Why do Magical Weapons need +1?

[DeadlyLuvdisc]

I've been DMing a campaign for two months now, and this is my first time DMing for Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e. Anyway, I don't plan on the campaign running beyond 10th level, but I still want the PCs to have access to some nice special abilities on their magical weapons and armor. I'm considering waiving the requirement that a weapon must have a +1 enhancement bonus prior to getting any special abilities. Is this a good idea, or will it make things too easy at low levels? Should I just drop a few magical weapons in the treasure and hope they use them instead of selling them?

Pertinent information: Party of five, three of whom have never played before. Low optimization, the most experienced player is a Fighter, the others are a Sorcerer, a shapeshift variant Druid, a Swordsage and a Bard.

[JaronK]

Honestly, I don't really see the need either.

JaronK

[Strormer]

Well, dropping magical weapons should be pretty sparing until you're at least past level 5, but with low or no-op players it should be fine. Just don't give them anything more than +1 and don't give them that until at least 3rd level, preferably 4th. Before that, giving masterwork or things like potions tends to be enough.

Waiving the requirement is no big deal, but keep the power level the same as it would've been with that rule in place.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I've been DMing a campaign for two months now, and this is my first time DMing for Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e. Anyway, I don't plan on the campaign running beyond 10th level, but I still want the PCs to have access to some nice special abilities on their magical weapons and armor. I'm considering waiving the requirement that a weapon must have a +1 enhancement bonus prior to getting any special abilities. Is this a good idea, or will it make things too easy at low levels? Should I just drop a few magical weapons in the treasure and hope they use them instead of selling them?

Pertinent information: Party of five, three of whom have never played before. Low optimization, the most experienced player is a Fighter, the others are a Sorcerer, a shapeshift variant Druid, a Swordsage and a Bard.The effect of it would simply be that certain specific magical properties would be much cheaper to get. Unless they can craft/invest in that, then you still determine what they can find.

[SowZ]

Well, waiving the +1 means that, short term, people will get all the special abilities they want before they start building up to the +5 flat bonus. If you can have a magic weapon without a +1 bonus, than all a +1 bonus does for you is +1 damage.

Paying 2000 damage for a +1 to damage is pretty expensive.

The way to mitigate this is to say the weapon does not count as magic for overcoming DR without a +1 bonus. OR say that the +1 bonus stacks with the masterwork bonus. Both of these options keep the +1 bonus relevant while allowing people to skip it.

[aeauseth]

I have a DM who houserules the weapon/armor just has to be masterwork, not magical +1 enhancement to aquire magical properties.

Seems to work just fine, gives DM more flexibility and creativity.

[andromax]

it keeps rather powerful +1 weapon properties at bay until ECL 6-7 or so.

If you let someone put Valorous on a sword for 2k GP, your fighter would be doing 60 damage per charge pretty consistently at level 3 instead of 7. That's just one possibility.

[TuggyNE]

Well, waiving the +1 means that, short term, people will get all the special abilities they want before they start building up to the +5 flat bonus. If you can have a magic weapon without a +1 bonus, than all a +1 bonus does for you is +1 damage.

Paying 2000 damage for a +1 to damage is pretty expensive.

The way to mitigate this is to say the weapon does not count as magic for overcoming DR without a +1 bonus. OR say that the +1 bonus stacks with the masterwork bonus. Both of these options keep the +1 bonus relevant while allowing people to skip it.

Pretty much this.

[Answerer]

I tend to think it's because you already have "half" a +1 from the Masterwork bonus, which makes that first +1 relatively less valuable than the ones that come after it (giving, as it does, +1 damage but not +1 attack, at least not +1 compared to what you already have).

Also, "build up to a +5"? Who on earth does that?

[SowZ]

I tend to think it's because you already have "half" a +1 from the Masterwork bonus, which makes that first +1 relatively less valuable than the ones that come after it (giving, as it does, +1 damage but not +1 attack, at least not +1 compared to what you already have).

Also, "build up to a +5"? Who on earth does that?

I will always put the +5 flat bonus on a +9 Weapon. After Keen and Valorous, a flat +1 to hit and +1 to damage does enough for me that I want to max that out.

[Morcleon]

I will always put the +5 flat bonus on a +9 Weapon. After Keen and Valorous, a flat +1 to hit and +1 to damage does enough for me that I want to max that out.

Getting +1 and +9 special abilities generally ends up being better than +5 and +5 special abilities.

