So after reading through the magic weapon section of the Core book I found that a Master work weapon provides a +1 Enhancement bonus to attack rolls. Now I'm sure this is common knowledge, the reason I'm pointing this out is because all magic weapons require at least a +1 enhancement bonus in order to apply any weapon abilities. Now some of the things you will think/say is that it requires a magical enhancement bonus and a MW weapon isn't magical. That's what I thought for the longest time, however after rereading I found that it is never stated that it has to be a magical enhancement bonus, It is simply stated (in multiple places)that you only need a +1 or higher enhancement bonus to apply a weapon ability.
What I'm looking for here is confirmation that I am correct in my thinking that based on the rules you can have a MW Flaming Longsword without having to give it a Magical Enhancement Bonus first.
I'm not trying to cheat or break the system, it's just something I came across last night and wanted to get your opinions and maybe an official ruling on the matter.
Any input would be helpful.
"+1 enhancement bonus" refers to the magical enhancement bonus that you can have added to your weapon to add +1 to hit and damage. The masterwork bonus is a "+1 enhancement bonus to hit", and not a "+1 enhancement bonus". They could've explained that better by not using an overloaded term like "+1 enhancement bonus", but it's how the game is intended. If they had meant masterwork, they would've just said that since in all cases magic weapons are masterwork weapons too. But not all masterwork weapons are "+1 enhancement bonuses" weapons.
|
Wielding a Masterwork weapon provides a +1 Enhancement bonus to attack rolls. It doesn't have an enhancement bonus. In the magic item creation section, that is called a masterwork bonus, and it doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus from the magic of a magic weapon.
RAI it is obvious to me that to give a weapon a special ability, you need an enhancement bonus from magic first.
RAW might be debatable, but there is support for it requiring the magic enhancement bonus.
That is not true, there is nothing that refers to the enhancement bonus having to be a magical bonus. I wouldn't have even brought this up if it weren't for the fact that it simply states +1 enhancement bonus over and over with no reference to it needing to be from a magical source, and yes all MW weapons are +1 enhancement due to the fact that a MW bonus is an enhancement bonus according to the rules.
Wielding a Masterwork weapon provides a +1 Enhancement bonus to attack rolls. It doesn't have an enhancement bonus. In the magic item creation section, that is called a masterwork bonus, and it doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus from the magic of a magic weapon.
RAI it is obvious to me that to give a weapon a special ability, you need an enhancement bonus from magic first.
RAW might be debatable, but there is support for it requiring the magic enhancement bonus.
Again as stated, m magical enhancement is never mentioned.
And could you link me to the rules that support it having to be magical?
I'm not just trying to ignore your opinions, but you both have stated that a MW bonus is not an enhancement bonus when clearly as stated by the core rules it is in fact an enhancement bonus.
I'm off to lunch but I shall return to read your thoughts on the matter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A weapon has to be crafted with a magical enhancement bonus in order for you to be able to add any weapon special properties to it.
Overall, for the game, if you find something that feels like you're able to get something ridiculously cheap, then it's not supposed to work that way.
A weapon has to be crafted with a magical enhancement bonus in order for you to be able to add any weapon special properties to it.
Overall, for the game, if you find something that feels like you're able to get something ridiculously cheap, then it's not supposed to work that way.
Does that mean the Mask of Story Demeanor is not working right?
Eh?
Reading over the text, I see what MrTheThird means - it is somewhat confusing, as both the bonus for the masterwork weapon and the bonus for the base weapon enchantment are referred to as 'enhancement bonuses', and the requirement noted for adding special abilities to a weapon is a +1 enhancement bonus.
There is a downside to interpreting it like this, though: It also states that a weapon can never exceed a total of a +10 in bonuses, between enhancement and abilities. Reading the text like this means that your masterwork +1 bonus counts against that total.
However, my understanding has always been (and I think 3.5 may have stated this more clearly) that the +1 enhancement bonus mentioned is not a masterwork to-hit bonus, but a full magical +1 enhancement bonus to both hit and damage.
A MW weapon has no enhancement bonus...the character gets a +1 for wielding the weapon...the weapon itself is not a +1 weapon...if you want to add a +1 cost ability to a weapon it must already be a +1 itself or you must pay for a +2 cost
an actual enhancement bonus provides both +1 to atk and +1 to dmg too...not just the atk roll
a +1 keen longsword would cost you the same as a +2 longsword...those are the rules no matter how you want to spin them buddy sorry :)
You are simply wanting people to agree with you so that you can get your GM to see it that way so you dont have to pay as much as EVERYONE else in pathfinder society has to pay...does your Masterwork Longsword have a +1 in front of it...no it does not...so it does not have a +1 enhancement bonus...its just masterwork friend
if you want to argue it further then look through the NPC codex and any pathfinder module you can find and give an example of a weapon that has some magical enhancement without it being a +1 too
Eh?
