Magic Weapon Spell and +1 weapons


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have an issue with how Magic weapon works in 2e. The spell makes a mundane weapon a +1 Striking weapon effectively giving it a Potency rune and a Striking rune.

Spell text: "Targets 1 non-magical weapon that is unattended or wielded by you or a willing ally
Duration 1 minute
The weapon glimmers with magic and energy. The target becomes a +1 striking weapon, gaining a +1 item bonus to attack rolls and increasing the number of weapon damage dice to two."

My issue is that the target of the spell must be a NON-MAGICAL weapon...so that means you cant target a +1 Weapon (with only a potency rune) to make it a +1 Striking weapon. It seems silly to me if your party caster was using magic weapon on the fighters sword, the you find a +1 sword but using it would ruin that strategy.

It seems weird to penalize you from using +1 weapons in this scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, if you are planning to consistently cast Magic Weapon until you have both Runes, you can simply hold off on buying the +1 Potency Rune until you are ready to inscribe both that and the Striking rune.

I agree it is odd though. It would be better to simply have non-stacking bonuses for the attack roll and the damage roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sapient wrote:

On the other hand, if you are planning to consistently cast Magic Weapon until you have both Runes, you can simply hold off on buying the +1 Potency Rune until you are ready to inscribe both that and the Striking rune.

I agree it is odd though. It would be better to simply have non-stacking bonuses for the attack roll and the damage roll.

Odd as the intended bonuses are non stacking anyway. All that it would require is saying you gain the benefits of a +1 potency rune and striking rune , which wouldn't stack thanks to how they innately work. And of course removing the non-magical limitation.

This is something that I will 100% houserule and hope it gets errataed as it is a weird and pointless limitation to have it only apply to non magical weapons.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Sapient wrote:

On the other hand, if you are planning to consistently cast Magic Weapon until you have both Runes, you can simply hold off on buying the +1 Potency Rune until you are ready to inscribe both that and the Striking rune.

I agree it is odd though. It would be better to simply have non-stacking bonuses for the attack roll and the damage roll.

Odd as the intended bonuses are non stacking anyway. All that it would require is saying you gain the benefits of a +1 potency rune and striking rune , which wouldn't stack thanks to how they innately work. And of course removing the non-magical limitation.

This is something that I will 100% houserule and hope it gets errataed as it is a weird and pointless limitation to have it only apply to non magical weapons.

I agree about holding off until you can spend 100 gp on a +1 Strking wep. However we are playing Age Of Ashes and you get a +1 shortbow in the first meaningful combat! by that time you are nowhere near close enough to 100 gp. So what, you are just suppose to ignore that weapon?

They are non-stacking bonuses anyway and I will be lobbying my GM for houseruling it. I would if I was DMin this campaign.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
McDragon Puncher wrote:
It seems weird to penalize you from using +1 weapons in this scenario.

Since you can simply carry around a second, non-magical, sword to fix the issue, I don't think it's worth arguing over, or making up houserules for.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Odd as the intended bonuses are non stacking anyway. All that it would require is saying you gain the benefits of a +1 potency rune and striking rune , which wouldn't stack thanks to how they innately work. And of course removing the non-magical limitation.

This is something that I will 100% houserule and hope it gets errataed as it is a weird and pointless limitation to have it only apply to non magical weapons.

I think they made that to avoid Magic Weapon to improve special weapons, in case they release a weapon that is not exactly working like a runed normal weapon with special properties.


SuperBidi wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Odd as the intended bonuses are non stacking anyway. All that it would require is saying you gain the benefits of a +1 potency rune and striking rune , which wouldn't stack thanks to how they innately work. And of course removing the non-magical limitation.

This is something that I will 100% houserule and hope it gets errataed as it is a weird and pointless limitation to have it only apply to non magical weapons.

I think they made that to avoid Magic Weapon to improve special weapons, in case they release a weapon that is not exactly working like a runed normal weapon with special properties.

Do you mean specific magical weapons? I guess you could be right, but that could be avoided with a prerequisite that the weapon can benefit from potency or striking runes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
McDragon Puncher wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Sapient wrote:

On the other hand, if you are planning to consistently cast Magic Weapon until you have both Runes, you can simply hold off on buying the +1 Potency Rune until you are ready to inscribe both that and the Striking rune.

I agree it is odd though. It would be better to simply have non-stacking bonuses for the attack roll and the damage roll.

