Magic Weapon

[HumbleGamer]

Do you think would have somehow been bad for the game allowing the caster to prepare and cast a heightened version of the spell?

I can't find a good reason.

[thenobledrake]

A higher-level version of the spell was likely not included because it wouldn't be functional in practical terms: there would be no non-magical weapons that your party would want it to be cast on.

So it would have to be able to be cast on weapons that are already magical weapons, and that comes with complications because if it's not worded extra specifically and complex it would be able to apply on top of any degree of magical weapon.

[Krugus]

It wouldn't be hard to homebrew one up:

Target: 1 weapon that is unattended or wielded by you or a willing ally.

The weapon glimmers with magical runes and is charged with arcane energy. Temporally boosting the weapon with a +1 weapon potency rune and a Striking Rune. If the weapon is already magical only the greater of the runes will be in effect. IE A weapon with only a +1 weapon potency rune would not gain the +1 weapon rune due to already having the same rune but would temporally gain the striking rune for the duration.

Heightened (3rd) Temporally boosts target with a +2 Weapon Potency Rune and a Striking Rune (+1d)
Heightened (5th) Temporally boots target with a +2 Weapon Potency Rune and a Greater Striking Rune (+2d)
Heightened (7th) Temporally boots target with a +3 Weapon Potency Rune and a Greater Striking Rune (+2d)
Heightened (9th) Temporally boots target with a +3 Weapon Potency Rune and a Major Striking Rune (+3d)

Easy.

[HumbleGamer]

Indeed easy to make it a homebrew.

I was just wondering why ( and now I agree with what thenobledrake said ).

Thanks for sharing your idea though \o

[Samurai]

I added a Heightened (+2 levels) in my House Rules. I left the exact effect open so the reader can decide if it keeps compounding, as Krugus's version does above, or if it simply adds the basic +1 potency, +1 die of damage to an already magical weapon, to a maximum of +3 potency, Major Striking max.

[1d6 Fall Damage]

I think I understand the logic of not. At early levels, a spell slot is a significant resource that needs to be spent carefully, but as you progress it becomes less and less of a concern to spend. Assuming the heightened versions of the spell are accessible before the corresponding rune is (which would be likely as otherwise it wouldn't be very useful), then you are very likely to encounter the situation where a caster is happy to blow all their spell slots on giving the party significantly damaging weapons because they still have plenty of spell slots to spare, making the party do way more damage than the game expects.

[HumbleGamer]

1d6 Fall Damage wrote:

I think I understand the logic of not. At early levels, a spell slot is a significant resource that needs to be spent carefully, but as you progress it becomes less and less of a concern to spend. Assuming the heightened versions of the spell are accessible before the corresponding rune is (which would be likely as otherwise it wouldn't be very useful), then you are very likely to encounter the situation where a caster is happy to blow all their spell slots on giving the party significantly damaging weapons because they still have plenty of spell slots to spare, making the party do way more damage than the game expects.

Yeah I agree.

It could seem a trade the choice between giving an earlier buff to a weapon in exchange of a high lvl slots, but it isn't.

Also, apart from let's say "finding some high grade adamantite weapon" or stuff like that, it's a matter of a few days ( 1 per rune if i recall correctly ) to swap runes.

Maybe, since its duration is 1 minute, it could improve its efficiency in a even faster way.

Quote:

PFS StandardMagic Weapon (+1) 2

PFS StandardMagic Weapon (+1 Striking) 4
PFS StandardMagic Weapon (+2 Striking) 10
PFS StandardMagic Weapon (+2 Greater Striking) 12
PFS StandardMagic Weapon (+3 Greater Striking) 16
PFS StandardMagic Weapon (+3 Major Striking) 19

let's say that by lvl 11 you would be able to give a weapon +3 major striking. There, maybe, there would be a deal.

You could give a weapon for 1 minute ( at the cost of a lvl 6 spell ) +1 hit and +2 damage dices.

Depends the campaign ( high, medium or low magic ) and the time characters will get access to those drops ( or enough golds to buy those from a vendor ) it could increase or decrease its efficiency.

[Reldan]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Do you think would have somehow been bad for the game allowing the caster to prepare and cast a heightened version of the spell?

I can't find a good reason.

After GMing dozens of scenarios of 2e Magic Weapon is one of my least favorite spells in the game for low levels. It trivializes challenges and is more effective than any other 1st level spell by a huge margin. Low-level encounters are not designed assuming that the party has access to weapons that are +1 to hit and do, say, 2d12 base damage. The amount of additional damage this spell does with a single hit rivals what other 1st level spells do as their entire effect, except this one lasts for 10 rounds and applies to every strike made within that time. I've regularly seen this spell deal 30-40 damage over four rounds, as much or more than if the spellcaster just kept casting 3-action Magic Missiles over and over. It basically breaks the challenge rating formula at low levels.

Consider that if this spell had a duration of 1 round, it'd still be worth using and would still outperform most other 1st level spells.

And then by level 4 it becomes basically useless.

So yeah, dumb spell. It's either completely overpowered or useless with no middle ground.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting a "heightened" version ought to do. If it were to increase the duration of the spell (an hour, a day, etc.) then that'd be fine. Might have some use if a party member had a need to use a weapon other than their "regular" that already had runes. But if it's to make it grant, say, Greater Striking instead of Striking, then I think you'd need to have it be really high - like Heightened to level 5 or 6 (so a level 9/11 spellcaster can provide the effect of level 10 and 12 runes). Any earlier and it's just too good.

What I'd personally like to see this do would be to just provide a +1 status bonus to the weapon (and not the extra damage die). A heightened version would let you cast it on weapons that already have a potency rune (I'd say make it so the existing Item bonus on the weapon has to be less than the level of the spell, so at level 2 it can affect an already +1 weapon, and so on).

[HumbleGamer]

Reldan wrote:

I'm not sure what you're suggesting a "heightened" version ought to do. give the party access to 12th level weapons costing thousands of gold at level 4?

What I'd personally like to see this do would be to just provide a +1 status bonus to the weapon (and not the extra damage die). A heightened version would let you cast it on weapons that already have a potency rune (I'd say make it so the existing Item bonus on the weapon has to be less than the level of the spell, so at level 2 it can affect an already +1 weapon, and so on).

Was just considering stuff, but I do agree that at low levels there is hardly confrontation when it comes to a spell which gives you a lvl 4 weapon for the whole fight.

What you proposed is more balanced indeed, but since a +1 weapon is a lvl 2 enchant, I am not sure it could be the perfect idea.

Explaining the spell lvl you have in mind would help discussing on the spell.

[Reldan]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Reldan wrote:

I'm not sure what you're suggesting a "heightened" version ought to do. give the party access to 12th level weapons costing thousands of gold at level 4?

What I'd personally like to see this do would be to just provide a +1 status bonus to the weapon (and not the extra damage die). A heightened version would let you cast it on weapons that already have a potency rune (I'd say make it so the existing Item bonus on the weapon has to be less than the level of the spell, so at level 2 it can affect an already +1 weapon, and so on).

Was just considering stuff, but I do agree that at low levels there is hardly confrontation when it comes to a spell which gives you a lvl 4 weapon for the whole fight.

What you proposed is more balanced indeed, but since a +1 weapon is a lvl 2 enchant, I am not sure it could be the perfect idea.

Explaining the spell lvl you have in mind would help discussing on the spell.

I'm thinking it'd provide a +1 status bonus to hit with that weapon. At level 1 it works on mundane weapons. Heightened to level 2 it can work on weapons that already have a +1 item bonus. Level 3 it can work on already +2, and level 4 on already +3 weapons. Since this would be a status bonus it wouldn't stack with other status bonuses, but it would stack with the existing item bonus on the weapon itself. It's somewhat similar to being in a Bless aura, except instead of having to be near the spellcaster the bonus would follow with the weapon itself. I'd be fine if the duration extended with the heightening as well - the level 2 version lasts for 10 minutes, the level 3 for an hour, and at level 4 maybe eight hours.

[Krugus]

Can always change it as follows:

Duration 10 minutes.

Each time you successfully strike with the Magic Weapon, reduce the duration by 1 minute.

Or change the duration to 5 minutes so they can only get 5 strikes in before the spell dissipates.

[nick1wasd]

Krugus wrote:

Can always change it as follows:

Duration 10 minutes.

Each time you successfully strike with the Magic Weapon, reduce the duration by 1 minute.

Or change the duration to 5 minutes so they can only get 5 strikes in before the spell dissipates.

I do like the 10m: reduce 1m per hit, makes it mirror Bark/Stone-skin in a very beautiful way. Or just make it last a day and only work for a fixed amount of strikes that may or may not go up with heightening? I do like your heightening tree as well with the extra runes, looks rather efficient and doesn't punish you for taking it at level 1 as a wizard, dead spell in the book sucks a lot. I would make it 1st +1 to hit, 2nd +1 to hit and +1 die, ect. ect. but that just eats a whole page practically...

[Draco18s]

nick1wasd wrote:

I do like the 10m: reduce 1m per hit, makes it mirror Bark/Stone-skin in a very beautiful way.

Barkskin doesn't work that way, only Stoneskin. Stoneskin also starts at 20 minutes to Barksin's 10.

[nick1wasd]

Draco18s wrote:

nick1wasd wrote:

I do like the 10m: reduce 1m per hit, makes it mirror Bark/Stone-skin in a very beautiful way.

Barkskin doesn't work that way, only Stoneskin. Stoneskin also starts at 20 minutes to Barksin's 10.

I knew it was one of them, I just couldn't remember exactly which one, or if it was both. I also knew one of them had more duration than the other, but I thought it was barkskin since it has a glaring downside and stoneskin doesn't, but since SS has the "reduce duration when used" effect and BS doesn't, makes sense why BS is the shorter lasting one. Same basic principle applies I think, that if MW worked that way we'd have another mirror set of spells, and those are always fun to look at. Thanks for pointing out where I went wrong though, I didn't have my book on me so I didn't double check at the time ^.^

[Draco18s]

No problem! I hadn't even noticed that particular effect on Stoneskin (but hadn't recalled seeing it on Barkskin), so it was new to me.