which is better? +1 magic bonus, or 1d6 electricity?

[Gomar]

3.5 game....upgrading my weapon...

Which is better?
A +2 Glaive
or
A +1 Glaive with Shock (1d6 dmg)

This might be a stupid question, but I can't really come down on one side...though the latter option seems to have the better upside.

thoughts, please...

[Mongoose87]

Shock Glaive. Though, if you can, get the sonic version, or the acidic version. They're less likely to be resisted.

[Mikka]

Neither.

+1 Spellstoring Glaive wins : )

[Knaight]

The shock Glaive. The Magic Weapon line of spells renders a magic bonus greater than +1 redundant.

[Dr.Epic]

Go with shock.

[ericgrau]

A +1d6 enchantment is usually slightly better. Especially if you can have someone greater magic weapon your weapon and get both :smallbiggrin:. But even if you can't. I mean a crafter and so on can usually outdo buffs like GMW, but the thing with weapons is that the enchantments are better anyway.

Some minor advantages of an enhancement bonuses are less chance of energy resistance, harder to sunder, sometimes a little is better for mid BAB builds (especially if it has low AB overall), and getting good crits helps shrink the gap.

[Gomar]

oh yeah...fwiw, it is Spell Storing! :smallbiggrin:

[Godskook]

The only compelling reason I've ever heard for having an enhancement bonus greater than +1 is to qualify for better crystals, and even then, iirc, you can probably use them just by casting GMW anyway.

And 1d6 [energy] damage isn't too impressive, especially if its in an oft-resisted element, such as electric, fire, or cold. Sonic or Force have better staying power, or you could shop for a more useful ability:

Valorous(unaproachable east) +1, doubles damage on a charge
Viscious(SRD) +1, deals 2d6! damage, 1d6 backlash(If you have healing, this is great)
Collision(Magic Item Compendium) +2, +5 damage
Wounding(SRD) +2, 1 con damage(which is like dealing HD/2 damage)

[Escheton]

merciful, +1d6 damage, all damage is subdual.

[Godskook]

merciful, +1d6 damage, all damage is subdual.

That's not good on a primary weapon. A backup? Sure, but not the primary. *Especially* if your party doesn't follow your nonlethal choice(since you've just upgraded the opponent's healing potential since magical healing heals lethal and nonlethal both for full(Heal spell heals 150 lethal, *and* 150 nonlethal, for instance))

[Flickerdart]

Merciful blows if you're fighting Undead or anything immune to non-lethal. Collision always blows because for a +2 bonus you could have a Sonic, Acidic weapon and deal an average of 7 damage. Hell, even a regular +2 weapon means that you can Power Attack for an extra 2, dealing 4 more damage at the least - meaning that you're 1 point ahead of Collision.

[DeltaEmil]

If you have a way to reliably cast Greater Magic Weapon on your instruments of killing, then shocking or whatever other weapon quality other than a normal +1-enhancement is better.
Should you not have a way to get oils or a magic user who casts that spell, then a +2-weapon is better than a +1 something weapon, because it actually causes you to hit more often, and only when you hit something do you do damage in the first place.

[Urpriest]

Merciful blows if you're fighting Undead or anything immune to non-lethal. Collision always blows because for a +2 bonus you could have a Sonic, Acidic weapon and deal an average of 7 damage. Hell, even a regular +2 weapon means that you can Power Attack for an extra 2, dealing 4 more damage at the least - meaning that you're 1 point ahead of Collision.

Collision is excellent for a critfisher since it's multiplied on a crit. Similarly, anything else that multiplies damage is nice with Collision. That said, for the OP Collision is probably not very good.

[Incanur]

Neither.

+1 Spellstoring Glaive wins : )

This. From a power perspective, greater magic weapon makes +2 unappealing and elemental damage just isn't that great in general. This assumes, of course, that you have access to gmw.

[Godskook]

Merciful blows if you're fighting Undead or anything immune to non-lethal. Collision always blows because for a +2 bonus you could have a Sonic, Acidic weapon and deal an average of 7 damage. Hell, even a regular +2 weapon means that you can Power Attack for an extra 2, dealing 4 more damage at the least - meaning that you're 1 point ahead of Collision.

