 vorpal speed weapons and then casting GMW to give it an enhancement bonus to +5.
Since I was under the impression that the bonus abilities maxed at +5 as well, you couldn't stack multiple bonus abilities and cheese with the Greater Magic Weapon.
I think I'll make sure to house rule that a maximum +5 bonus ability and +5 enhancement on a given weapon. Then it won't be much of an issue. I'll keep allowing the classes that can stack abilities above +5 to continue to stack them on since it is their special ability. Only they can do it.
Things seem to get too strange if you allow combinations like +1 vorpal speed swords. I want to keep my rules simple and consistent.
On a side note, while it is possible for a paladin to buy a +4 weapon and use his bond to increase the weapon power up to +10, the paladin IS still losing out on something.He can only apply divine bond for 1 minute/level, which means he's back down to a +4 weapon after just a couple minutes. If he wants to have staying power, he has to buy the +10 weapon, and let his bond sit unused as a *backup* in case something happens to his weapon. Lame.
Well I wouldn't entirely call 20 minutes four times a day, a couple of minutes. It is going to at least last him through 4 encounters a day, possibly more if they are at an interval of less than 20 minutes apart.
If he is in more encounters, he could cast GMW to boost his weapon.And in those 80 minutes a day, he is going to have a weapon that is better than the +10 weapon he could have bought. He can pick and choose which abilities he needs for the enemy in question.
It's pretty simple for me. If some lvl 20 paladin or arcane duelist happens to come upon a +5 Vorpal Weapon, I'm not taking away their special ability because of it.It will stack above +10 for a little time every day, as it should. A poorly designed mechanic should not take away a special ability.
The fact that you are able create a circumstance where an ability is redundant, does make it a poorly designed mechanic.
Do you make all dungeons and places where an encounter takes place, accessible for mounted combat? Otherwise you are taking away the use of mounts for paladins.Do you make every place subject to total darkness? Otherwise you limit the use of characters with the darkvision special ability.
If a druid comes across a +5 heavy fortification leather armor, do you allow them to use it in wildshape? Otherwise you making them choose between found equipment and an important class ability.
There is a large difference between abilities being situational and poor game design. As for the game design, they could have included a comment on how to stack (or choose between) enhancements with bow/arrows and GMW. That way it would have been more explanatory. But that is the only thing the game design is lacking.
The game isn't poorly designed just because you don't agree with the errata. The game is actually well designed because the errata relates to some balancing concerns raised by adding a new ability (divine bond) into the pre-existing framework.
If you like to play with a +16 or +20 weapon, just do it, I won't try to discourage you. Rules should be ignored to any degree that suits the GM and players, but please don't make the claim that the system doesn't work, without relating to the opposing views posted in this thread.
Editing for politeness' sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Although for the record, the speed enchantment is indeed a bad example. Just replace speed with other single +3 to +5 equivalent enchantment. The actual enchantment doesn't matter as long as it does apply to the arrow.There's actually a lack of high plus-equivalent enchantments for ranged weapons. Aside from Speed and Brilliant energy, they're all +2 or lower.
Regardless, no one who is arguing it can never go above +10 (including the devs) has said what would happen if you shot a +1 holy axiomatic evil-outsider-bane brilliant energy arrow from a +5 flaming burst icy burst chaotic-outsider-bane longbow. By my rules, the arrow would be an effective +5 flaming burst, icy burst, holy, axiomatic evil-or-chaotic-outsider-bane brilliant energy weapon. That's a +18 (+19 if you let the banes stack, which I wouldn't). And legal per "Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."
::fires a brilliant-energy arrow for +7 +6d6 +1d6 fire +1d6 frost +2d10 fire on crit +2d10 frost on crit damage::
Your rules directly contradict the actual rules:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.As you say, that specific arrow is a +18 equivalent. That's greater than +10 and, thus, not allowed. There exists exactly no method to determine exactly which enchantments transfer, however, and that IS a problem.
They contradict one set of rules and follow another set, which I quoted. It is a +5 flaming burst, icy burst, holy, axiomatic evil-or-chaotic-outsider-bane brilliant energy arrow. If you choose to say that half those properties stop functioning because they create too much magical interference and go over +10, that's a perfectly reasonable application of the rule you quoted... but as you said, there's no clear rule on how to determine which ones stop, and thus is a rule that's entirely up to each GM to house rule.
My house rule is "ignore the part of the rule that doesn't make sense." It's just as valid a house rule as "the strongest abilities apply, until the +10 is full", "the archer gets to choose when he shoots it", and "roll randomly for each property", because once you're creating a house rule for a situation, it doesn't matter what RAW says.
I do accept your response of "there are no rules" as a valid answer to "what would happen if" - but that means RAW is not logical, which creates problems for a Society game (for example). If I built an 11th level paladin that had a +4-equivalent bow, a quiver of +4-equivalent arrows, weapon bond +3, and was casting GMW for +3, I would expect to have a consistant set of rules at each table I played at. A rule which explicitly or implicitly says "The GM must make a house rule that conforms to this in some manner" is a bad rule. Either the RAW says what to do, or it's a GM call what to do - RAW that the GM has to make a call within certain parameters isn't useful.
(Edit: Sorry if this got ranty or doesn't make sense - I'm still waking up, and probably shouldn't be posting yet)
There's no "MUST" be +5.Actually, yes, there is. A CL 20 greater magic weapon can only give a weapon a +5 enhancement bonus. You could choose to cast it at a lower caster level to reduce the enhancement bonus, but if you do cast it at CL 20, +5 is the only valid result.