[DeadlyLuvdisc]

it keeps rather powerful +1 weapon properties at bay until ECL 6-7 or so.

If you let someone put Valorous on a sword for 2k GP, your fighter would be doing 60 damage per charge pretty consistently at level 3 instead of 7. That's just one possibility.

This is exactly what I was wondering about. I don't think they will go for Valorous though. I was mostly thinking along the same lines that Masterwork quality already gives +1 to the attack roll, and unless you really need those extra pluses to hit then it is far better to add special abilities instead of enhancement bonuses.

Really, I expect they'd get Flaming weapons or something sub-optimal like that. Even then, +1d6 fire damage > +1 untyped damage in most cases, especially lower levels.

EDIT: What about later on, when they can buy a holy greatsword at Lvl5?

[andromax]

Even then, +1d6 fire damage > +1 untyped damage in most cases
That's kind of a funny statement, mostly because the +1 is not at all untyped. It's the same type as the weapon(piercing, slashing or bludgeoning etc) and counts as magical (whereas masterwork would not). So if you allow non magical weapons to have magical properties then not only do you have a magical sword that isn't magical, but the players have zero incentive to spend money EVER to make it magical, they will just keep adding properties because u can make it magical with a 1st lvl spell. You may get lucky as a DM and they will pick weaker properties but you are playing teeter totter with an already easily broken system at that point. If you want them to have an item for free, have a bad guy drop it, or give it another way.


With all that being said ill go back to the first sentence. The only time 1d6 fire would be better than +1 untyped is probably vs trolls. Keep in mind untyped damage would bypass any damage reduction/resisistance.

For instance, in a fight vs Tieflings who have fire resist 5, that 1d6 fire is only gonna factor in 16 & 2/3% of the time, whereas that +1 untyped will have done damage every hit. Most things have some sort of resistance at mid levels and up.

[Morcleon]

That's kind of a funny statement, mostly because the +1 is not at all untyped. It's the same type as the weapon(piercing, slashing or bludgeoning etc) and counts as magical (whereas masterwork would not). So if you allow non magical weapons to have magical properties then not only do you have a magical sword that isn't magical, but the players have incentive to spend money EVER to make it magical, they will just keep addinnproperties because u can make it magical with a 1st lvl spell. You may get lucky as a DM and they will pick weaker properties but you are playing teeter totter with an already easily broken system at that point. If you want them to have an item for free, have a bad guy drop it, or give it another way.

That's a good point actually. Another reason to have the +1 is to make your weapon magical for DR and incorporeals.


With all that being said ill go back to the first sentence. The only time 1d6 would be better than +1 untyped is probably vs trolls. Keep in mind untyped damage would bypass any damage reduction/resisistance.

But if only 1 point of that damage is untyped, wouldn't it simply be better to get more damage to simply bypass the DR through sheer force? :smalltongue:

Also, if you want a +1 that gives more dice and don't want to worry about DR or common resistances, then pick up psychokinetic or desiccating. It's +1d4 force or desiccation damage, respectively. Corrosive is the best of the energy types, though, with +1d6 acid.

[andromax]

That's a good point actually. Another reason to have the +1 is to make your weapon magical for DR and incorporeals.



But if only 1 point of that damage is untyped, wouldn't it simply be better to get more damage to simply bypass the DR through sheer force? :smalltongue:

Also, if you want a +1 that gives more dice and don't want to worry about DR or common resistances, then pick up psychokinetic or desiccating. It's +1d4 force or desiccation damage, respectively. Corrosive is the best of the energy types, though, with +1d6 acid.

Let's say I found a way to be immune to slashing, piercing and bludgeoning. And managed to find a way to ignore fire, acid, cold, sonic and force damage. Lets assume there are several other typed damages out there that I'm forgetting at the moment, that over the 3,000 years of my tyrannical existence I have figured out a way to have immunity/high resistance too.

Untyped damage still hurts me.

[Rubik]

I think the +1 requirement is primarily because mundane characters can't have nice things. A cleric or wizard can get +5 weapons all he wants, what with Greater Magic Weapon and a few pearls of power, whereas fighters have to pay out the wazoo for their magic weapons.

[SowZ]

Getting +1 and +9 special abilities generally ends up being better than +5 and +5 special abilities.

At high levels of optimization, if you have +4/+5 worth of special abilities and are high enough level to have +9/+10 weapon, well, if you hit it with enough of your full attack attacks you are going to kill it. So accuracy on your weapon can be more important than damage.