Counterpoint in defense of Collision:
1.Enhancement bonus should never be brought up in a discussion about the value of additional bonuses, since greater magic weapon makes it a trivial thing to achieve.
2.[energy] enhancements, of *ANY* type run the risk of being resisted separately, and thus, negated entirely. Collision is always-on damage, and is thus more guarenteed than many things you could compare it to.
3.A screaming corrisive weapon deals +1d4+1d6, not +2d6. So it is only 1 point ahead, not 2.
4.Said weapon above is subject to multiple resistances, and even the lowest resist values will likely negate the entire bonus.
5.Collision always gets multiplied. On critical hits, for sure, [energy] enchantments don't. (I'm not sure if they do or not with valorous)
6.Power attack calculations require far more variables than you're letting on, and assumes a build type.
7.Given the above, 1-2 damage loss in your best cases does not negate the awesomeness that is Collision.

[Zaq]

Collision's good to put on a Necklace of Natural Weapons, on the weapon of a volley archer, or on anyone who relies on the "death by a thousand cuts" style of play, just because it helps you crack DR.

It's by no means an automatic or even top-shelf choice, but it's got its uses.

[Runestar]

That extra +1 weapon enhancement effectively translates to 3 extra damage with power attack. Compared with 3.5 electrical damage. Quite close, so I will go with +2 glaive, since that is not subject to resistance (any dr will already come off the initial damage, so I don't pay twice).

[Godskook]

That extra +1 weapon enhancement effectively translates to 3 extra damage with power attack. Compared with 3.5 electrical damage. Quite close, so I will go with +2 glaive, since that is not subject to resistance (any dr will already come off the initial damage, so I don't pay twice).

3 extra damage with power attack? Are you assuming leap attack too? Than to make this fair, and you should assume Shock Trooper too, and in which case, no amount of +to-hit changes the power attack ratio, and even *if* GMW isn't in the picture, enhancement bonuses are the absolute worst you can put on your weapon for any reason except crystals.

[Runestar]

I feel that power attack is a reasonable feat any melee character can be expected to possess.

Plus, assuming no greater magic weapon, I would argue that straight weapon enhancements should be a player's foremost priority, because it helps you hit more readily (and if you can already hit easily, then converted to damage via power attack).

There is no point having all those fancy damage boosts if you can't reliably land a blow on your foe.

[Jack_Simth]

3.5 game....upgrading my weapon...

Which is better?
A +2 Glaive
or
A +1 Glaive with Shock (1d6 dmg)

This might be a stupid question, but I can't really come down on one side...though the latter option seems to have the better upside.

thoughts, please...
Let's see... a Glaive is a two-handed weapon. So if you add Power Attack into the mix, the +2 Glaive is one point of Power attack over the Shocking +1 Glaive.

Compared to a +1 Glaive:
The 1d6 from Shock averages 3.5 points of damage that does not multiply on a crit.
The +1 extra on the heavily-enchanted Glaive can be Power Attacked into a +3 damage bonus that does get multiplied on a crit.

It would be a wash, except that a fair number of things have electricity resistance - and very little things have Power Attack resistance. So for a melee-centric character that doesn't have buffs available, go with the +2 Weapon.

However, if you have a Cleric, Wizard, or other caster in the party that is willing to give you a Greater Magic Weapon spell every day, go with the Shock glaive.

[HunterOfJello]

I always end up grabbing the Earthbound enchantment from Eberron for my weapons when at lower levels. It's only a +1 enchantment so that as long as you and your enemy are touching the ground, you get +2 attack and +2 damage.

If you're at higher levels then adding +attack can be a waste for some characters, but you'll have a better weapon by then.

[T.G. Oskar]

3 extra damage with power attack? Are you assuming leap attack too? Than to make this fair, and you should assume Shock Trooper too, and in which case, no amount of +to-hit changes the power attack ratio, and even *if* GMW isn't in the picture, enhancement bonuses are the absolute worst you can put on your weapon for any reason except crystals.

