House Rule [flavor mostly]: discouraging +X enhancement enchantments on weapons/armor

[LazarusDarkeyes]

Group House Rules Proposal:
#1) Weapon/armor magical enchantments must have 2x or more non-enhancement enchantments vs. enhancement enchantments
#2) Weapon/armor magical enchantments do *NOT* require the mandatory minimum of +1 enhancement bonus

So...
+0 weapon/armor w/ +1-10 equivalent other enchantments
+1 weapon/armor w/ +2-9 equivalent other enchantments
+2 weapon/armor w/ +4-8 equivalent other enchantments
+3 weapon/armor w/ +6-7 equivalent other enchantments
(to continue further means you'd have to allow >+10 total enchantment value...which I'm not strictly against if the GM was on w/ it and things were priced accordingly)

Personal preference for flavor aside, how would this shift the game mechanic balance? Would you amend anything else to it to fix any problems this would create?



Motivation:
Personal preference of a perception of more flavor to magic items -- more special effects, less "I just semi-abstractly have +1 to hit/damage". I feel it would make it more interesting to find magical weapons "I have 10 different +1 swords...but they all have unique/more diverse magical powers"

Thanks for any/all input!

[Heliomance]

As +X enhancement enchantments are vastly less popular than more interesting enchants (around here,anyway), I can't imagine it would change much at all. The lack of a requirement to have a +1 would be welcome, though.

[Xervous]

anything beyond +1 for weapons is wasteful anyways, no one who is looking for a weapon or armor wants their juicy enchantment slots taken up by something minimal that could be provided out of a wand or by the party's cleric/wizard.

[Extra Anchovies]

anything beyond +1 for weapons is wasteful anyways, no one who is looking for a weapon or armor wants their juicy enchantment slots taken up by something minimal that could be provided out of a wand or by the party's cleric/wizard.

Even the +1 is wasteful when you have access to greater magic weapon and/or magic vestment, since the enhancement bonuses from the spells doesn't stack with the innate enhancement bonuses of the items.

[Ashtagon]

Under RAW, the only reason a +2 magic weapon would ever exist is because the DM dropped one into the adventure. PCs never have a good reason (from an optimisation point of view) to select a magic weapon with a +2 or higher enhancement bonus.

The only change this house rule would make is that, instead of having +1 flametongue longswords, you'll have +0 flametongue longswords.

Here's something you might consider instead:

Magic weapons always pay for the +1 enhancement bonus (same as RAW). They never have an enhancement bonus higher than +1 (different from RAW).

If a character with a BAB of +5 or higher wields a magic weapon, he gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus to his attack for each full 5 points of BAB (so a character with BAB +20 would gain a total of +5 enhancement bonus to his attack roll from his magic weapon [+1 for it being magic, and an additional +4 for having BAB+20 while wielding a magic weapon]).

This will tend to make the greater magic weapon spell a bit obsolete.

[AvatarVecna]

-snip-

So you feel your players are overly fond of +X weapons? What strange people your players are...

[noob]

You must be happy your players does not use +1 bloody quick nuclear launching ultimate devastating mix of everything holy and unholy scimitar of destruction and nuclear winter and instead use a +5 sword.

[J-H]

I think martial characters (who rarely get nice things) would actually benefit from changing the enhancement bonus damage to be doublethe enhancement bonus. This would help (some) with countering the high-level HP bloat, and would raise the floor for everyone who does damage via melee and doesn't have good sources of bonus damage.

A +4 longsword thus has +4 to hit and +8 to damage.
For comparison, a +1 flaming icy acid longsword would do +1 to hit and 1+3d6 (average 10.5) to damage.

This actually swings the pendulum back to making +X enhancements something desirable instead of a last-choice.
I'd probably pair it with bumping the damage dice for damage enhancements by one step so that there's more of a real choice than there is now.

[AvatarVecna]

You must be happy your players does not use +1 bloody quick nuclear launching ultimate devastating mix of everything holy and unholy scimitar of destruction and nuclear winter and instead use a +5 sword.

