Difference between +1 weapon and enchanted +1 weapon

[Miriad]

According to magic item price these are both the same. Yet one of these swords is not enchanted. It is simply +1. Is a longsword +1 and a flaming longsord +1 the same price? Can someone use the "free" +1 on the longsword to add flaming to it? How would the crafting rules (time and money) work since being +1 there has already been gold and time used to improve it.

[thethird]

a +1 flaming longsword weapon is a +2 weapon, not a +1 weapon. Flaming counts as +1.

[Urpriest]

According to magic item price these are both the same. Yet one of these swords is not enchanted. It is simply +1. Is a longsword +1 and a flaming longsord +1 the same price? Can someone use the "free" +1 on the longsword to add flaming to it? How would the crafting rules (time and money) work since being +1 there has already been gold and time used to improve it.

No, a +1 sword is enchanted by definition. +1 is an enchantment on the sword.

There are special abilities that are equivalent to +something in terms of price, but they are not the same thing as making the weapon actually +something. As the rules describe, you have to add together the weapon's actual bonus and its effective bonus from special abilities to determine its total bonus. A weapon must be at least +1 before adding special abilities.

[Immabozo]

The rules on costs saying a "+x bonus" means that is the same price as adding that bonus to your weapon. A Longsword MUST be a Masterwork Longsword in order to get that +1, it must be at least +1 to get other enchantments.

So adding flaming to a +1 longsword costs 4,000 (bonus (2) squared x 2,000, 8,000, minus the value of the enchantment already there, 4,000) but adding flaming to a +2 will cost 10,000 and so on and so forth.

Now there are other enchantment with a fixed price, and sometimes they are very good, mostly because they dont have that scaling price.

[Nettlekid]

a +1 flaming longsword weapon is a +2 weapon, not a +1 weapon. Flaming counts as +1.

Er, that's a bit of a confusing way to put it.

Magic Weapons and Armor are priced as +1 to +5 weapons/armor. But there are special enchantments that you can add (like Flaming) that add to the price as though they were add +whatever to the weapon. So you start with a +1 Longsword, which costs ~2000 gold. You could upgrade it to a +2 Longsword or a +1 Flaming Longsword for the same price, because Flaming is equivalent to a +1 enhancement, so they both cost the price of a +2 Longsword, even though the +1 Flaming Longsword only has an actual bonus of +1, because the +1d6 fire damage is considered to be equal in value to an additional +1 to attack and damage that you'd get by turning a +1 Longsword into a +2 Longsword.

Let's use a bigger number to make it clearer. The Splitting enhancement from Champions of Ruin can be applied to any bow, and it's a +3 equivalent cost. That means that if you had a +1 Longbow, the price to make it a +1 Splitting Longbow is the same as the price to make it a +4 Longbow. The +1 Splitting Longbow would grant +1 to attack and damage and split its ammo. The +4 Longbow would grant +4 to attack and damage. Either will cost ~32000 gold.

[Immabozo]

Er, that's a bit of a confusing way to put it.

Magic Weapons and Armor are priced as +1 to +5 weapons/armor. But there are special enchantments that you can add (like Flaming) that add to the price as though they were add +whatever to the weapon. So you start with a +1 Longsword, which costs ~2000 gold. You could upgrade it to a +2 Longsword or a +1 Flaming Longsword for the same price, because Flaming is equivalent to a +1 enhancement, so they both cost the price of a +2 Longsword, even though the +1 Flaming Longsword only has an actual bonus of +1, because the +1d6 fire damage is considered to be equal in value to an additional +1 to attack and damage that you'd get by turning a +1 Longsword into a +2 Longsword.

Let's use a bigger number to make it clearer. The Splitting enhancement from Champions of Ruin can be applied to any bow, and it's a +3 equivalent cost. That means that if you had a +1 Longbow, the price to make it a +1 Splitting Longbow is the same as the price to make it a +4 Longbow. The +1 Splitting Longbow would grant +1 to attack and damage and split its ammo. The +4 Longbow would grant +4 to attack and damage. Either will cost ~32000 gold.

That's a good way to put it.