When you are doing hundreds of damage a hit, not much beats a 5% accuracy bump. Besides, the +1 damage from the weapon will be doubling and tripling and such if you are a charger or a crit fisher.

[Greenish]

If you let someone put Valorous on a sword for 2k GP, your fighter would be doing 60 damage per charge pretty consistently at level 3 instead of 7. That's just one possibility.Mmn, though Valorous is definitively on the upper level of the power curve of enhancements.


At high levels of optimization……You get +1 weapon with +9 enhancements and get Greater Magic Weapon to round it out. There was even a magic item somewhere that could cast it 1/day at CL 20, if you don't have a caster.

[SowZ]

Mmn, though Valorous is definitively on the upper level of the power curve of enhancements.

…You get +1 weapon with +9 enhancements and get Greater Magic Weapon to round it out. There was even a magic item somewhere that could cast it 1/day at CL 20, if you don't have a caster.

Sure, no, you are right. But I don't like counting on casters to buff me. I build assuming they won't or can't, and then if they do good but if not, meh. I didn't even know about that item, how much is it? I am a big believer in the static +5, but if I could get it cheaply I'd be very happy.

[DeadlyLuvdisc]

That's kind of a funny statement, mostly because the +1 is not at all untyped.
My bad. In practice I definitely would count it as the same type as the weapon, I just never really thought about it and it happens to be late at night in my time zone.

So if you allow non magical weapons to have magical properties then not only do you have a magical sword that isn't magical
But how could a flaming sword not be magical? If the flaming effect isn't magical, why does the weapon need a magical enhancement bonus before it can have the flaming ability? I mean, if I saw a flaming sword I'd definitely think it is magical, whereas I might not even notice the magical qualities of a +1 sword. It also seems rather odd that a +1 enhancement makes all the damage of the sword bypass DR/magic if the fire effect doesn't count as magical as well. Now, I'm totally new to this game, but if pretty much everyone gets a +1 weapon fairly early then how often does DR/magic come into play anyway?

Most things have some sort of resistance at mid levels and up.
I never claimed that Flaming was a good effect, and I specifically said that this campaign will be over at around Lv10. By then they will probably have discovered how much more effective abilities like Spell Storing, Merciful, Bane, and Holy are, especially when they can get these at lower levels than before.

I didn't ask about RAW, and my party is so low-op that TO doesn't factor in at all. I'm asking more about how this House Rule would effect the difficulty level. Say if my Fighter decides to get a Merciful or Spellstoring Greatsword with his first 2350gp, is that so bad? Or if he gets a Holy Greatsword about two levels before he would otherwise? And this is for a party with two front-line melee PCs who even use weapons anyway. My instinct is that in Core-Only this isn't such a big deal, but like I said, I'm new.

EDIT: I suppose the party could buy four times as many Spellstoring weapons at the new price than they would be able to otherwise. If they use these weapons to store spells and take them into the next game day, they are more cost-effective than pearls of power and you still can discharge the spell with a successful attack.

[SowZ]

My bad. In practice I definitely would count it as the same type as the weapon, I just never really thought about it and it happens to be late at night in my time zone.

But how could a flaming sword not be magical? If the flaming effect isn't magical, why does the weapon need a magical enhancement bonus before it can have the flaming ability? I mean, if I saw a flaming sword I'd definitely think it is magical, whereas I might not even notice the magical qualities of a +1 sword. It also seems rather odd that a +1 enhancement makes all the damage of the sword bypass DR/magic if the fire effect doesn't count as magical as well. Now, I'm totally new to this game, but if pretty much everyone gets a +1 weapon fairly early then how often does DR/magic come into play anyway?

I never claimed that Flaming was a good effect, and I specifically said that this campaign will be over at around Lv10. By then they will probably have discovered how much more effective abilities like Spell Storing, Merciful, Bane, and Holy are, especially when they can get these at lower levels than before.

I didn't ask about RAW, and my party is so low-op that TO doesn't factor in at all. I'm asking more about how this House Rule would effect the difficulty level. Say if my Fighter decides to get a Merciful or Spellstoring Greatsword with his first 2350gp, is that so bad? Or if he gets a Holy Greatsword about two levels before he would otherwise? And this is for a party with two front-line melee PCs who even use weapons anyway. My instinct is that in Core-Only this isn't such a big deal, but like I said, I'm new.