Claiming otherwise is as erroneous as claiming that you can create a +2 enhancement bonus to Constitution by casting bear's endurance or allow 3rd level spells through a globe of invulnerability. There's a very clear, precise method for resolving spell effects: read the spell, then do what it says, taking care not to do anything it doesn't say to do.
Greater magic weapon says "This spell functions like magic weapon [Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.], except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5)."
There's no options there. You don't get to choose anything other than the target. Thus, when you cast a CL 20 greater magic weapon, you choose the target weapon and that weapon gains a +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Period, end of story -- except that the interaction between a greater magic weapon spell and a weapon with +6 or more non-enhancement bonus equivalent enchantments is completely undefined.
Nah, Zurai, you're trying to directly tie a non-mutable fixed benefit to something that clearly elevates with caster level. The same way a level 10 mage can toss a 5dice fireball and still keep the level 10 caster level, a level 20 caster can throw out a GMW and it'll last for 20 hours and give +2. You can always choose a spell to be LESS powerful if it scales, and GMW clearly does. Bear's Endurance does not.
===Aelryinth
The same way a level 10 mage can toss a 5dice fireball and still keep the level 10 caster level
Please cite the rule that says you can do this. You can opt to decrease the caster level, and you can choose any option the spell explicitly gives you (such as the choice of element to protect against for the various elemental resistance spells), but as far as I know there is no "scale however you want but leave the caster level at maximum" rule.
On a side note, while it is possible for a paladin to buy a +4 weapon and use his bond to increase the weapon power up to +10, the paladin IS still losing out on something.He can only apply divine bond for 1 minute/level, which means he's back down to a +4 weapon after just a couple minutes. If he wants to have staying power, he has to buy the +10 weapon, and let his bond sit unused as a *backup* in case something happens to his weapon. Lame.
Well I wouldn't entirely call 20 minutes four times a day, a couple of minutes. It is going to at least last him through 4 encounters a day, possibly more if they are at an interval of less than 20 minutes apart.
If he is in more encounters, he could cast GMW to boost his weapon.And in those 80 minutes a day, he is going to have a weapon that is better than the +10 weapon he could have bought. He can pick and choose which abilities he needs for the enemy in question.
It's pretty simple for me. If some lvl 20 paladin or arcane duelist happens to come upon a +5 Vorpal Weapon, I'm not taking away their special ability because of it.It will stack above +10 for a little time every day, as it should. A poorly designed mechanic should not take away a special ability.
The fact that you are able create a circumstance where an ability is redundant, does make it a poorly designed mechanic.
Do you make all dungeons and places where an encounter takes place, accessible for mounted combat? Otherwise you are taking away the use of mounts for paladins.
Do you make every place subject to total darkness? Otherwise you limit the use of characters with the darkvision special ability.
If a druid comes across a +5 heavy fortification leather armor, do you allow them to use it in wildshape? Otherwise you making them choose between found equipment and an important class ability.There is a large difference between abilities being situational and poor game design. As for the game design, they could have...
It is poor game design.
In neither of the above cases are either darkvision or wildeshape taken away. There are clear rules as to what happens when you wildshape. It doesn't matter if it is regular leather armor or +5 heavy fortification leather armor. The rules were not written for balance, but to properly simulate the ability. It seems strange that armor would be active while a druid is shapechanged into an animal when the armor is absorbed into the new form. I am all for rules that do a good job of simulating how an ability should work even if it limits the players.
Darkvision is exactly the same. The rules are clearly spelled out. It is situationally useful and does not get taken away if say True Seeing or Invisibility spell are active. It always works unless a spell specifically states it blocks darkvision.
Whereas as the Divine Bond mechanic was created with the idea that the Paladin can infuse his weapon with holy energy from his god. The mechanic they used was to add certain enhancements rated by the + bonus of the ability. If due to balance reasons they put an artificial limit on the use of this special ability, in fact the special ability has diminishing returns the higher level the paladin gets, that is a poorly designed mechanic.
A special ability that becomes better as you level should stay better, not suffer from diminishing returns due to the fact that you are getting a better weapon. Fights usually require the use of one weapon. The paladin has a special ability that allows him to infuse his weapon with holy energy. He should be able to use it.
And yes, I do in general allow a paladin that chooses a mount to use it where he wishes. I use the rules for large creatures if it is squeezing. I allow him to ride it in dungeons and anywhere he can move it past. I allow him to move around a room and use his mount. Why wouldn't I?
I don't limit a class from using their special abilities. I use the rules for the environment and play them out. If the environment makes it more difficult, then it's more difficult. But it isn't taken away.
I don't think mechanics that interfere with other rules or that have diminishing returns as a player gets better due to the interference are well-designed. I won't punish my player because of a poorly designed mechanic.
And if Paizo has supported a ruling that causes a major paladin special ability like Divine Bond or a major arcane duelist special ability like bladethirst to have diminishing returns as they level, I think they made a mistake. And I think they need to change how such mechanics work in the future so as not to interfere with a very important special ability in the future. Not good game design.
I tell you from experience most of the paladins I have run look forward to divine bond. It's one of their major combat abilities. It is also one of their favorite flavor abilities. Imagining their paladin infusing his weapon, usually a sword, with the power of his god makes the player enjoy the character more. If I told my player he couldn't do that with his best weapon, he would be a bit perturbed and unhappy. It would damage his enjoyment of his character.
Something I won't do. Even I as a DM think it's pretty cool that a paladin can infuse his weapon with holy energy. I want him to keep on doing it, even if he gets a +5 vorpal weapon someday. That only makes it that much cooler.
I'm all about cool for my story (as a DM I am the main storyteller) and balance is pretty far down my list of concerns.