Another, less obvious, advantage, to an additional +1 is getting around DR. A +1 keen, flaming Longsword is a +3 equivalent, but will not get around DR/+3, where as a straight +3 longsword will.

I do believe I read that having higher than a +5 weapon is epic and cannot be gotten before level 20, but you can also have +5 equivalent enchantments (combined total no more than +10, divided +5 and +5) without being considered epic.

[Urpriest]

That's a good way to put it.

Another, less obvious, advantage, to an additional +1 is getting around DR. A +1 keen, flaming Longsword is a +3 equivalent, but will not get around DR/+3, where as a straight +3 longsword will.

I do believe I read that having higher than a +5 weapon is epic and cannot be gotten before level 20, but you can also have +5 equivalent enchantments (combined total no more than +10, divided +5 and +5) without being considered epic.

There is no such thing as DR/+3 in 3.5.

[Miriad]

Isnt a flaming longsword considered way better than a longsword +1 yet they both share the same price?

Is a longsword +3 (without anything else) considered magical? If so, what would happen if you used detect magic on it. What school would the aura be?

[Nettlekid]

Isnt a flaming longsword considered way better than a longsword +1 yet they both share the same price?

You can't have a Flaming Longsword. Before it gets any special abilities added, it has to be at least a +1 weapon first. So you could have a +2 Longsword or a +1 Flaming Longsword for the same price, a +1 Longsword which would be cheaper, but you could not have a Flaming Longsword for the same price as the +1 Longsword.

Most people do think that adding a special ability is better than adding a static +X bonus to the weapon, which is why you don't hear optimizers on this forum telling people to get a +3 weapon of such-and-such.

[Gavinfoxx]

Isnt a flaming longsword considered way better than a longsword +1 yet they both share the same price?

No, a +1 Flaming Longsword costs 8000 gp, a +1 Longsword costs 2000 gp, A +2 Longsword costs 8000 gp, and a Flaming Longsword doesn't exist.

[Urpriest]

Isnt a flaming longsword considered way better than a longsword +1 yet they both share the same price?

Is a longsword +3 (without anything else) considered magical? If so, what would happen if you used detect magic on it. What school would the aura be?

Yes, of course a +3 longsword is magical. How else would it be +3? Why else would you need a caster level to craft it? How else would it pierce DR/magic?

The default for magic weapons is detecting as evocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemsandDetectMagic).

[Immabozo]

There is no such thing as DR/+3 in 3.5.

You're killin me smalls. It's for the sake of example. The only reason to have +x on your sword or weapon, over +1 and equivalent enchantments is to get around DR, I think

[Bakkan]

You're killin me smalls. It's for the sake of example. The only reason to have +x on your sword or weapon, over +1 and equivalent enchantments is to get around DR, I think

The point is that until you reach DR/epic (which requires a +6 enhancement) there is nothing in D&D 3.5 which requires above a +1, so your example doesn't really work.

[Nettlekid]

Also, just a small matter of semantics, the term is a +1 Longsword, not a Longsword +1. For most things this doesn't REALLY make a difference, but if you happen to be talking about Composite Bows (Longbow, Shortbow, etc), which are talked about as being a Composite Longbow +X, that means that you can add X points of strength to the damage from the shot (with penalties if your Str is different than X, etc, there are rules for it.) So you can have a +1 Composite Longbow +3, which means that you add +1 for the magic to attack and damage and +3 from Str to damage. All the numbers might get a bit confusing if you don't keep them in the right places.

[DeusMortuusEst]

You're killin me smalls. It's for the sake of example. The only reason to have +x on your sword or weapon, over +1 and equivalent enchantments is to get around DR, I think

The only reason for why you would have more than +1 on your weapon pre-epic instead of special abilities would be because you the DM gave it to you and you haven't got anything better.

Even in epic play you can use the shadow striking enhancement instead of a +6 weapon to get around epic DR.

[thethird]

You're killin me smalls. It's for the sake of example. The only reason to have +x on your sword or weapon, over +1 and equivalent enchantments is to get around DR, I think

That was a fair reason in 3.0, it is not a thing in 3.5 though.

