| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why. I would think any reasonable person reading the text cover to cover could easily spot this.
Only if they completely and utterly ignore context. The section that declares a weapon must have a +1 enhancement bonus first before it can add any special properties is in the section that talks about magic weapons with +X bonuses. As follows:
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, you can see from the two bold sections (my emphasis) that to have a magical enhancement bonus a weapon must first be masterwork - hence it is making clear that 'masterwork bonus' and 'enhancement bonus' are distinct and separate properties within the context of magical weapons, and that a masterwork bonus is NOT considered an enhancement bonus for the purposes of adding special properties to magical weapons. To have a special property, it must have a +1 magical enhancement bonus. If it only needed to be masterwork, it would say so, as this section refers to masterwork as distinct from having a +1 enhancement bonus.
This is nothing to do with RAI and RAW. The RAW makes clear by inference in this section that masterwork and possessing an enhancement bonus are not the same thing.
"Oh, I need a +1 enhancement bonus. Masterwork confers that but the magical enhancement also provides a bonus to damage. Well, I'm not really too concerned about damage because the class I'm playing really isn't about damage and masterwork is 1,700 gp cheaper so I'll just stick with masterwork and spend my gold pieces on those wands I've been wanting." This is a perfectly sound conversation I could see someone debating within themselves.
Only if they never read the rules in context, or were desperate to sidestep them any way possible, possibly by fast-talking their DM into house-ruling something that the actual rules preclude.
Is it bad because the pieces of text are far apart and people might 'forget' and default to the enhancement bonus listed in the magic items chapter? This is lawyering? I simply see it as using the text provided. Look in my thread but I show that the dev's clearly were thinking about these two interacting but they don't strike masterwork as an option in how that enhancement bonus is gained. Why not?
No, it's pretty clear that for magic weapons enhancement bonus and masterwork are two seperate properties, it even refers to 'masterowrk bonus' not stacking with 'enhancement bonus', so they must be two separate things. The section quoted above makes this glaringly obvious.
I seriously can't believe someone is trying to argue this point. I think he is just !@#$ing with you guys. LOL, no way he thinks his point is legitimate.
Will a 2-handed Agile weapon add 1.5 damage? Otherwise what makes a Elven curved Blade that much better than a rapier... other than 2 points of damage and losing the shield bonus
No, because that rule is for the Str bonus only. However, you still get the benefit for using a two-handed weapon and Power Attack at the same time! :)
EDIT: Bucklers work with Elven Curved Blades for that missing shield bonus.
EDIT 2: Also rapier has this in it's description: "You can't wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage."
Will a 2-handed Agile weapon add 1.5 damage?
Nope, this is specifically excluded.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
EDIT: Bucklers work with Elven Curved Blades for that missing shield bonus.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is incorrect. ECB is a two-handed weapon. Bucklers don't grant you their AC bonus when you wield a two-handed weapon, and you also take a -1 to hit.
Might just be me, but I'm not seeing where it says you can't use bucklers and two-handers.
The part where you lose the shield bonus for using the weapon that round may be what you're thinking of.
No, because that rule is for the Str bonus only. However, you still get the benefit for using a two-handed weapon and Power Attack at the same time! :)
I get the power attack, but isn't the whole point to dump strength? Oh I see the Elven Barbarian will power attack while raging...makes sense
It's better than never having a shield bonus, and I swear there is a way around that somewhere. Maybe a fighter archetype or a feat...
EDIT: Ugh, it's the Thunderstriker Archetype's 19th level ability. That just sucks.
I get the power attack, but isn't the whole point to dump strength? Oh I see the Elven Barbarian will power attack while raging...makes sense
One of my group's still remembers my halfling paladin fondly. Trust me, putting a 13 in Str(or 11 and a +2 from racial modifiers) is worth it.
Also, dumping Strength isn't a good idea. Two-handed weapons plus armor and gear, will add up in weight eventually...