I think it's not one extra point of BAB x3, but one point of BAB x2 plus the enhancement bonus. With Leap Attack that'd be +4. No need for optimizing PA on that one.

I find Energy Aura a slightly better choice than Collision, if only because it offers four types of damage instead of one; even though Resistance is easier to find than Damage Reduction, the fact that having the wrong weapon can ruin your Collision damage while having the wrong resistance doesn't matter much to Energy Surge. Heck, Fleshgrinding is slightly better than Collision on that matter (since you're effectively attacking one more time while having that weapon around; a +1 Fleshgrinding dagger may not seem as much, but a +1 Fleshgrinding dagger with other special properties adds quite a bit of damage over 5 rounds).

But then again, it's not to bash Collision or anything. All I can say is that it isn't entirely cost effective compared to other forms of damage on its simplest manifestation (essentially, a single normal hit), but that it can be roughly better on specific situations (namely, on high Crit weapons). I'd say: a Collision Kaorti resin weapon can be outright devastating, worse if it's an 18-20 crit range weapon (except, of course, on creatures immune to critical hits).

[icefractal]

If you expect to have a reliable source of Greater Magic Weapon, then the electricity is better. If not, then the +1 is better (with crits, it amounts to +3.3 damage, no energy resistance to worry about, and can be traded for better accuracy when necessary).

Although as has been mentioned, there are other options that are better than either one.

[herrhauptmann]

The only compelling reason I've ever heard for having an enhancement bonus greater than +1 is to qualify for better crystals, and even then, iirc, you can probably use them just by casting GMW anyway.

And 1d6 [energy] damage isn't too impressive, especially if its in an oft-resisted element, such as electric, fire, or cold. Sonic or Force have better staying power, or you could shop for a more useful ability:

Valorous(unaproachable east) +1, doubles damage on a charge
Viscious(SRD) +1, deals 2d6! damage, 1d6 backlash(If you have healing, this is great)
Collision(Magic Item Compendium) +2, +5 damage
Wounding(SRD) +2, 1 con damage(which is like dealing HD/2 damage)

How about Smoking (lords of darkness) +1. Grants a 20% miss chance, as well as a second, minor effect. Fairly useless for creatures larger than medium though.

I'd say, if you can't reliably get Greater Magic weapon (that's often outside of op-fu games), then take the +1.
If you CAN get GMW, or just gotta get that extra bit of damage, try and get something besides electric. Fire is the most resisted element, I'd say electric is second and cold is third.
Sonic or force for the least commonly resisted elements, or go for acid to help you with regenerating types.

[Coidzor]

3.5 game....upgrading my weapon...

Which is better?
A +2 Glaive
or
A +1 Glaive with Shock (1d6 dmg)

This might be a stupid question, but I can't really come down on one side...though the latter option seems to have the better upside.

thoughts, please...

Depends, what sort of environment is the game world? And what books are you all using?

And does it have to be between those two?

[Callista]

Raw damage analysis:

+1, +1d6 shock:
The +1 adds +1 damage per hit, and then 5% more damage because you hit more often. The 1d6 shock damage adds 3.5 damage on average.

+2:
The +2 adds +2 damage per hit, and then 10% more damage because you hit 10% more often.

So if you do an average of 50 damage or more per hit, then the +2 is better. If you do less than that, then you want the +1 shock weapon.

Obviously if you're fighting things that have a useful weakness to one or the other, this changes. But I'm assuming that if you're using a +2 weapon, it's highly unlikely that you're doing 50 or more damage per hit anyway.

[Escheton]

It also depends on what you use the weapon for.
If you also use it for touch attacks because you have a trip build, the +2 has a more widespread use.
But seeing it's a glaive and not a guisarme thats prolly not the case.
Speaking of glaives, do you have steadfast boots yet?

[Godskook]

I think it's not one extra point of BAB x3, but one point of BAB x2 plus the enhancement bonus. With Leap Attack that'd be +4. No need for optimizing PA on that one.

Good point, I missed that one.