[Nettlekid]

Even in epic play you can use the shadow striking enhancement instead of a +6 weapon to get around epic DR.

Would the Transmuting enhancement get through Epic DR too?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Would the Transmuting enhancement get through Epic DR too?
It be a DM's call and I'd say no.

That was a fair reason in 3.0, it is not a thing in 3.5 though.

It should be noted that in PF a +3 Enchanted sword can over come the DR of silver and cold iron, +4 can overcome adamantine and a +5 enchantment can over come alignment-based DR.
*This doesn't not apply to the greater magic weapon spell. It has to be a crafted into the sword.

[Miriad]

Lets say I have a +6 Longsword and a Lonsgword with a +6 equivalent enchantment (Shadow striking)

What would be the damage on these weapons?

Does the Longsword with shadow striking not have the+6 atk +6 damage? Does it still keep the +1 atk bonus from masterwork?

[DeusMortuusEst]

Would the Transmuting enhancement get through Epic DR too?

By RAW? Yes, I can't see how else you could interpret it. Good luck finding a DM that would let it fly though.


It be a DM's call and I'd say no.

By RAW it works.


Lets say I have a +6 Longsword and a Lonsgword with a +6 equivalent enchantment (Shadow striking)

What would be the damage on these weapons?

Does the Longsword with shadow striking not have the+6 atk +6 damage? Does it still keep the +1 atk bonus from masterwork?

You always have at least a +1 enhancement on a magical weapon. You can't apply (magical) special abilities to a weapon (or armor) lacking a +1 enhancement bonus.

In the example above the +6 Longsword would give you +6 to hit and damage, the other sword would give +1 to hit and damage, plus any additional special effects.

When a weapon becomes magical it loses the +1 bonus from being masterwork.

[Der_DWSage]

Let's see if a slightly different explanation can clear up these questions.

Let's call the base +X damage/attack enchantment something else. Call it 'Basic.' Because it is an enchantment, Miriad. It's one that specifically gives you +1 damage/accuracy for every time you put it on a weapon.

A +5 longsword has the 'Basic' enchantment 5 times over, and deals 1d8+5 damage and has a +5 to hit. It costs 50,000 GP, as the DMG states a weapon with the equivalent of 5 Basic enchantments costs that much.

You must have a basic enchantment in order to have any other enchantments. It's stated as such in the DMG, though there's never really a fluff reason given.

A +1 (Or Basic), Keen, Flaming, Wounding Longsword deals 1d8+1d6(Flaming)+1 damage, has a +1 to hit, crits on 17-20, and deals 1 point of constitution damage on hit.

It does not deal 1d8+1d6+5 with +5 to hit, because it only had the Basic enchantment once.

It also costs 50,000 GP, as they all count as the same cost as a basic enchantment, save for wounding, which counts as two.

Does this make more sense, or shall we break it down another way?

[JeenLeen]

When a weapon becomes magical it loses the +1 bonus from being masterwork.

Technically, I don't think it loses the +1 accuracy bonus from being masterwork. It's just that the bonus from being masterwork does not stack with the bonuses from being a +1 weapon (+1 accuracy and damage). Mechanically, this matters little.

If you used a +1 Longsword in an anti-magic field, it would still retain the +1 to accuracy from being masterwork. (AMF does negate +1 to +5 weapons, right?)

[DeusMortuusEst]

Technically, I don't think it loses the +1 accuracy bonus from being masterwork. It's just that the bonus from being masterwork does not stack with the bonuses from being a +1 weapon (+1 accuracy and damage). Mechanically, this matters little.

If you used a +1 Longsword in an anti-magic field, it would still retain the +1 to accuracy from being masterwork. (AMF does negate +1 to +5 weapons, right?)

Correct, and yes, you would.


All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonus on attack rolls does not stack with their enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

[SowZ]

You're killin me smalls. It's for the sake of example. The only reason to have +x on your sword or weapon, over +1 and equivalent enchantments is to get around DR, I think

Nope. A +1 Sword gets around DR/Magic just as quickly as a +5. The only difference is one gives +1 to hit and damage and the other gives +5 to hit and damage.