Azten: The main time a person using a 2handed weapon needs a shield bonus is while flat-footed.
A Heavy Shield can help while flat-footed. Just drop it as a move action during your first active round.
Alternately, if you want to take a -1attack penalty you can keep a buckler on.
- Gauss
Also, dumping Strength isn't a good idea. Two-handed weapons plus armor and gear, will add up in weight eventually...
Most extra gear is a waste. I usually get by with mithril xxx armor and a few weapons. huts and food can be created pretty easily...or stuck in a wagon. I love dex based fighters for the higher saves
Deyvantius:
Mithral Breastplate (15lbs)
Greatsword (8lbs)
Longbow+20arrows (6lbs)
Dagger (1lb)
Explorer's outfit (8lbs)
Waterskin (4lbs)
4days Rations (4lbs) (Note: I disagree with your statement about creating food. That is a third level spell.)
Backpack (2lbs) (Need something to carry all that stuff in that doesnt occupy your hands.)
Total: 48lbs. IE: 13strength minimum to keep full speed.
That does not include light sources or several other miscellaneous items I usually consider necessary to adventuring.
Azten's point is valid.
Of course, with a Handy Haversack 10lbs gets exchanged for 5lbs. But this only drops the strength requirement down to 12.
- Gauss
Thank you, Gauss.
Actually, TWF increases your chance of hitting.yes but it takes -2 to your attack rolls and thats the best case senario. i guess i have more of a problem with the hindeances on movement because as a rogue i like to flank.
Against all but the most high AC targets (those you would normally only hit on an 18+ roll) the extra attack(s) increases the odds of you connecting over the course of the round, is what I think jiggy meant.
Deyvantius:
Mithral Breastplate (15lbs)
Greatsword (8lbs)
Longbow+20arrows (6lbs)
Dagger (1lb)
Explorer's outfit (8lbs)
Waterskin (4lbs)
4days Rations (4lbs) (Note: I disagree with your statement about creating food. That is a third level spell.)
Backpack (2lbs) (Need something to carry all that stuff in that doesnt occupy your hands.)Total: 48lbs. IE: 13strength minimum to keep full speed.
That does not include light sources or several other miscellaneous items I usually consider necessary to adventuring.
Azten's point is valid.
Of course, with a Handy Haversack 10lbs gets exchanged for 5lbs. But this only drops the strength requirement down to 12.
- Gauss
Horses
Great, so you leave all your food and water on the horse topside. No Water? GM tells you you start to become dehydrated in the dungeon. No Food? You begin to starve. No Backpack? Good luck carrying anything.
I have listed about the bare minimums. In any case, if you drop backpack, food, and water you are still left with 38lbs. That is strength 11.
Horses are not always available. In fact, I rarely ever see adventures using horses except to get from point A to point B. Most of the adventuring I have ever done is in a dungeon crawl. Now, I recognize that is not all of adventuring. But it is a major portion of it.
An effective strength of 12 is pretty much a requirement if you want to move at a decent rate. Thankfully, Muleback Cords are inexpensive and awesome. A great investment.
- Gauss
|
I have a dwarf ranger with an Agile Aldori Duelling Sword and a buckler. you can two hand it for increased damage from power attack (- the ac bonus) and one hand it for better ac, and still power attack one handed. Plus, he's a horizon walker so he's got some good favored enemy bonuses for more hit and damage... :) my kingmaker character
|
Deyvantius:
Mithral Breastplate (15lbs)
Greatsword (8lbs)
Longbow+20arrows (6lbs)
Dagger (1lb)
Explorer's outfit (8lbs)
Waterskin (4lbs)
4days Rations (4lbs) (Note: I disagree with your statement about creating food. That is a third level spell.)
Backpack (2lbs) (Need something to carry all that stuff in that doesnt occupy your hands.)Total: 48lbs. IE: 13strength minimum to keep full speed.
That does not include light sources or several other miscellaneous items I usually consider necessary to adventuring.