I find Energy Aura a slightly better choice than Collision, if only because it offers four types of damage instead of one; even though Resistance is easier to find than Damage Reduction, the fact that having the wrong weapon can ruin your Collision damage while having the wrong resistance doesn't matter much to Energy Surge.

1.Energy Aura is a almost complete garbage. It costs a +2 to deal 1d6? That's an average of 3.5, and its resistable(hard, but possible).

2.Collision isn't 'subject' to DR since DR only affects an attack once. You're either getting all the collision damage, or you wouldn't have done damage without collision on the weapon. (Yes, I realize that, technically speaking, Collision is subject to DR, but practically speaking, it shouldn't ever come up, since it joins the same pool as your Str bonus, base damage, power attack damage, and other standard bonuses)

3.Energy Surge doesn't work with Energy Aura, only the individual elementals, and is usable a precious few times per day. Its decent, but not great, and I'd personally prefer collision, despite collision doing less damage, since its more reliable, and has no pre-requisites.

4.I'll admit, Collision isn't the greatest +2 out there, but it is a pretty darn good one, and if you limit the comparisons just to those that deal direct damage, like corrosive, energy aura, or Holy, it comes out as being more reliable damage than most, either cause it isn't going to be resisted or you don't have to worry about creature type or alignment.


Heck, Fleshgrinding is slightly better than Collision on that matter (since you're effectively attacking one more time while having that weapon around; a +1 Fleshgrinding dagger may not seem as much, but a +1 Fleshgrinding dagger with other special properties adds quite a bit of damage over 5 rounds).

Fleshgrinding is an awesome ability, and soundly crushes Collision for some things, but when you can only afford one weapon as a front-line melee, you need to be able to attack target 2 with it, not just target 1, which makes Fleshgrinding another one of those "backup weapon" enchantments, right alongside Merciful.


But then again, it's not to bash Collision or anything. All I can say is that it isn't entirely cost effective compared to other forms of damage on its simplest manifestation (essentially, a single normal hit), but that it can be roughly better on specific situations (namely, on high Crit weapons). I'd say: a Collision Kaorti resin weapon can be outright devastating, worse if it's an 18-20 crit range weapon (except, of course, on creatures immune to critical hits).

But that's the thing, it *is* a cost effective enchantment. Sure, its not 'exploitable' like Fleshgrinding, Wounding, or such, but in the "simple damage boosters", collision is among the best out there.

[Curmudgeon]

Which is better?
A +2 Glaive
or
A +1 Glaive with Shock (1d6 dmg)

This might be a stupid question, but I can't really come down on one side...though the latter option seems to have the better upside.
The answer depends on your character. If you've got sneak attack damage you'll want to go for an extra +1 to hit (and damage, but that's not the main concern). Sneak attack is a great source of bonus damage, but of course you deal no damage if you don't hit. Also getting to +3 weapon enhancement allows for adding those handy Greater Truedeath and Greater Demolition weapon augment crystals, boosting the percentage of the time where you'll be able to add sneak attack damage.

So this isn't a stupid question, and arriving at the right answer requires thinking things all the way through.

[Fitz10019]

I cringe when people assume the party wizard will devote a spell slot to GMW, or that he will devote enough slots that everyone will be a recipient. I don't like assuming another player will devote his resources (a daily slot; a use of a Rod of Extend, or worst, a standard action) to my character's success. What if the wizard likes to use his 3rd-level slots for fireballs? In that case, you may have to bribe him with a Pearl of Power, 3rd level, for 9,000gp. Now you need to take that cost into consideration.

So, consider that the Wizard other uses for his 3rd level slots during levels 5-8. Having a +2 weapon during this time is a valid choice. Later, when the Wizard feels more generous with his 3rd level slots, you might consider +1 as the highest enchantment needed, and get a completely new weapon, a +1 with other enhancements. Note, it still wouldn't hurt to plan on buying that pearl.