[Jeraa]

If you used a +1 Longsword in an anti-magic field, it would still retain the +1 to accuracy from being masterwork. (AMF does negate +1 to +5 weapons, right?)

Correct. An Antimagic Field does suppress all magical items, as well as spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. (With the exception of epic spells - Antimagic Field only has a chance to negate those. All artifacts are also immune to Antimagic Field.)

[Miriad]

So when you roll for treasure and you get a +5 longsword you pretty much got the ****tiest longsword possible? (Given the price)

[Bakkan]

Yes. white text to meet 10 characters

[Gavinfoxx]

So when you roll for treasure and you get a +5 longsword you pretty much got the ****tiest longsword possible? (Given the price)

Yes, especially considering that "Greater Magic Weapon" is a spell that exists.

[Urpriest]

So when you roll for treasure and you get a +5 longsword you pretty much got the ****tiest longsword possible? (Given the price)

Yes and no, since some classes benefit much more from accuracy than from many other weapon enchantments. Though if you have access to a caster with Greater Magic Weapon that's largely irrelevant too.

[Raendyn]

Even in epic play you can use the shadow striking enhancement instead of a +6 weapon to get around epic DR.


A shadow striking weapon can adjust to emulate any alignment or substance required to overcome damage reduction.]

It can't bypass /epic nor /dmg type. Only/alignment and / substance.

Transmuting RAW does though..

[Lateral]

So when you roll for treasure and you get a +5 longsword you pretty much got the ****tiest longsword possible? (Given the price)

No.

...You could get, say, a +1 Keeper's Fang longsword. That would suck.

[Der_DWSage]

So when you roll for treasure and you get a +5 longsword you pretty much got the ****tiest longsword possible? (Given the price)

Not the worst, but certainly not a very good one. There are some enchantments that are completely useless, or such a niche use as to be useless.

[eggynack]

How's about, instead of using the rules altered DR/+3, we just use weapon augment crystals as an example. You can only put a greater augment crystal in a +3 weapon, and it has to be a regular +3, instead of an effective +3. To quote directly from the book, "A greater augment crystal functions only when attached to an object with a magical enhancement bonus of +3 or higher. Only the item’s actual bonus applies, not its “effective” bonus; for example, a +1 keen holy flaming burst longsword won’t allow a greater augment crystal to function, since its actual bonus is only +1." It functions in basically the same way, example wise, as DR/+3, and even uses the same bonus. That puts the whole thing in a pretty reasonable way, I think.

[sonofzeal]

Not the worst, but certainly not a very good one. There are some enchantments that are completely useless, or such a niche use as to be useless.
Hey, don't knock the +1 Gnollbane Gnomebane Airbane Plantbane Longsword until you've tried it!

[Kelb_Panthera]

How's about, instead of using the rules altered DR/+3, we just use weapon augment crystals as an example. You can only put a greater augment crystal in a +3 weapon, and it has to be a regular +3, instead of an effective +3. To quote directly from the book, "A greater augment crystal functions only when attached to an object with a magical enhancement bonus of +3 or higher. Only the item’s actual bonus applies, not its “effective” bonus; for example, a +1 keen holy flaming burst longsword won’t allow a greater augment crystal to function, since its actual bonus is only +1." It functions in basically the same way, example wise, as DR/+3, and even uses the same bonus. That puts the whole thing in a pretty reasonable way, I think.

Note that this phrasing -does not- preclude attaching a weapon crystal to a +1 or +2 weapon under the effect of greater magic weapon at CL 12 or higher.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

So when you roll for treasure and you get a +5 longsword you pretty much got the ****tiest longsword possible? (Given the price)

Not quite. Since the average monster's AC is 13 plus its Challenge rating, warriors normally miss a little less than half the time. That +5 to-hit bonus is extremely useful because it means you're going to hit just about every time and get a +5 damage bonus. That adds up when you're a fighter making full attacks every round. And if you threaten a critical hit (a 10% chance with a longsword) you're almost sure to confirm it, and your +5 damage bonus is also doubled. The +5 to-hit bonus also helps offset the penalties of a Power Attack (though if you're serious about Power Attack it's probably better to go with a +5 greatsword, which costs about the s'ame).