I've played with Dms who ignore the +1 bonus requirement. While it does have the problems I listed above, no, it really isn't such a big deal. I don't think it will imbalance your game or cause any real problems. It might help get your concepts to work more effectively earlier on, which is nice.

The simplest solution to the problems arising from the no +1 pre-req for special abilities is to just say that the +1 from a magic weapon stacks with the MW bonus, that way there is still a reason to get it. Then there isn't the inconsistency of why doesn't a flaming sword count as magic.

It throws a screw in the way the game is balanced, but it is a small enough screw and the game is imbalanced enough anyway that if it makes it more fun for you guys do it. It doesn't matter much.

[Vaern]

But how could a flaming sword not be magical? If the flaming effect isn't magical, why does the weapon need a magical enhancement bonus before it can have the flaming ability?
The flaming effect is magical. The problem is that the sword is not magical.
For the purposes of damage reduction, a magic weapon is defined as "any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality." As the flaming property does not increase a weapon's actual enhancement bonus, the sword is not a magic weapon.

[Ashtagon]

If you do this, consider the following idea:

Simply having a special ability doesn't make a weapon magical for purposes of bypassing DR. Each +1 of a weapon's enhancement allows the weapon to bypass 5 points of DR, so a +4 weapon can bypass 20 points of DR x/magic. As a capstone exception, a +5 weapon can bypass DR x/magic entirely.

[SowZ]

The flaming effect is magical. The problem is that the sword is not magical.
For the purposes of damage reduction, a magic weapon is defined as "any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality." As the flaming property does not increase a weapon's actual enhancement bonus, the sword is not a magic weapon.

This is probably a better way to balance the lack of required +1, since even without an accuracy increase the ability to overcome DR is worth the enhancement.

[Greenish]

Sure, no, you are right. But I don't like counting on casters to buff me. I build assuming they won't or can't, and then if they do good but if not, meh. I didn't even know about that item, how much is it? I am a big believer in the static +5, but if I could get it cheaply I'd be very happy.Ah, took me a bit to find, but I was thinking of Tooth of Leraje (ToM). At 21.6k gp, it's pretty economical option. There's some drawbacks (only one such item exists, they can't be manufactured, you'll have to yank off one of your teeth, you look sickly and diseased, you can't attack elves… the usual).


But how could a flaming sword not be magical?We're talking about what the rules say. The rules often make no sense.


[Edit]: Archers could use the suggested change to great effect by stacking up with (relatively) cheap Bane arrows.

[SowZ]

Ah, took me a bit to find, but I was thinking of Tooth of Leraje (ToM). At 21.6k gp, it's pretty economical option. There's some drawbacks (only one such item exists, they can't be manufactured, you'll have to yank off one of your teeth, you look sickly and diseased, you can't attack elves… the usual).

We're talking about what the rules say. The rules often make no sense.


[Edit]: Archers could use the suggested change to great effect by stacking up with (relatively) cheap Bane arrows.

Wait, you can't attack elves? What if they are being aggressive?

As for the bane arrows, eh, give it to the archers. They need some love.

[Greenish]

Wait, you can't attack elves? What if they are being aggressive?Well, you can, but you take penalties to most rolls.

[SiuiS]

Well, waiving the +1 means that, short term, people will get all the special abilities they want before they start building up to the +5 flat bonus. If you can have a magic weapon without a +1 bonus, than all a +1 bonus does for you is +1 damage.

Paying 2000 damage for a +1 to damage is pretty expensive.

The way to mitigate this is to say the weapon does not count as magic for overcoming DR without a +1 bonus. OR say that the +1 bonus stacks with the masterwork bonus. Both of these options keep the +1 bonus relevant while allowing people to skip it.

No, the +1 is to hit and damage. If it is not a +1 weapon you're not getting the damage bonus at all. So that's 2,000 gp for a special ability only, not for a special ability and +1 damage.


Getting +1 and +9 special abilities generally ends up being better than +5 and +5 special abilities.

No it isn't. Getting more than +5 in special abilities requires multiplying the price by some arbitrary number (I think 20,000 GP). A +5 special ability is what, 50,000? A +6 special ability sword is going to cost magnitudes more, enough to buy a dozen +5 ability +5 hit/damage swords.

Not to mention you can't make a magic item with greater than +5 in ability until epic levels.

[Rubik]

Well, you can, but you take penalties to most rolls.Just take out the tooth prior to slaughtering the K'heebler infestation and you'll be fine. Just make sure to use the Greater Magic Weapon effect first.