[Darrin]

The best extra damage property to add to a weapon is Psychokinetic (1d4 force). I think there's only 1 or 2 creatures in the entire game that is resistant/immune. All the other energy types can be added via Alchemical Capsules (Quickflame, Quickfrost, Quickspark), Augment Crystals (which can be swapped out as needed), magic items (Bracers of Lightning, MIC p. 206), or spells (blades of fire, burning sword, frost weapon, sonic weapon).

If you need 1d6 electricity damage, the Lesser Crystal of Energy Assault (3000 GP, MIC p. 64) is cheaper than paying for an additional +1 enhancement (+1 weapon = +2000 GP, +2 weapon = +8000 GP, or a +6000 GP upgrade cost).

[Darastin]

Which is better?
A +2 Glaive
or
A +1 Glaive with Shock (1d6 dmg)

This might be a stupid question, but I can't really come down on one side...though the latter option seems to have the better upside.
It certainly is a legitimate question.

First of all, let's do some math. Or rather, let the computer do some math since I'm too lazy to do this by hand.

You haven't given any details ablot your character, so I'll gust guesstimate a baseline. A +2 equivalent weapon could enter play at around 4th level or somewhat later. I'll assume 4th for my calculations; more levels usually just add BAB and thus move the AC window. I'll assume a STR of 18 (e.g. 16 base, +2 stat booster). Could be higher, but I try to be conservative here. Higher STR usually favors the higher total attack bonus.

I'll assume no further feats; Weapon Focus would, again, just move the AC window and Specialization (it's considered weak, but becomes quite decent with Melee Weapon Mastery) again slightly favors the higher total attack bonus.

We end up with +4 BAB and +4 to hit from STR; giving us:
+2 glaive: +10 to hit, 1d10+8 damage (avg. 13.5)
+1 shocking glaive: +9 to hit; 1d10+7+1d6 damage (avg. 12.5 + 3.5)

So I summon the mighty Damalyzer to compare these two...


Primary set: +2 glaive; using BAB of 4:
Weapon 1: to hit: +10; avg. damage 13.5 (20/x3); power attack x 2.0


Secondary set: +1 shocking glaive; using BAB of 4:
Weapon 1: to hit: +9; avg. damage 12.5 (20/x3) +3.5; power attack x 2.0


plain comparison:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC better set damage margin ratio
10 secondary 16.3875 2.2800 16.16%
11 secondary 16.3875 2.2800 16.16%
12 secondary 15.5250 1.4175 10.05%
13 secondary 14.6625 1.2975 9.71%
14 secondary 13.8000 1.1775 9.33%
15 secondary 12.9375 1.0575 8.90%
16 secondary 12.0750 0.9375 8.42%
17 secondary 11.2125 0.8175 7.86%
18 secondary 10.3500 0.6975 7.23%
19 secondary 9.4875 0.5775 6.48%
20 secondary 8.6250 0.4575 5.60%
21 secondary 7.7625 0.3375 4.55%
22 secondary 6.9000 0.2175 3.25%
23 secondary 6.0375 0.0975 1.64%
24 primary 5.1975 0.0225 0.43%
25 primary 4.4550 0.1425 3.30%
26 primary 3.7125 0.2625 7.61%
27 primary 2.9700 0.3825 14.78%
28 primary 2.2275 0.5025 29.13%
29 primary 1.4850 0.6225 72.17%
30 secondary 0.8625 0.1200 16.16%


power attack comparison:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC better set PA damage margin ratio
10 secondary 4 20.8400 0.7375 3.67%
11 secondary 4 19.5375 0.6175 3.26%
12 secondary 4 18.2350 0.4975 2.80%
13 secondary 4 16.9325 0.3775 2.28%
14 secondary 4 15.6300 0.2575 1.68%
15 secondary 4 14.3275 0.1375 0.97%
16 secondary 3 13.1175 0.1100 0.85%
17 secondary 3 11.9250 0.1000 0.85%
18 secondary 2 10.8250 0.1000 0.93%
19 secondary 2 9.7425 0.0900 0.93%
20 secondary 1 8.7525 0.0900 1.04%
21 secondary 1 7.7800 0.0800 1.04%
22 secondary 0 6.9000 0.0800 1.17%
23 secondary 0 6.0375 0.0700 1.17%
24 primary 0 5.1975 0.0225 0.43%
25 primary 0 4.4550 0.1425 3.30%
26 primary 0 3.7125 0.2625 7.61%
27 primary 0 2.9700 0.3825 14.78%
28 primary 0 2.2275 0.5025 29.13%
29 primary 0 1.4850 0.1825 14.01%
30 secondary 4 1.3025 0.1200 10.15%