I've tried builds with flaming freezing scimitars of shock, and I found that the flat to-hit bonus is boring but practical.

[eggynack]

I think that purely +X weapons are pretty good, but they're obviously suboptimal if you have access to greater magic weapon. Assuming that you're running power attack, the difference between flaming and +1 is 1.5 damage, and the power attack damage bypasses resistance, and is multiplied on a critical. If you have greater magic weapon, then you don't have to choose between the two.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Note that this phrasing -does not- preclude attaching a weapon crystal to a +1 or +2 weapon under the effect of greater magic weapon at CL 12 or higher.

Actually it does or at least that's what the author intended with this remark.

You can only put a greater augment crystal in a +3 weapon, and it has to be a regular +3, instead of an effective +3

[Autopsibiofeeder]

It should be noted that in PF a +3 Enchanted sword can over come the DR of silver and cold iron, +4 can overcome adamantine and a +5 enchantment can over come alignment-based DR.
*This doesn't not apply to the greater magic weapon spell. It has to be a crafted into the sword.

Hey, thanks. I don't play PF but this sounds like a good rule, as long as the (*) thing is in place. 'Real' magic (+x) swords are just that good, swords with a GMW on it are also okay. I might add that to my 3.5 houserule set.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually it does or at least that's what the author intended with this remark.I won't disagree that it may have been inteneded to not work that way, but poor execution means that it does.

The enhancement bonus granted by GMW is no less an actual enhancement bonus than the one inherently granted by the weapon; not even in comparison to the point of comparison given: abilities with an effective enhancement bonus equivalent.

[Spuddles]

The only reason for why you would have more than +1 on your weapon pre-epic instead of special abilities would be because you the DM gave it to you and you haven't got anything better.

You should probably be THF if you are spending gold on your sword, which means you have power attack, which means each +1 to hit is really +2 more damage. Flaming adds an average of 3.5 elemental damage while another +1 adds 3 damage. And that 3 damage is much less likely to be resisted by energy resistance.

At medium to high levels, energy resistance is extremely common, and the lowest pieces it comes in is 5. Against a tiefling, say, your flaming enchantment is doing an average of 0.167 damage. Adding another +1 damage is doing +3 damage, assuming power attack. That is 18x more damage. And shocking vs. demons is useless. Really, most elemental enchantments are useless vs. outsiders.


Yes, especially considering that "Greater Magic Weapon" is a spell that exists.

And you have it available at CL20.


Yes and no, since some classes benefit much more from accuracy than from many other weapon enchantments. Though if you have access to a caster with Greater Magic Weapon that's largely irrelevant too.

Pretty much. Anyone not using power attack (like archers) will get a lot more out of flaming, etc. enchantments. Power attack users that aren't abusing shocktrooper or wraithstrike, or using deep impact, get much more out of static bonuses.

If you have a cleric that doesn't mind burning the 4th level slot, or a wizard the 3rd level slot, and they have a sufficiently high CL, then sure, +5 weapons aren't awesome.

But with loot tables as they are, a monster dropping a +3 sword at level 8 is pretty awesome. That accuracy bonus is much better than, say, an acidic burst enchantment, at that level. Heck, Even at level 12, I'd still want a +3 sword over a +1 acidic burst one.

[Everynone]

When a weapon becomes magical it loses the +1 bonus from being masterwork.

Strictly speaking, that is not true. It's just that with the very first +1 enhancement bonus a weapon receives, the attack bonus does not stack with the masterwork quality attack bonus. The damage bonus is added though, and for all other later enhancement bonuses, the attack and damage bonuses stack on themselves.