I think he's saying that getting a +10 bonus to bluff for a 500 gp item is getting something ridiculously cheap.
Eh?
Took me a bit to figure out what he meant, but the mask gives a +10 bonus to bluff checks for lying, +5 to bluff checks to feint, and -5 to bluff checks to send a secret message. Since the first two are used far more than the one you get a penalty for, he's saying that the 500 gp price tag seems a bit...cheap.
Mask of Stony Demeanor
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 6th
Slot head; Price 500 gp; Weight 4 lbs.
DESCRIPTIONWhen worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue and its voice into an emotionless monotone. Though it allows the wearer to speak, its facial expressions and voice betray little emotion, granting a +10 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to lie and a +5 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to feint, but also imposes a –5 penalty on Bluff checks made to pass a hidden message.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTSCraft Wondrous Item, innocence, stone shape; Cost 250 gp
This doesn't make anything cheaper then it would be normally, it would simply mean that you can get that +1 magical enhancement later and grab say the flaming property now, it doesn't reduce the cost and doesn't allow you to gain something otherwise unattainable.
I've looked into 3.0, 3.5, 4th ed and pathfinder and they all have the same wording, so why is it so hard to believe that it was intended this way. After all these different editions, if it were intended any other way you would think someone would have changed the wording by now.
Because the vast, vast majority of people across those editions of the game understood what it meant to be what it was intended to mean. I have a hunch that those types of issues rank pretty low on the totem of issues to clarify.
This doesn't make anything cheaper then it would be normally, it would simply mean that you can get that +1 magical enhancement later and grab say the flaming property now, it doesn't reduce the cost and doesn't allow you to gain something otherwise unattainable.
I've looked into 3.0, 3.5, 4th ed and pathfinder and they all have the same wording, so why is it so hard to believe that it was intended this way. After all these different editions, if it were intended any other way you would think someone would have changed the wording by now.
Umm, because one of the guys who wrote the game just said so, about a hour ago, on this very page?
They are both “enhancement” bonuses so that they don’t stack.
This doesn't make anything cheaper then it would be normally, it would simply mean that you can get that +1 magical enhancement later and grab say the flaming property now, it doesn't reduce the cost and doesn't allow you to gain something otherwise unattainable.
Yes it does. Masterwork weapon costs 300g plus the weapon cost. Let's say that we could add Keen to it without first adding a basic +1 magical enhancement. We've now got a Masterwork Keen longsword for 1315g. We have a weapon with the Keen property and a +1 (to attack only, not to damage - which in the long run isn't huge). If you never enhanced it further, you've got a weapon with an extended crit range for a very minimal cost.
Under the actual rules, the cost of this longsword would be 8315g - 315g for the masterwork longsword, and 8000g for a total of +2 enhancements.
Taking a +1 magical enhancement and enhancing it further does not just cost the same as adding another +1 - it costs the difference between the cost of the level to which the weapon is being enhanced and the cost of the current level of enhancement.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've looked into 3.0, 3.5, 4th ed and pathfinder and they all have the same wording, so why is it so hard to believe that it was intended this way. After all these different editions, if it were intended any other way you would think someone would have changed the wording by now.
It's intended the way it's written. We know how it's written (see below) and we know that matches the intent (see SKR's post).
Magic Weapons: ""
This is telling you how magic enchantment works.
""
This is telling you that, in addition to enhancement bonuses, magic enchantment can also add special abilities.
""
Since we have the benefit of context, you can tell that the +1 enhancement bonus it's talking about here is the magical enchantment that this whole section has been about.
Lets look at armor:
Magic Armor: ""
Same wording, and yet masterwork armor doesn't mention anything about an enhancement bonus.
So, since you clearly can't add a special ability to masterwork armor without first enchanting it with a +1 enhancement bonus, common sense (plus the rules above) should lead you to understand you can't do that with a weapon, either.
If that's not enough, and you want to argue semantics:
See how it says it provides a +1 enhancement bonus? In order to qualify for a special ability, it must have a +1 enhancement bonus, not just provide one. I can provide my teammate with a +2 bonus to hit (by threatening an opponent on the opposite side) but that doesn't mean I have a +2 bonus to hit.
Many people have been confused by this, for a long time. You shouldn't feel bad for being wrong about it, and most of the people here aren't trying to stomp on your feelings or anything.
Magic Weapons: "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."
This is telling you how magic enchantment works.
"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)."
This is telling you that, in addition to enhancement bonuses, magic enchantment can also add special abilities.
"A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus."
Since we have the benefit of context, you can tell that the +1 enhancement bonus it's talking about here is the magical enchantment that this whole section has been about.
Lets look at armor:
Magic Armor: "A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus."
Same wording, and yet masterwork armor doesn't mention anything about an enhancement bonus.
So, since you clearly can't add a special ability to masterwork armor without first enchanting it with a +1 enhancement bonus, common sense (plus the rules above) should lead you to understand you can't do that with a weapon, either.
I flagged this for FAQ just to clarify the issue, as it's perfectly logical reasoning.
Thank you Grick and Xaratherus for providing something other then "it's not an enhancement bonus" I appreciate the effort to read things and not get unnecessarily angry. While I never fully intended to use this little loophole without the ok from a Dev. I still don't see it as being to powerful, the costs stay basically the same your just re-ordering things.
Anyway I figured it was an interesting find and wanted to see if anyone else had come across it.
its that way for balancing...it changes things alot more than you think...being able to get and extra 1d6 dmg or increase your crit range at a low level when all you can afford is a +1 weapon is alot different than 3 to 4 lvls later when you could actually afford a +2 weapon...a +1 to your atk roll and dmg is considerably lower and meant that way for low lvl characters...and wat i said abt the weapon wasnt saying that "it's not an enhancement bonus" it is a bonus but not one that allows you to add an extra magical ability
I will say again...find a module or use the NPC codex and find an example of your argument...something that adds to what you are trying to prove
also if that were the case my 5 rogue/5 assassin would be carrying abt a dozen spell storing daggers or a dozen bane daggers of different enemy types (just in case ya know) lol
The price tag isn't so much the issue as it is when those abilities are available. The game assumes that at certain levels you have a certain amount of wealth. It expects you to have a +1 magic weapon sometime around level 3 or 4 based on the Wealth-by-Level chart.
A +2 weapon, like a +1 Keen weapon, costs somewhere around 8k, meaning the keen portion, or indeed any other +1 ability, is intended to be used around levels 6-8, emphasis on the 7-8 subrange. If we assume the "balanced" approach suggested for characters starting above level 1, then it's actually at about level 8 that they should have a +2 weapon.
So it's true that while a +0 keen weapon would cost the same as a +1 weapon, the cost is used to restrict when it's supposed to be available anyways, and the +0 keen weapon is available a lot sooner than the +1 keen weapon.
cheapy it seems you and I are in agreement on this lol
The price tag isn't so much the issue as it is when those abilities are available. The game assumes that at certain levels you have a certain amount of wealth. It expects you to have a +1 magic weapon sometime around level 3 or 4 based on the Wealth-by-Level chart.
A +2 weapon, like a +1 Keen weapon, costs somewhere around 8k, meaning the keen portion, or indeed any other +1 ability, is intended to be used around levels 6-8, emphasis on the 7-8 subrange. If we assume the "balanced" approach suggested for characters starting above level 1, then it's actually at about level 8 that they should have a +2 weapon.
So it's true that while a +0 keen weapon would cost the same as a +1 weapon, the cost is used to restrict when it's supposed to be available anyways, and the +0 keen weapon is available a lot sooner than the +1 keen weapon.
Perfect reasoning, Cheapy.
and i get no love /cry...guess i gotta flush my comments out a little more like Cheapy even when i make the same point lol
and i get no love /cry...guess i gotta flush my comments out a little more like Cheapy even when i make the same point lol
Sorry Drakkiel, I overlooked your previous comment. Yes, you said the same thing, and yes, it's justifiable reasoning as to why the rules work they way they do. :)
I will give it a try...I tend to "word" things much better when I'm actually at my laptop and not in a car typing from a phone (which I am now) I am always trying to type quickly so I can read more questions lol...also when I'm on my laptop I can get copies of the actual rules and can copy/quote others much better as well...please forgive my insolence and enjoy the following kirby dance as my apology
<(")> <("<) <("^) <(")> (>")> (^")> <(")>