At first glance, the +1 shocking glaive appears to be the winner against a significant range of ACs. However, on close inspection the +2 glaive actually isn't very far beind - less than a single point of average damage per round in most cases. Thus, damage dealt isn't a real factor here.

Let's take a look at other characteristics:

A +1 weapon can be GMWd to a higher enhancement bonus; thus giving you both higher enhancement bonus and additional elemental damage. However, GMW scales slower than crafting weapons (+1/4 levels vs. +1/3 levels), so this isn't an actual advantage until level 8 - where +2 weapons (with other abilities) could be available from other sources: found, crafted or affordable from sellers. It also eats up a 3rd level spell slot from an arcanist (or even a 4th level slot from a priest), which still is a significant resource at these levels, doesn't last for the whole day and is vulnerable to Dispels.

It is also unclear how temporarily enchanted weapons interact with sundering attempts. Your DM might rule that only permanent enhancement bonuses count towards weapon HP or that damage is kept after the GMW runs out. In both cases, a temporarily enchanted weapon is easier to lose to some sundering jerk.

Thus, while GMW is a valuable boost when it is available, I wouldn't want to depend on it.

Aside from GMW, there are times when all you really need is total attack bonus - sundering, disarming and so on. +1d6 elemental damage won't help you with that. Also, even the slightest amount of energy resistance (which is usually 5) blocks it almost totally.

Another disadvantage to elemental bonus damage is that it needs to be activated with a standard action - probably a non-issue when exploring a dungeon (just turn it on when entering), but not so trivial in other enviroments, such as a city. Or if you have to stow it away for some reason.


So, considering all of the above, I'd go with the +2 glaive.

Just my two €-cents;
Darastin

[dspeyer]

Another point to remember is that if you're planning to double your damage (with crits or ruby nightmare blade or whatever), bonus energy doesn't get doubled, so +2 is better.

[bartman]

Long-@$$ quote

Wow, where did you find the program that calculated this? I googled Damalyzer but did not really find anything in english...

[tyckspoon]

I cringe when people assume the party wizard will devote a spell slot to GMW, or that he will devote enough slots that everyone will be a recipient. I don't like assuming another player will devote his resources (a daily slot; a use of a Rod of Extend, or worst, a standard action) to my character's success. What if the wizard likes to use his 3rd-level slots for fireballs? In that case, you may have to bribe him with a Pearl of Power, 3rd level, for 9,000gp. Now you need to take that cost into consideration.


I generally recommend the Pearl along with the tactic when suggesting GMW/Magic Vestments; it's still cheaper than getting anything +3 or better, and the comparative savings just get better and better as the values get higher. I don't consider it a 'bribe', either; you're just paying for your weapon, the same way you would if you'd bought that +3/4/whatever sword. You just found a more efficient way to buy it.

[Darastin]

Wow, where did you find the program that calculated this?
I wrote it :smallcool:

Lost the sources sometime ago, then had to decompile it to keep working on it. Thus, the code looks even more messy than usual, as I was too lazy to clean up any parts I didn't need to work with.

I still haven't written any instructions in english, but if you're willing to try (the UI is english), grab a cup of Java (http://www.java.com/de/download/) (it should run with older versions; around 1.4 or so) and this (http://www.wizace.de/downloads/damalyzer_2.6.zip).



I generally recommend the Pearl along with the tactic when suggesting GMW/Magic Vestments; it's still cheaper than getting anything +3 or better, and the
Problem: Pearl of Power or not; the caster still has to spend one of his or her spell slots. Getting the spell back with the pearl is pointless if the caster wants that slot for something else.