[eggynack]

I actually forgot the inherent damage bonus from a +1 weapon. Thus, in a vacuum, on a two hand fighter power attacker, I'd probably go with the standard enhancement bonus over the nifty enhancements. I just think that it's usually a better value, unless you're going shock trooper, and you can't really convert the attack bonus to damage. This would also be true if you're at ranges where you're always converting your full BAB to damage. In any case, it's only in the magical non-vacuum where nifty magical abilities become the far superior option. Still, there are some magical abilities that are better than flaming. One of the best is probably spell storing, and there's always a bunch of specialized options. It's all rather balanced, if you think about it.

[Spuddles]

Flaming is great vs. trolls & ice giants.

[The Grue]

Not so great against fire giants and red dragons though.

[Jeraa]

Not so great against fire giants and red dragons though.

And the flaming property can actually hurt the party if used against an iron golem. Fire damage breaks any slow effect on an iron golem, and heals it.

The various energy damage enchantments do have their uses, but also have times when you don't won't to use them (not to mention, requiring a standard action to activate). Another magical plus is always useful and beneficial.

[Lord Vukodlak]

And the flaming property can actually hurt the party if used against an iron golem. Fire damage breaks any slow effect on an iron golem, and heals it.

The weapon enchantment is activated on command it stands to reason it can be shut off.

[Jeraa]

The weapon enchantment is activated on command it stands to reason it can be shut off.

Yes it can. But then that magic is useless. You've paid for a +X weapon, but are only using +X-1 of its enchantments. Had you gotten another magical + instead of the flaming enchantment, it would of been more effective.

The point is, a straight +X weapon is always useful. A weapon with an element enchantment is more beneficial some of the time, but worse some of the time.

[eggynack]

Yes it can. But then that magic is useless. You've paid for a +X weapon, but are only using +X-1 of its enchantments. Had you gotten another magical + instead of the flaming enchantment, it would of been more effective.

The point is, a straight +X weapon is always useful. A weapon with an element enchantment is more beneficial some of the time, but worse some of the time.
Well, if you cast greater magic weapon on a +X weapon, then you're not making use of any of that enhancement bonus at all. That's basically the whole point, I think. If you lack access to the spell, you're basically equally well off taking either one, assuming we're not talking about something amazing like spell storing, or something fundamental to a build, like splitting. Flaming is probably going to break about even. If you have access to the spell, you'd probably rather have a +1 weapon of something absolutely horrific, over a +5 weapon, because the extra points are just that meaningless. This is neglecting the effect of weapon crystals, which can make a +3 worthwhile. Obviously, if you're playing a rogue in an undead heavy campaign, you're going to want some +3 weapons with truedeath crystals.

[Spuddles]

I think flaming is probably the worst combat choice of the elemental enchantments, due to the abundance of fire resist/immune enemies out there. But it's great for dealing with webs, regen, being a source of light, and starting fires.

I am a big fan of the psychic one that gives you +5 damage for +2 attack. Psychokinetic maybe? It's amazing on bows and any build that is power attacking up to BAB.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Strictly speaking, that is not true. It's just that with the very first +1 enhancement bonus a weapon receives, the attack bonus does not stack with the masterwork quality attack bonus. The damage bonus is added though, and for all other later enhancement bonuses, the attack and damage bonuses stack on themselves.

We covered earlier in the thread that i miswrote, it should have been 'does not stack with', not 'loses'. Enhancement bonuses does not stack, but you can increase a single enhancement bonus from +1 to +2.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I think flaming is probably the worst combat choice of the elemental enchantments, due to the abundance of fire resist/immune enemies out there. But it's great for dealing with webs, regen, being a source of light, and starting fires.
I had a fighter who'd cook dinner using a flaming sword as a spit. Though being a lizardman he might be cooking the goblin he impaled minutes earlier.

[Krazzman]

In most cases a +1 Weapon + lesser weapon crystal of fire (1 fire damage) suffices against a troll or frost giant. In my pathfinder game this tactic is used by the ranger. Due to some unlucky treasure rolls she has 3 +1 Bows with 2 different weapon crystals for +1d6 frost and +1d6 acid damage and some flaming arrows.

In our other pathfinder game the Barbarian has a +1 Keen Furious Greatsword. Thanks to that she crits fairly often.

Question about that: +1 Furious. While in Rage counts as +3. Does it ignore DR/Silver or not?