Odd as the intended bonuses are non stacking anyway. All that it would require is saying you gain the benefits of a +1 potency rune and striking rune , which wouldn't stack thanks to how they innately work. And of course removing the non-magical limitation.

This is something that I will 100% houserule and hope it gets errataed as it is a weird and pointless limitation to have it only apply to non magical weapons.

I agree about holding off until you can spend 100 gp on a +1 Strking wep. However we are playing Age Of Ashes and you get a +1 shortbow in the first meaningful combat! by that time you are nowhere near close enough to 100 gp. So what, you are just suppose to ignore that weapon?

They are non-stacking bonuses anyway and I will be lobbying my GM for houseruling it. I would if I was DMin this campaign.

Why would you ignore that weapon? All that changes is you pick a different weapon to buff. The spell is useful until everybody in the party has +1 weapons.

Or if the caster is anything like the Sorcerer in my Campaign, they don't have any weapons, or if they do it's not something they're spending money on.

With Magic Weapon they can buff their non-magical weapon if they want to smack something, while spending their money on wands and scrolls or other items.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Do you mean specific magical weapons? I guess you could be right, but that could be avoided with a prerequisite that the weapon can benefit from potency or striking runes.

Yes, that's my feeling. I don't know what they have in mind.

I just realized that I don't know what Magic Weapon would do if cast on a monster's weapon...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Do you mean specific magical weapons? I guess you could be right, but that could be avoided with a prerequisite that the weapon can benefit from potency or striking runes.

Yes, that's my feeling. I don't know what they have in mind.

I just realized that I don't know what Magic Weapon would do if cast on a monster's weapon...

Nothing.

Targets 1 non-magical weapon that is unattended or wielded by you or a willing ally

Horizon Hunters

The intention may be to prevent you from obtaining a weapon that effectively has a Potency Rune, A Striking Rune, and a Property Rune all acting simultaneously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goldryno wrote:
The intention may be to prevent you from obtaining a weapon that effectively has a Potency Rune, A Striking Rune, and a Property Rune all acting simultaneously.

Except a weapon that has a property rune can have the other two anyway, so that is a weird "balance" consideration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Do you mean specific magical weapons? I guess you could be right, but that could be avoided with a prerequisite that the weapon can benefit from potency or striking runes.

Yes, that's my feeling. I don't know what they have in mind.

I just realized that I don't know what Magic Weapon would do if cast on a monster's weapon...

Nothing.

Targets 1 non-magical weapon that is unattended or wielded by you or a willing ally

So, if you cast it on a monster's weapon, what happens?

Monsters have spells, too.


It is very easy to understand the restriction.

Applying the spell's effects to an already-magic shield can effectively upgrade that shield by several thousands of gold.

It would make the spell useful to a far greater degree than intended.


Zapp wrote:

It is very easy to understand the restriction.

Applying the spell's effects to an already-magic shield can effectively upgrade that shield by several thousands of gold.

It would make the spell useful to a far greater degree than intended.

A shield isn't a weapon, you could only apply it to a shield boss. And in that case it does the same thing as applying runes to a shield boss.

Again... The spell only does what it does for any other weapon.


Zapp wrote:

It is very easy to understand the restriction.

Applying the spell's effects to an already-magic shield can effectively upgrade that shield by several thousands of gold.

It would make the spell useful to a far greater degree than intended.

That isnt what I am suggesting. The spell isnt stacking bonuses. It would never make a weapon more powerful than +1 Striking. My suggestion is that the spell should be able to be cast on a weapon with only a potency rune. So a +1 Wep would become +1 striking. It would ignore the +1 and only add the striking benefit. The spell would never make a +1 wep +2 or a +1 Striking wep Greater striking.

And I dont think a good solution for finding a +1 weapon in your campaign is to then carry 2 of the same weps around just so you can use magic weapon on the mundane one. Extra bulk aside, that is really weak from a story perspective.

In 1e it made sense for this spell to only target a non-magical weapon because masterwork gave the +1 to hit while being non-magical. But now the +1 to hit from a potency rune in 2e makes the weapon magical

Horizon Hunters

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
The intention may be to prevent you from obtaining a weapon that effectively has a Potency Rune, A Striking Rune, and a Property Rune all acting simultaneously.
Except a weapon that has a property rune can have the other two anyway, so that is a weird "balance" consideration.

You're right. Re-familiarizing myself with the rules for runes and that wouldn't be as big of a discrepancy as I first imagined.

All I can think of (if this wording is intentional and not a mistake) is that they did not intend for the spell Magic Weapon to be relied upon throughout the game. The adding of a fundamental rune signals the start of a customization process that should not be further modified by a spell...but that's nothing but a guess.

This could also explain why there is never a spell heightening effect to possibly make the spell Magic Weapon worth much of anything at later levels. That being said I don't think a house ruling on this would break the game terribly. It just extends the usefulness of the spell by roughly 3 additional levels?

Grand Lodge

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Zapp wrote:

It is very easy to understand the restriction.

Applying the spell's effects to an already-magic shield can effectively upgrade that shield by several thousands of gold.

It would make the spell useful to a far greater degree than intended.

A shield isn't a weapon, you could only apply it to a shield boss. And in that case it does the same thing as applying runes to a shield boss.

Again... The spell only does what it does for any other weapon.

I would gently remind you that a shield IS a weapon. It is listed in the weapons section along with a shield boss and shield spikes.

NiftyB


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No, a "shield bash" is listed, which is an action, not an item. Check the subchapter "Shields" in the Equipment chapter (NB: this is a chapter separate from the Armor and Weapons chapters).

A shield is not a weapon, though it can be used to bash someone with it "like a weapon" in a pinch. It cannot have weapon runes etched into it. However, you can put a boss or spikes on it, and those are actual weapons that can hold weapon runes.


Goldryno wrote:

You're right. Re-familiarizing myself with the rules for runes and that wouldn't be as big of a discrepancy as I first imagined.

All I can think of (if this wording is intentional and not a mistake) is that they did not intend for the spell Magic Weapon to be relied upon throughout the game. The adding of a fundamental rune signals the start of a customization process that should not be further modified by a spell...but that's nothing but a guess.

This could also explain why there is never a spell heightening effect to possibly make the spell Magic Weapon worth much of anything at later levels. That being said I don't think a house ruling on this would break the game terribly. It just extends the usefulness of the spell by roughly 3 additional levels?

Again, but why... You get potency runes starting at level 2. And if someone wanted to rely on it they could still rely upon it as written, they just cannot benefit from it unless they carry an extra weapon or don't use a weapon with a potency rune.

I am 100% going to say that it is impossible for this to break the game with the spell by allowing it to be used with potency +1 weapons currently, and 100% impossible for it to break the game if it only applied to weapons that could take potency/striking runes.


I think it's a mistake, not a "future-proofing" as proposed here.

Easy enough to forget, houserule, errata.

Horizon Hunters

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

You're right. Re-familiarizing myself with the rules for runes and that wouldn't be as big of a discrepancy as I first imagined.

All I can think of (if this wording is intentional and not a mistake) is that they did not intend for the spell Magic Weapon to be relied upon throughout the game. The adding of a fundamental rune signals the start of a customization process that should not be further modified by a spell...but that's nothing but a guess.

This could also explain why there is never a spell heightening effect to possibly make the spell Magic Weapon worth much of anything at later levels. That being said I don't think a house ruling on this would break the game terribly. It just extends the usefulness of the spell by roughly 3 additional levels?

Again, but why... You get potency runes starting at level 2. And if someone wanted to rely on it they could still rely upon it as written, they just cannot benefit from it unless they carry an extra weapon or don't use a weapon with a potency rune.

I am 100% going to say that it is impossible for this to break the game with the spell by allowing it to be used with potency +1 weapons currently, and 100% impossible for it to break the game if it only applied to weapons that could take potency/striking runes.

I agree with you that nothing this small could break the game. I probably would not have even noticed the issue if this forum hadn't brought it up. Allow me to play devil's advocate though.

As to why (assuming it is not a mistake) because that does change the game balance slightly. The encounters are expecting you to have either a small constant bonus OR a 1 minute effect that simulates a potency and striking bonus until level 4 , at which point you have access to both runes constantly.

As it is, if you wanted to benefit from both a constant bonus and have the option to be buffed up an additional tax is demanded of changing weapons mid battle along with the spell slot used per character benefiting from this. RAW it also does not fundamentally break anything in the game.

It does represent a decision teams would have to make when considering strategy and equipment. And enhance the value of the first +1 Striking weapon they get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they just forgot to revisit the spell's restrictions after splitting the potency rune in half.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Magic Weapon Spell and +1 weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.