Just my two €-cents;
Darastin

[T.G. Oskar]

1.Energy Aura is a almost complete garbage. It costs a +2 to deal 1d6? That's an average of 3.5, and its resistable(hard, but possible).

Thing with energy aura is effectively getting four enhancements for the price of two, with the caveat that only one applies. It's resistible, but to be completely resistible you'd have to have immunity to four elements, so while less reliable in that sense, it's not entirely defeatable. I'd say only the top outsiders would have that kind of trouble.

Then again, there's vulnerabilities, but that's harder to exploit.


2.Collision isn't 'subject' to DR since DR only affects an attack once. You're either getting all the collision damage, or you wouldn't have done damage without collision on the weapon. (Yes, I realize that, technically speaking, Collision is subject to DR, but practically speaking, it shouldn't ever come up, since it joins the same pool as your Str bonus, base damage, power attack damage, and other standard bonuses)

In that sense, Metalline >> Collision, because you get no damage reduced. Or the other enhancement which grants you immediate bypass to damage reduction after 1 turn. In that sense, Collision is subject to DR; while it's added, the fact that it directly reduces your damage still applies. Say you dealt 5 points of damage against someone with DR 10; Collision would still be resisted in that case. It's not reliable when you're not taking advantage of damage multipliers, since much like resistance applies each time you attack with a weapon with an element, Collision gets resisted (to an extent) with each hit.


3.Energy Surge doesn't work with Energy Aura, only the individual elementals, and is usable a precious few times per day. Its decent, but not great, and I'd personally prefer collision, despite collision doing less damage, since its more reliable, and has no pre-requisites.

I honestly was gonna say Energy Aura again. Note that I said that having the wrong resistance doesn't matter much: that is because you can shift your energy damage, even if it's a measly 1d6. If you can exploit the vulnerability, it's a 2d6.

And, thing is, after mentioning Lesser Crystal of Energy Assault, the point kinda turns moot since you can add the right kind of crystal for each occasion so as long as you have a +1 crystal. I still find Energy Aura interesting for the bunch of possibilities, though.


4.I'll admit, Collision isn't the greatest +2 out there, but it is a pretty darn good one, and if you limit the comparisons just to those that deal direct damage, like corrosive, energy aura, or Holy, it comes out as being more reliable damage than most, either cause it isn't going to be resisted or you don't have to worry about creature type or alignment.

Again; not trying to say it's not, but it doesn't work reliably where you'd like it. Most enemies are evil or neutral, so you wouldn't get an Unholy weapon; there are more evil creatures than neutral creatures, and most of the monsters with traction are evil rather than neutral, so chances are Holy will work a good amount of times, and with 7 damage average few things work better. I do mention Collision works better when it can be exploited, and that's usually with high crit range/crit multiplier builds, since it can increase your damage rather well. On the other hand, Corrosive, Flaming, Frost, Shocking, Screaming and Psychokinetic are +1 bonus, which makes the damage compared to the cost far more effective (hence, cost effective; Collision would be the rough equivalent to dealing the average of 2d4 damage, while the damage enhancements of a +2 cost usually deal 2d6 or 3d6, restricted or not). It's not bad, but it's kinda expensive: Collision with a cost of +1 would be phenomenal, but with a cost of +2 it loses some steam. It's not Vorpal (a +5 enhancement to have a 5% of killing about 72% of the creatures), but it's not, say, Spell Storing either.

[tyckspoon]

Problem: Pearl of Power or not; the caster still has to spend one of his or her spell slots. Getting the spell back with the pearl is pointless if the caster wants that slot for something else.

Just my two €-cents;
Darastin

*shrug* By the time GMW makes a difference and 3rd level Pearls of Power are a reasonable investment (between about levels 8-10) a single 3rd level slot is not an especially large deal. Write it off as that one slot you were going to use for a party-buffing spell anyway. (..hmm. I'd probably end up considering it a party investment to get your Wizard a bunch of 3rd-level Pearls regardless. That's extra Haste, Fly, Slow, Stinking Cloud, Invisibility Sphere..)

[Gomar]

well...i suppose my choice isn't really any easier.