:smalleek: I haven't even heard of half those enchantments. Clearly, I'm not as good at optimizing as I thought, if I somehow missed the A-Bomb launching enchantment...

[noob]

Blue was for irony or sarcasm?(I forgot the meaning of the color also some people do use blue for other reasons)
I simply did a joke about the number of powerful enchantments who existed and the fact I did not even knew a small part of the enchants who exists and the fact that in the base manuals there is already many crazy enchants and that if other manuals had power fuller enchants then it would be nearly as much ridiculous as nuclear launching(with fusion bombs) scimitars.

[AvatarVecna]

Blue was for irony?(I forgot the meaning of the color also some people do use blue for other reasons)
I simply did a joke about the number of powerful enchantments who existed and the fact I did not even knew a small part of the enchants who exists and the fact that in the base manuals there is already many crazy enchants and that if other manuals had power fuller enchants then it would be nearly as much ridiculous as nuclear launching scimitars.

Sometimes it's irony, sometimes it's sarcasm; it kinda depends on the person in question. I generally use it to highlight when I'm being sarcastic (usually because my sarcasm can be either incredibly biting or very strawman-esque, and I don't want people to believe I'm being serious). And I thought your joke was funny, and just wanted to build on it a bit.

Also, now I need to figure out how to incorporate an Apocalypse From The Sky wand into a weapon. Mwahahahaha!

[Extra Anchovies]

You must be happy your players does not use +1 bloody quick nuclear launching ultimate devastating mix of everything holy and unholy scimitar of destruction and nuclear winter and instead use a +5 sword.

This got a good laugh out of me. I think I'm going to start mentioning "bloody quick" "nuclear" and "launching" whenever I'm listing off weapon properties.

[marphod]

Under RAW, the only reason a +2 magic weapon would ever exist is because the DM dropped one into the adventure. PCs never have a good reason (from an optimisation point of view) to select a magic weapon with a +2 or higher enhancement bonus.


Can't use Greater Augment Crystals on less than a +3 Weapon/Armor. (MIC 221)
So, some characters will want one for the Greater Demolition Crystal and Greater Truedeath Crystal for a SA/SS/Skirmish build.

That said, there are no mechanical reasons to have a +2, +4 or +5 Weapon in the game.

[marphod]

I think martial characters (who rarely get nice things) would actually benefit from changing the enhancement bonus damage to be doublethe enhancement bonus. This would help (some) with countering the high-level HP bloat, and would raise the floor for everyone who does damage via melee and doesn't have good sources of bonus damage.

A +4 longsword thus has +4 to hit and +8 to damage.
For comparison, a +1 flaming icy acid longsword would do +1 to hit and 1+3d6 (average 10.5) to damage.

That +1 longsword would average 12.5 to damage; not 10.5 or 11.5 (not sure how you intended the order of operations up there.) It's +1 enchantment would double as well.

This still comes back to 'Greater Magic Weapon' is a cheaper alternative. I'd still rather a +1 weapon with 3 elemental effects than a +4 weapon, as my helpful wand of GMW at 16th level gives me the extra +3 to hit and +6 to damage at 720gp per charge for a full adventuring day.

Unless you want GMW to act differently than a pure enchantment, but that's just asking for confusion.

[Curmudgeon]

Group House Rules Proposal:
#1) Weapon/armor magical enchantments must have 2x or more non-enhancement enchantments vs. enhancement enchantments
What this would do is screw over Rogues or other characters who gain most of their damage from non-weapon bonuses. Numerical weapon enhancements increase the likelihood of hitting. If you don't hit, your sneak attack damage is zero.

A weapon enhancement is a bad choice for a Rogue if it doesn't increase their likelihood of hitting. So basically you only want numerical enhancements (greater chance of hitting generally) and keen (greater chance of hitting for a critical). Since I like Rogues, I think this house rule hurts tremendously.