Azten's point is valid.
Of course, with a Handy Haversack 10lbs gets exchanged for 5lbs. But this only drops the strength requirement down to 12.
- Gauss
A worn outfit don't count in your encumbrance limit AFAIK, but 50 coins or 16 potions weight a pound and they will be often forgotten. Add some other gear (thieves tools or a pouch for potions and money or a rope or ...) and you will reach your limit in no time.
33 lbs for a light load for a str 10 characters isn't much and noticing that you are slowed down because you have picked up a piece of treasure can happen at the wrong time (i.e. when you need to run).
Horses
Trolls (and bandits, wolves and other random wandering monsters). My PC have lost more horses to the trolls eating them than any other way of losing them. We have a running joke about the local troll tribe having a statue of the group dwarf and venerating it as "the feeder".
Unless you always leave a few guards with your horses and gear they are prime targets for anything that find them while you are exploring a location on foot.
Diego Rossi: There is nothing in the CRB that states your worn clothing does not count. Back in 3.5 worn clothing did not count but that line is not present in PF.
- Gauss
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think about the characters that will say "I wear only a loincloth." to save carrying capacity. Shudder at some of the images.
I tink I will keep the legacy rule.
More seriously:
Explorer's Outfit: This set of clothes is for someone who never knows what to expect. It includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), gloves, and a cloak. Rather than a leather skirt, a leather overtunic may be worn over a cloth skirt. The clothes have plenty of pockets (especially the cloak). The outfit also includes any extra accessories you might need, such as a scarf or a wide-brimmed hat.
A magic cloak weight 1 lb., same thing for a belt, almost any kind of armor will replace the overtunic, so keeping track of what is substituted in the outfit and how that will affect the character carried weight is a bit of a pain.
Think about the characters that will say "I wear only a loincloth." to save carrying capacity. Shudder at some of the images.
Given the representations of female adventurers, I think this has already happened.
...but 50 coins or 16 potions weight a pound...
Wait, potions have weight? I thought they were (effectively) weightless. News to me. Would you please cite the source so I can share with my friends?
|
|
Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12.
Most people don't run around with 16 potions so it is generally overlooked but it is there. Personally I think that the container should weight at least as much as the potion, but there is no weight listed.
Diego: I agree it might be a pain. And I also think that keeping the legacy rule makes it simpler. In any case I was just commenting that the rules do not allow you to ignore the weight of your clothing.
- Gauss
Nothing new, really. Also, I need to keep this topic in mind, so dotting for future reference.
Technically, Buri may be right. The game authors should have written "A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus."
The text is unchanged from 3.5.
Nope, I was wrong. The text from the magical items chapter states the enhancement bonus on magic items applies to both attack and damage. Masterwork only applies to attack so it doesn't qualify.
Welcome to Pathfinder Axl. Great game, poor rules layout.
- Gauss
BBT: I love Pathfinder :) I am happy I switched from 3.5 to PF. And thankfully, I can remember where most of the fiddlybit rules are throughout the books. Unfortunately, most of my players cannot so I am constantly reminding them.
I see similar problems here on the board.
- Gauss
Gauss makes a point, though. The general impression I have with reading various dev comments here and there is that when the death knell of 3.5 sounded, Paizo rushed as quickly as possible to fill that niche. The main casualty is some interesting rules combinations.
They did a great job at consolidating the rules and doing an overall smoothing of the system but they didn't do an exhaustive rewrite to make everything work together as smoothly as it could have.
There are some places where there are rules gaps that are only "obvious" if you come from D&D, places where there is needless duplication of text and places where some rules simply don't make sense given other rules (base craft DC, I'm looking at you).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite is how the Potions section of the Magic Items chapter tells you all the restrictions for what spells can be made into potions/oils... except one. The "nothing with a range of personal" rule doesn't appear there. Instead, it appears in the Magic Item Creation section.
You'd think you could read the rules for potions and have everything you need, but noooooo.