[Rubik]

No it isn't. Getting more than +5 in special abilities requires multiplying the price by some arbitrary number (I think 20,000 GP). A +5 special ability is what, 50,000? A +6 special ability sword is going to cost magnitudes more, enough to buy a dozen +5 ability +5 hit/damage swords.

Not to mention you can't make a magic item with greater than +5 in ability until epic levels.No, you can't get more than a +5 enhancement bonus until epic levels. Getting +9 in special abilities is fine, and without an arbitrary cost multiplier.

Add in a Greater Magic Weapon casting and you'll have a nice fat +14 weapon for the cost of a +10.

Thing is, you can also stack special abilities on things like bows AND arrows, and get the equivalent of a +23 weapon -- +5 for the GMW, +9 in special bow abilities, and +9 for the arrow special abilities.

You can stack even more on unarmed strikes if you know how. WAY more.

[SowZ]

No, the +1 is to hit and damage. If it is not a +1 weapon you're not getting the damage bonus at all. So that's 2,000 gp for a special ability only, not for a special ability and +1 damage.

Wait, sorry, I don't understand what is being said. I wasn't saying that people would get the +1 damage bonus even if they chose to ignore the +1 enhancement bonus. I was saying people would still get the +1 to hit even if they ignored the enhancement bonus. Meaning that, if you don't need a +1 to get special weapon enhancements or to count as a magic weapon and you aren't trying for a +2, +3, +4, or +5 enhancement bonus, then the "only" thing that a +1 bonus nets you is +1 damage.

[Andezzar]

You can stack even more on unarmed strikes if you know how. WAY more.Please do explain. A character only gets one Unarmed Strike, no matter how many limbs he has or how many attacks his BAB grants. As I see it the best you can do with unarmed strikes is +14.

[SiuiS]

No, you can't get more than a +5 enhancement bonus until epic levels. Getting +9 in special abilities is fine, and without an arbitrary cost multiplier.

Add in a Greater Magic Weapon casting and you'll have a nice fat +14 weapon for the cost of a +10.

Thing is, you can also stack special abilities on things like bows AND arrows, and get the equivalent of a +23 weapon -- +5 for the GMW, +9 in special bow abilities, and +9 for the arrow special abilities.

You can stack even more on unarmed strikes if you know how. WAY more.

I believe the player's handbook and epic level handbook have language which contradicts this. It's explicitly no more than +5 on either side.

That said, I cannot check so I'll have to wait and see.

EDIT: from the WotC website, presumably a quote from the ELH;


While not truly an artifact, the epic magic item is a creation of such power that it surpasses other magic items. Epic magic items are objects of great power and value. The following are typical characteristics of an epic magic item. In general, an item with even one of these characteristics is an epic magic item.
• Grants a bonus on attacks or damage greater than +5.
• Grants an enhancement bonus to armor higher than +5.
• Has a special ability with a market price modifier greater than +5.
• Grants an armor bonus of greater than +10 (not including magic armor’s enhancement bonus).
• Grants a natural armor, deflection, or resistance bonus greater than +5.
• Grants an enhancement bonus to an ability score greater than +6.
• Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +30.
• Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th.
• Has a caster level above 20th.
• Has a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs, or additional value for intelligent items.
An epic magic item that grants a bonus beyond those allowed for normal magic items has a higher market price than indicated by the formulas for non-epic items.


Wait, sorry, I don't understand what is being said. I wasn't saying that people would get the +1 damage bonus even if they chose to ignore the +1 enhancement bonus. I was saying people would still get the +1 to hit even if they ignored the enhancement bonus. Meaning that, if you don't need a +1 to get special weapon enhancements or to count as a magic weapon and you aren't trying for a +2, +3, +4, or +5 enhancement bonus, then the "only" thing that a +1 bonus nets you is +1 damage.

ah, then isomehow read that backwards. I'm sorry.

[Greenish]

I believe the player's handbook and epic level handbook have language which contradicts this. It's explicitly no more than +5 on either side.

That said, I cannot check so I'll have to wait and see.

EDIT: from the WotC website, presumably a quote from the ELH"A special ability". As in, one that's worth more than +5, not total that's worth more.


To find the base price of an epic magic weapon, roll on Table: Weapons. Note that the +6 to +10 rows apply only to weapons that provide an enhancement bonus of +6 to +10 or weapons with a single special ability whose market price modifier is +6 to +10. Magic weapons with a total effective bonus of +6 to +10 but that have an enhancement bonus of +5 or less and special abilities whose individual market price modifiers are +5 or less use the table for nonepic magic weapons to determine price.

[Andezzar]

I believe the player's handbook and epic level handbook have language which contradicts this. It's explicitly no more than +5 on either side.

That said, I cannot check so I'll have to wait and see.You are mistaken:
In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may 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). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

[HC Rainbow]

Well, waiving the +1 means that, short term, people will get all the special abilities they want before they start building up to the +5 flat bonus. If you can have a magic weapon without a +1 bonus, than all a +1 bonus does for you is +1 damage.

Paying 2000 damage for a +1 to damage is pretty expensive.

The way to mitigate this is to say the weapon does not count as magic for overcoming DR without a +1 bonus. OR say that the +1 bonus stacks with the masterwork bonus. Both of these options keep the +1 bonus relevant while allowing people to skip it.

This sounds pretty solid. I see no reason as to why this wouldnt work or break the system.

[SiuiS]

You are mistaken:

That says a +1/+9 weapon is not multiplied by ten to fid its GP cost, I still believe elsewhere in the books it caps abilities at +5 total for non-epic items. if not, then that's a pretty slick catch. I'm unsure of whether I really want to unpack my D&D books and check though. It's lacked fun for a few years now.


"A special ability". As in, one that's worth more than +5, not total that's worth more.

I specified the books for a reason. They tend more toward completeness. This is altogether pretty persuasive though, but it feels like an obvious misreading web if an understandable one.

[Rubik]

I believe the player's handbook and epic level handbook have language which contradicts this. It's explicitly no more than +5 on either side.No.

As others have said, that's for a single ability which is +6 or more. You can have up to +9 in special abilities so long as they're all +5 or less.


Please do explain. A character only gets one Unarmed Strike, no matter how many limbs he has or how many attacks his BAB grants. As I see it the best you can do with unarmed strikes is +14.Yes, you only get one unarmed strike (though you can hit multiple times with it). However, a monk/kensai (+9 in special abilities) with Magic Fang or Greater Magic Weapon (+5 enhancement), a necklace of natural attacks (from Savage Species, +9 in special abilities) and a lesser weapon crystal with numerous weapon crystal effects stacked through the MIC's +50% markup rules, +4 in special abilities just from the energy assault ones, and the demolition/fiendslayer/truedeath crystals are approximately +1 combined). I seem to remember that there are hand-wraps in...Sword and Fist, I think, that allowed you to enhance your fists as weapons, so there's another +9. If not, I know there're brass knuckles in Pathfinder that do so. If you're warforged, you count as masterwork, so feel free to add in Item Familiar and Ancestral Relic as well. That's another +3 for the first and +9 for the second.

We're up to...+49, I think. There are other ways, but for the life of me I can't remember what they are.

[Greenish]

Nothing in DMG (the primary source for non-epic magic weapons rules) even suggests that you couldn't have more than +5's worth of special abilities.

But for your benefit, I'll quote ELH:
To find the base price of an epic magic weapon, roll on Table 4–9. Note that the +6 to +10 rows apply only to weapons that provide an enhancement bonus of +6 to +10 or weapons with a single special ability whose market price modifier is +6 to +10. Magic weapons with a total effective bonus of +6 to +10 but that have an enhancement bonus of +5 or less and special abilities whose individual market price modifiers are +5 or less use Table 8–10 in the Dungeon Master's Guide to determine price.

There. You're wrong, plain and simple.

[Andezzar]

The weapon crystals only work if the recipient is a monk, and are not +X special abilities. YXou cannot put the crystals on the amulet as it is not a weapon. The actual enhancement bonuses are still limited to +5, so good luck in stacking +45 worth of special abilities (would probably be easy with every bane property).

[Rubik]

The weapon crystals only work if the recipient is a monk, and are not +X special abilities. YXou cannot put the crystals on the amulet as it is not a weapon. The actual enhancement bonuses are still limited to +5, so good luck in stacking +45 worth of special abilities (would probably be easy with every bane property).But it IS a monk. Monks' unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, so you qualify for applying the weapon crystals' effects directly.

[edit] Also, +1d6 fire/electricity/cold/acid damage are +1 weapon properties. Dig it.

[DeadlyLuvdisc]

You know what? +1 on attack and damage rolls is just BORING. Besides, if pretty much all weapons past level 5 or so can bypass DR/magic, why not just give it to people for free with any other special ability? Yeah, this is probably pretty crazy, but it does kinda bug me that you are required to get a boring option before being able to take cool options, especially when most games are lower levels. It also seems to me like the real reason to invest in higher enhancement bonuses is for the higher attack rolls, or if the weapon is Defending. I know D&D has tons of redundant or useless feats and such as prerequisites, but as long as it doesn't break the game and it helps my players have more fun then I don't see why I shouldn't house rule this out. I'll also probably allow Masterwork to stack with the enhancement bonus if any of my players use it. Thanks everyone!

[TuggyNE]

Now, I'm totally new to this game, but if pretty much everyone gets a +1 weapon fairly early then how often does DR/magic come into play anyway?

Not very often. Incorporeal is more common though, and a lot more serious.

[Andezzar]

Not very often. Incorporeal is more common though, and a lot more serious.Yup, being able to affect incorporeal creatures (if only 50% of the time) is valuable enough not to be lumped in with the other more interesting special abilities IMHO. Also being able to play whack-a-ghost for a mere 2k gp (ghost touch is +1 equivalent) seems too cheap for me.

[Vaz]

People playing Fighters. I first picked up the book, and went through making a Fighter 20 with the Weapon Focus and Specialisation Tree, and got myself some +5 Armour with a +5 Weapon and a +5 Shield with no upgrades. I was boss.

Nothing could stop me with my 1d8+15 damage on four attacks a turn.

[SiuiS]

No.

As others have said, that's for a single ability which is +6 or more. You can have up to +9 in special abilities so long as they're all +5 or less.

No, what? What's for +6 or more to a single ability? The wording of what you quoted and your response are both about two different things.


Nothing in DMG (the primary source for non-epic magic weapons rules) even suggests that you couldn't have more than +5's worth of special abilities.

Okay.


But for your benefit, I'll quote ELH:

There. You're wrong, plain and simple.

No, your quote here is. There is no logic behind "price increases for +6 or greater means you can have a total of smaller abilities adding up to +9". It would of I was talking about cost, but I'm not, so cost doesn't come into it.

EDIT: for clarity, I am not saying that cost makes it epic makes it impossible to make pre Craft Epic Item feats. I'm saying I recall elsewhere a limit on both sides of the item creation rules, both enhancement bonus and total nonenhancements. That's in dispute, and pricing has nothin to do with it.

[Greenish]

I'm saying I recall elsewhere a limit on both sides of the item creation rules, both enhancement bonus and total nonenhancements. That's in dispute, and pricing has nothin to do with it.I can't refute a source you refuse to specify. No such limit exists in DMG, ELH, or MIC.

[Morcleon]

No, your quote here is. There is no logic behind "price increases for +6 or greater means you can have a total of smaller abilities adding up to +9". It would of I was talking about cost, but I'm not, so cost doesn't come into it.

EDIT: for clarity, I am not saying that cost makes it epic makes it impossible to make pre Craft Epic Item feats. I'm saying I recall elsewhere a limit on both sides of the item creation rules, both enhancement bonus and total nonenhancements. That's in dispute, and pricing has nothin to do with it.

There is no other ruling in D&D 3.5e. This quote is from the ELH, which is the only WotC source on creating epic magic items.


Note that the +6 to +10 rows apply only to weapons that provide an enhancement bonus of +6 to +10 or weapons with a single special ability whose market price modifier is +6 to +10. Magic weapons with a total effective bonus of +6 to +10 but that have an enhancement bonus of +5 or less and special abilities whose individual market price modifiers are +5 or less use Table 8–10 in the Dungeon Master's Guide to determine price.

It states that the following weapons use the epic costs (cost multiplier of 10):
Weapons with a +6 or higher enhancement bonus.
Weapons with a single special ability of +6 to +10.
Weapons with a +11 or higher total price modifier.

It also states that the following weapons use the non-epic costs in the DMG:
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +5 or less.
Weapons with individual special abilities with costs +5 or less.

Thus, a +1 (w/ +9 of special abilities, the highest of which is +5 individually) weapon does not fall under the epic rules.

[Answerer]

Morcleon, your list forgot weapons that have >+10-equivalent, even if they have +5 (or less) and all of the special abilities involved are priced at +1 to +5.

There's also a total gold cost cap, to cover statically priced special abiliites.

[Morcleon]

Morcleon, your list forgot weapons that have >+10-equivalent, even if they have +5 (or less) and all of the special abilities involved are priced at +1 to +5.

There's also a total gold cost cap, to cover statically priced special abiliites.

Meh, looked at quote, didn't remember other stuff. Changed. :smalltongue:

The total gold cap is debatable. I've never had any DM actually make weapons that have a total magic cost over +200k but otherwise were non-epic price them at x10. Please note that the DMG has no static priced abilities, nor does the ELH. As it's not mentioned in the weapons section, I would presume that the total gold cap is primarily for rings and wondrous items and such.

[Answerer]

I've never played in a game where characters had even remotely that wealth, since the system starts to break into itty-bitty pieces at around level 13, is badly disintegrated by 15, and utterly gone by 17, and then the Epic Level Handbook pretends play can still go on...

[Morcleon]

I've never played in a game where characters had even remotely that wealth, since the system starts to break into itty-bitty pieces at around level 13, is badly disintegrated by 15, and utterly gone by 17, and then the Epic Level Handbook pretends play can still go on...

This assumes that the players are all optimizing to a significant extent without regard to the rest of their party. While the system is very easy to break, this also assumes that the DM is doing nothing about it. Most DMs will simply say "no, that's too much for this game, don't do it" to anything that's too much for the game.

Play can and does happen at those level. :smallsmile:

[Hand_of_Vecna]

No it isn't. Getting more than +5 in special abilities requires multiplying the price by some arbitrary number (I think 20,000 GP). A +5 special ability is what, 50,000? A +6 special ability sword is going to cost magnitudes more, enough to buy a dozen +5 ability +5 hit/damage swords.

Not to mention you can't make a magic item with greater than +5 in ability until epic levels.

Huh? After +3 the price for the next +1 equivelent is less than double the cost of the previous one.

Why would it even matter how many +5 equivelent swords you could by with a given amount of money?

Your just flat out mistaken. SRD: +5 sword 50,000 gp, + 7 sword 98,000gp. A weapon can’t actually have a bonus higher than +5. Use these lines to determine price when special abilities are added in.

ex: +1 Holy, Valorous, Caustic, Holy Surge, Iron Heart Greatsword 98,350 gp.

[RagnaroksChosen]

A friend of mine did this... but he used the old 3.0 rules I think for DR where monsters had things like DR 5/+1 and stuff... Otherwise from what he said no one ever bought +1 enhancements..

[Rubik]

No, what? What's for +6 or more to a single ability? The wording of what you quoted and your response are both about two different things.'No' to the following quote:


I believe the player's handbook and epic level handbook have language which contradicts this. It's explicitly no more than +5 on either side.I even quoted it right before I started my post. What did you miss?

The Player's Handbook and ELH do not have language that contradict that. It's explicitly no more than +5 on either side for total enhancement bonus or one single special ability. Those aren't the same thing.


No, your quote here is. There is no logic behind "price increases for +6 or greater means you can have a total of smaller abilities adding up to +9". It would of I was talking about cost, but I'm not, so cost doesn't come into it.The wording of the ELH and DMG is quite clear. Others have quoted directly.


EDIT: for clarity, I am not saying that cost makes it epic makes it impossible to make pre Craft Epic Item feats. I'm saying I recall elsewhere a limit on both sides of the item creation rules, both enhancement bonus and total nonenhancements. That's in dispute, and pricing has nothin to do with it.It's not total non-enhancements. It's a single weapon (or armor) ability of equal to or greater than +6. The wording is exceptionally clear (for once).

[lsfreak]

Sure, no, you are right. But I don't like counting on casters to buff me. I build assuming they won't or can't, and then if they do good but if not, meh. I didn't even know about that item, how much is it? I am a big believer in the static +5, but if I could get it cheaply I'd be very happy.

Buy your wizard a Pearl of Power and have them cast GMW on you. A +5 weapon costs 50,000gp. A Pearl of Power costs only 9000, at minimum level lasts 5 hours. The absolute earliest you could get a +5 weapon by WBL is during your 10th level; by that point your wizard can provide +3, and if they can't then they should be on the cusp of getting it, for 10-12 hours a day. I can't seem to find the max item cost, rather than total WBL, charts, but I'd expect by the time you're expected to have a +5 weapon you're looking at easily +3 and probably +4 from GWM. At that point, it's absolutely worth dropping the 9000g on a Pearl of Power and spending the rest of the money on things like Collision instead.