Some of the options I was unaware of...

My weapon is now a Cold Iron +1 Shocking, Spell Storing Glaive.

This gives our party almost every energy type, and almost every material type.

I have a good BAB and High Strength, with 1/day Rage thanks to a Barb level-dip...and I get plenty of buffs from the party caster...

That being said, i may need to change my die, because I couldn't get more than 3 out of my 1d6 electricity last night...I won't mention the woeful evening my d10 for my glaive had...:smallmad:

[Zaq]

Problem: Pearl of Power or not; the caster still has to spend one of his or her spell slots. Getting the spell back with the pearl is pointless if the caster wants that slot for something else.

The wizard doesn't use the Pearl to get GMW back. The wizard uses the pearl to get a different 3rd level spell back. You're essentially giving the wizard a free 3rd level spell of his (or her) choice in exchange for devoting one slot to GMW. All this means is that the wizard essentially has to choose one spell to prepare twice. Since there's no shortage of 3rd level spells that are quite useful multiple times per day (haste, slow, dispel magic, stinking cloud, sleet storm . . .), this really isn't much of a sacrifice for the average wizard. If you assume that the wizard is going to independently choose to cast at least one 3rd level spell twice in the same day, there's no difference. Let's say that a wizard gets four 3rd level spells per day, and knows the value of a good dispel. Observe:

Without GMW or Pearl:
-Haste
-Dispel Magic
-Dispel Magic
-Sleet Storm

With GMW and Pearl:
-GMW
-Haste
-Dispel Magic
-BONUS PEARL SLOT: Dispel Magic
-Sleet Storm

The wizard hasn't made any sacrifices, the BSF gets a magic weapon, and everyone's happy. Now, if your wizard insists on never doubling up on any spell for any reason, then they've arguably made a sacrifice, but I honestly don't think that such a case is going to come up too often.

[Saph]

The more serious problem with the "just use GMW" approach is that you won't always have a wizard to cast spells on demand. The party might not have one, the player might be away that week, the PCs might split up, or quite possibly, the other player might just decide he can't be bothered.

However, if you do manage to get access to GMW later, having a +2 weapon is pretty much worthless.

Also, as mentioned, a problem with the +1d6 energy enhancements is that pretty much any amount of energy resistance makes them worthless (and as you go up levels, lots of things have energy resistance). It also slows down the game as you have to calculate energy damage separately so you can tell the DM which is weapon damage and which isn't.

For all these reasons, I usually pick neither of the above for weapon enchantments.

[Mercenary Pen]

The more serious problem with the "just use GMW" approach is that you won't always have a wizard to cast spells on demand. The party might not have one, the player might be away that week, the PCs might split up, or quite possibly, the other player might just decide he can't be bothered.

It's not quite so bad as that, since GMW is also on the Cleric, Paladin and Sorcerer spell lists without checking anything more than the PHB (though I'll admit the Paladin is a fairly unlikely option due to partial casting)- I was wondering why everyone was just saying wizard rather than mentioning any of the other casters out there capable of the same spell...

Your other points are entirely valid though.

[elonin]

I've been in a few games that were mid to high level and never yet has anyone buff my characters with GMW. So that is a factor as suggested by Saph.

There is another reason to get an at least +3 weapon. The greater demolition and greater truedeath crystals make it easier on the rogue or scout. Yes that is a situational reason but still a good one.

[Saph]

It's not quite so bad as that, since GMW is also on the Cleric, Paladin and Sorcerer spell lists without checking anything more than the PHB (though I'll admit the Paladin is a fairly unlikely option due to partial casting)- I was wondering why everyone was just saying wizard rather than mentioning any of the other casters out there capable of the same spell...

Well, it's less practical for the others - Clerics get it as a 4th-level spell (where it has to compete with several other very good choices), Sorcerers have their limited spell list, and Paladins don't have the caster level to make it worthwhile in the first place. So if anyone's casting GMW, it'll usually be a wizard.

[Runestar]

At higher lvs, a wizard can easily prepare a chained greater magic weapon to give everyone +5 weapons. :smallbiggrin: