|
First I want to say I am sorry to bring this age-old question up once again. I browsed the threads looking for a simple answer to my questions but almost all threads seemed to be looking at the same area from a different perspective.
So, weapons, weapons, weapons (and why not armors too?).
TL;DR in the second to last paragraph
Masterwork weapons from the shelf and how hard does it crack a skull
Let's take a basic weapon, say, Battleaxe:
Cost 10 gp
Damage (M) 1d8.
And then the criticals and whatnot.
So, I go to a shop and buy one of these bad boys. It's 10 gp worth of money.
Then I decide I actually want to buy a masterwork battleaxe instead since the last dungeon yielded a bit of extra coin. I pay 300 gp (for the mwk) + 10 gp (for the weapon itself) = 310 gp. Done.
Now it says in the description of Masterwork weapons that the mwk gives a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls. Does this include also damage or is it only for my attack roll like this:
d20 + BAB + STR mod + size mod +1 (the enhancement bonus from mwk)
And then when I hit I just roll the 1d8 for damage, adding nothing to it? Or do I roll 1d8+1?
But I wanted it magic!
Moving on, now that I have my masterwork battleaxe that I paid 310 gp, how much more would it cost to make it a magically enhanced battleaxe (the lowest tier magical enhancement which I believe is +1). I read somewhere that for something to be qualified to be imbued with any kind of magic enhancement, you need to have the weapon be a masterwork weapon first; the template so to speak needs to be of high enough quality to withstand the magical imbuing process (my words).
There are tables for magical armors and weapons in the corebook (Table 15-3 for armors and shields p.461 and Table 15-8 for weapons p.468). I noticed certain multiplying mechanics what comes to the prices of different enhancement bonus amounts. Armor seems to use enhancement bonus² x 1000 gp as the formula when determining prices and weapons use a bit different formula.
Conclusion of sorts...
So, hypothetically speaking, I walk in a shop and buy a masterwork battleaxe. I pay 310 gp for it and it adds +1 to my attack roll (but not my damage roll), giving me a slightly better chance at hitting someone.
It is also of good quality, a weapon sufficient enough to be imbued with magical enhancements. So, I decide that I will seek a wizard of some kind and ask them, for a fee, to imbue the mwk battleaxe with a +1 magical enhancement. This would give me, not only +1 to my attack roll but also +1 to my damage roll, making the battleaxe damage 1d8+1. Am I correct.
TL;DR:
Buy a battleaxe that is of masterwork quality with 310 gp (the extra 300 gp comes from the mwk quality), adding +1 to my attack roll. Take it to a wizard to be made into a magical weapon with a +1 magical enhancement and pay 2000 gp for that which will in turn give me (instead of the +1 only to attack rolls) a +1 to attack rolls AND +1 to damage rolls.
One more question, fellow gamers
And one final question that came to mind: if I wanted to have it light with fire (A Fiery Battleaxe of Badassery!), how much more would it cost (if the same wizard would still be willing to do business with me after all these questions)?
Thank yous and recognitions
Thanks in advance. I don't like creating similar threads as the hundreds before me but as it seemed to turn into finding a needle in a hay stack, I really saw no other way. And perhaps some others might find this useful as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To grant it flaming would make it a +2 total enhancement weapon. Pay the difference and your good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Masterwork grants +1 to hit only, not to damage.
+1 magical enhancement adds +1 to hit and damage, but does not stack with the bonus from masterwork (so you still only get a +1 to hit, but you gain a +1 to damage).
The cost of adding additional enhancements or enhancement-equivalent effects (like flaming) works like this: Take the weapon's current enhancement bonus amount (in this case +1) and add the enhancement bonuses you want (in this case, flaming is a +1). This would be a +2 equivalent weapon (for cost purposes only). You look at the table for the cost of a +2 enhancement, and subtract the cost of the current enhancement level, and that's what you pay.
In our above example, you have a +1 Battleaxe worth 2000g in enhancements. You are adding flaming, a +1 enhancement, giving the weapon a cost equivalent of a +2 enhancement, the cost of which is 8000g. 8000 minus 2000 is 6000 - so you would pay 6000g to add flaming to the weapon, and what you'd wind up with is a +1 flaming battleaxe.
As a note, you add your STR modifier to melee attacks, so your damage would always be Weapon damage + Enhancement bonus + STR mod (or 1.5*STR mod if you are wielding a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon two-handed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
note it also a standard action to activate flaming on said axe a lot of people forget this. They assume it is always flaming. It is not, you must speak the command word to activate it. It will remain flaming until you speak the command word to turn it off. Most Gm's assume you do this every time you put your Axe away. They assume don't think you want to be catching your clothes on fire all the time.
The fire from the enchantment specifically doesn't damage your equipment so feel free to leave it on.
|
|
OP: Just keep in mind that a +1 flaming battleaxe is /not/ the same as a +2 battleaxe... you don't get the extra +1 to attack and damage from the former, only the latter.
In our above example, you have a +1 Battleaxe worth 2000g in enhancements. You are adding flaming, a +1 enhancement, giving the weapon a cost equivalent of a +2 enhancement, the cost of which is 8000g. 8000 minus 2000 is 6000 - so you would pay 6000g to add flaming to the weapon, and what you'd wind up with is a +1 flaming battleaxe.
So, basically the flame quality is more like, as the youth say, "pimping the visuals of the battleaxe" and giving it what flames usually do: set other things on fire.
Would it then be 18,000 gp - 8,000 gp = 10,000 gp to make the +1 flaming battleaxe into a +2 flaming battleaxe?
Thanks guys, you have just made my life easier and I am indebted to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP: Just keep in mind that a +1 flaming battleaxe is /not/ the same as a +2 battleaxe... you don't get the extra +1 to attack and damage from the former, only the latter.In our above example, you have a +1 Battleaxe worth 2000g in enhancements. You are adding flaming, a +1 enhancement, giving the weapon a cost equivalent of a +2 enhancement, the cost of which is 8000g. 8000 minus 2000 is 6000 - so you would pay 6000g to add flaming to the weapon, and what you'd wind up with is a +1 flaming battleaxe.So, basically the flame quality is more like, as the youth say, "pimping the visuals of the battleaxe" and giving it what flames usually do: set other things on fire.
Would it then be 18,000 gp - 8,000 gp = 10,000 gp to make the +1 flaming battleaxe into a +2 flaming battleaxe?
Thanks guys, you have just made my life easier and I am indebted to you.
Yes , the cost is right anyway The list.
So you can see there that , flamming will give a +1d6 fire damage, which is something more than just pimping visuals heh :P.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw people tend to not understand this also.
You can see there that , usually , it costs a +1/+2... to upgrade the weapon , if it costs that it enters the max +10 the weapon can have , and it costs the difference , using what you wanted:
+2 flaming battleaxe:
It costs , +2 for the +2 and +1 for flaming , so +3 in the total +10 it can have.
BUT not all upgrades cost +something , some just cost money, example:
Impervious or Glamered , these always cost their money cost , and not the +1.
So if you have a:
+2 flaming impervious battleaxe
It would cost , the +3 (18000) + impervious (3000) = 21000 (not the same a +4 weapon would cost)
Also , like i said , if it costs money , it does NOT count for the +10 total it can have.
So you can have a
+10 (with total enchantments (remember it can only get a +5 and then +5 form stuff like flaming ...)) impervious battleaxe.
|
|
feel free to read the flaming enchantment again. It says it does not harm you, it says nothing about your equipment. So if GM could very well, set your clothes on fire,(in doing so that fire could hurt you as it no longer the same as one coming from the axe) or light oil drums with it ect. Keep it out in a dungeon as it is a useful tool. where you expect combat around any condor, but don't be walking around with on in a town ect. as you scare away all the common folk and shop keepers and may attracted attention of local thieves or guards.
I can understand your thinking, especially from a roleplay standpoint. If I was a GM, I would most likely at least mention "turning the flaming off" when not in use. To me it creates immersion. The text itself is vague: do you consider your clothes being part of your character? Who knows? I would perhaps make the character and their belongings impervious to the flame but at the same time make everything else and everyone else so that they are able to take fire damage if the sword were to touch them.
So if you have a +2 flaming impervious battleaxe
It would cost , the +3 (18000) + impervious (3000) = 21000 (not the same a +4 weapon would cost)
Also , like i said , if it costs money , it does NOT count for the +10 total it can have.
So you can have a
+10 (with total enchantments (remember it can only get a +5 and then +5 form stuff like flaming ...)) impervious battleaxe.
That's a good point I didn't think of when I was writing my question. Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose, for clarity's sake it would be best to keep track of the enhancements and other qualities on separate columns so that the player can see how much they need to pay to get the next +1 to their weapon; like having the magical enhancements that follow the Table 15-8 on one side and then having the other qualities on the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand your thinking, especially from a roleplay standpoint. If I was a GM, I would most likely at least mention "turning the flaming off" when not in use. To me it creates immersion. The text itself is vague: do you consider your clothes being part of your character? Who knows? I would perhaps make the character and their belongings impervious to the flame but at the same time make everything else and everyone else so that they are able to take fire damage if the sword were to touch them.
This would not be really "fluff" unless you made it this way.
"Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."
To activate it , you need a commamd word , which means , you need a standard action.
So if you tell your players they need to turn it off , that means to turn it on they would spend part their first turn in combat.
Now i dont remember where it is written , but if i remember right the weapon wont harm inside its scarab , so if the player keep it there it should be ok.
|
|
So if you tell your players they need to turn it off , that means to turn it on they would spend part their first turn in combat.
True. However, I would imagine that having a daring escapade into a deadly and dark dungeon would prompt most player to use their flaming weapons as a source of light (obviously not all players would understand to do so).
But since I am a noob GM at best and my players are equal noobs themselves, I have made it possible for them to be prepared with a proper weapon automatically when an encounter begins (although I always remind them to state what they are doing, what gadget or weapon they are currently holding and so on). Baby steps, I guess. But for myself, I do want to learn the ropes as accurate as possible so I don't have to un-learn things I have gotten wrong in the first place - and also slip the information to my players so they get better as well.
Also, in situations like the flaming sword lighting things on fire or not, I think that it gives also good (or perhaps "comical" is a better word) roleplaying situations where a dude is running with his robes on fire because the fighter was fooling around with his flaming sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. However, I would imagine that having a daring escapade into a deadly and dark dungeon would prompt most player to use their flaming weapons as a source of light (obviously not all players would understand to do so).
But since I am a noob GM at best and my players are equal noobs themselves, I have made it possible for them to be prepared with a proper weapon automatically when an encounter begins (although I always remind them to state what they are doing, what gadget or weapon they are currently holding and so on). Baby steps, I guess. But for myself, I do want to learn the ropes as accurate as possible so I don't have to un-learn things I have gotten wrong in the first place - and also slip the information to my players so they get better as well.
Also, in situations like the flaming sword lighting things on fire or not, I think that it gives also good (or perhaps "comical" is a better word) roleplaying situations where a dude is running with his robes on fire because the fighter was fooling around with his flaming sword.
hehehe ic , well that mage is going to be pissed hehehe
Well , if everybody is having fun , then what trully matters is fine.