[Elkad]

When "+4 or better weapon to hit" was still a DR listing, having your GMW sword turn back into a +1 sword every time a bad guy led with Dispel was a pretty good reason to not depend on spells.

"Uhoh, I can't hit him any more. Wait, let me dig out my wand, go find the rogue (who doesn't want to be found), get him to break invisibility and UMD the wand for me to re-enchant my sword, so I can run back to the badguy and get dispelled again"

I typically carried a primary weapon with a bunch of effects, but I always kept something with the highest possible enchantment, even if it was only a dagger.

[marphod]

(As I dislike the ambiguity of the default DnD lingo, I'm going to refer to Weapon Enhancement as the numeric bonus and Weapon Enchantments as the other abilities you can put on weapons)

I'm much more tempted to do the reverse of this; that is, require a numeric bonus in order to get special enchantments.

If you want a +1 enchantment, the weapon must have (at least) a +1 enhancement bonus.
If you want multiple +1 enchantments, the weapon must (still) have (at least) a +1 enhancement bonus.
If you want a +2 enchantment, the weapon must have (at least) a +2 enhancement bonus.
If you want multiple +1 and +2 enchantment, the weapon must (still)have (at least) a +2 enhancement bonus.
If you want a +3 enchantment, the weapon must have (at least) a +3 enhancement bonus.
Etc.

(Are there any synergy chains that are 3 enchantments or longer? I'd be tempted to make a 3-length chain require a +2 and a 5-length require a +3, but I can't recall any of the former much less the latter.)

This follows from the Augment Crystal requirements, and makes sense to me.

[Sliver]

You know, I decided on a house rule regarding that in my upcoming game, though I have a different approach:

(Both for weapons and armor) +X enchantments don't exist, and you don't need a +1 first. Instead, all the enchantments that are priced as an enchantment bonus, also give that bonus.

So a Flaming Burst weapon would cost 8000gp (plus masterwork and base weapon price) but effectively work like a +2 Flaming Burst weapon, which would usually cost 32000gp.


Can't use Greater Augment Crystals on less than a +3 Weapon/Armor. (MIC 221)
So, some characters will want one for the Greater Demolition Crystal and Greater Truedeath Crystal for a SA/SS/Skirmish build.

That said, there are no mechanical reasons to have a +2, +4 or +5 Weapon in the game.

A 12CL GMW casting a day works, too.

Also, that houserule you suggested above really screws just the mundanes that might want specific enchantmets, turning a +1 with a +3 priced enchantment from 32000 to a mandatory +3 that costs 72000... Makes those vorpal swords really expensive and even less of a consideration!

[marphod]

A 12CL GMW casting a day works, too.

That is actually unclear.


A greater augment crystal only functions 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 ... .
That's probably restricted to other enchantments, as in the text example, rather than "effective" bonuses from GMW, but RAW, it is ambiguous at best.


Also, that houserule you suggested above really screws just the mundanes that might want specific enchantments, turning a +1 with a +3 priced enchantment from 32000 to a mandatory +3 that costs 72000... Makes those vorpal swords really expensive and even less of a consideration!

Who are these mundanes of which you speak? =)

Really, Vorpal is over-priced at +3; it would be more reasonable at +2. (and the price therefore wouldn't change from 32k gp)

I think that this is part of the problem; effects are costed as if they are applied to a +1 weapon, which requires inflation of enchantment modifiers in order to try to keep balance. It means as things currently are, a single +3 enhancement might make sense, but multiples are awful. With my costing, prices make more sense. It does require re-pricing most enchantments, which tentatively could be 1/2 default (rounded up).

[Morcleon]

That is actually unclear.

That's probably restricted to other enchantments, as in the text example, rather than "effective" bonuses from GMW, but RAW, it is ambiguous at best.

Actually, no. An effective bonus would be something like flaming, so a +1 flaming sword has an effective bonus of +2, but an actual bonus of +1. GMW gives the item an actual bonus. So long as GMW is active on that weapon, it is, for all intents and purposes, a +X weapon.

This is further supported by the example immediately after the text:

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.

[Tuvarkz]

+X weapons are generally better imho, simply because the difference between a +1 flaming/shock/etc weapon and a +2 is the following
+3.5 damage vs+1 hit and 1 damage
Not accounting for critical hits, taking H as Hitrate in fractional value and D as damage in numbers
Making rough calculations (H+0.05)*(D+1) is bigger than (H)*(D+3.5) whenever your damage is 50 times your hitrate (in fractional value).
Considering that at average you should have a 60-70% percent hitrate against reasonably challenging opponents, if you are dealing 30-35 damage per round already, you should take the +2 over the flaming weapon. This also means that at the 50 damage threshold, you will want the extra hit over the damage. This also means harder to hit enemies also give more value to the extra hit chance, and full attacks should probably follow this trend too.

[Morcleon]

+X weapons are generally better imho, simply because the difference between a +1 flaming/shock/etc weapon and a +2 is the following
+3.5 damage vs+1 hit and 1 damage
Not accounting for critical hits, taking H as Hitrate in fractional value and D as damage in numbers
Making rough calculations (H+0.05)*(D+1) is bigger than (H)*(D+3.5) whenever your damage is 50 times your hitrate (in fractional value).
Considering that at average you should have a 60-70% percent hitrate against reasonably challenging opponents, if you are dealing 30-35 damage per round already, you should take the +2 over the flaming weapon. This also means that at the 50 damage threshold, you will want the extra hit over the damage. This also means harder to hit enemies also give more value to the extra hit chance, and full attacks should probably follow this trend too.

Flaming is used as an example for simplicity. Most of the time, you'll be taking enchantments like Keen or Transmuting or Magebane. These are better than +X weapons because you can get the +X from Greater Magic Weapon.

[marphod]

+X weapons are generally better imho, simply because the difference between a +1 flaming/shock/etc weapon and a +2 is the following
+3.5 damage vs+1 hit and 1 damage
Not accounting for critical hits, taking H as Hitrate in fractional value and D as damage in numbers
Making rough calculations (H+0.05)*(D+1) is bigger than (H)*(D+3.5) whenever your damage is 50 times your hitrate (in fractional value).
Considering that at average you should have a 60-70% percent hitrate against reasonably challenging opponents, if you are dealing 30-35 damage per round already, you should take the +2 over the flaming weapon. This also means that at the 50 damage threshold, you will want the extra hit over the damage. This also means harder to hit enemies also give more value to the extra hit chance, and full attacks should probably follow this trend too.

Uh. what?

Letsee:

For a single attack, you're looking at
(HitChance+1/20) * (Dmg + 1) or HitChance*Dmg + Dmg/20 + HitChance + 1/20
versus
(HitChance) * (Dmg + 3.5) or Hitchance*Dmg + HitChance*3.5

So the break even point is HitChance * 3.5 = Dmg/20 + HitChance + 1/20

At a 75% hit rate, that's

.75 * 3.5 = Dmg/20 + .8 => 2.625-.8 = Dmg/20 => 1.825 *20 = Dmg => 36.5 = Dmg

Hunh. Not what I expected. Interesting.

On the other hand, the actual odds for a 20th fighter is closer to 95% first attack, 85% second, 65% third, 40% fourth (or better)

For a standard action/single attack, the elemental is clearly better.
For Iteratives, it varies. For the above, the break point is slightly over 50.
For a two weapon fighter, the break point is (back of the envelope) around 55-60 per hit. (if the have GTWF; if only ITWF, breakpoint is even higher)

The higher you hit odds, the better the elemental damage is.

Regardless, enchantments and using GMW is still better, as you get both the improved hit rate and the elemental damage.

[Tuvarkz]

Well, for a 20th fighter yeah, but 20th fighters have a +5 weapon with another +5 worth of enhancements. (And I did state 35 damage at 70% hitrate)

[Morcleon]

Well, for a 20th fighter yeah, but 20th fighters have a +5 weapon with another +5 worth of enhancements. (And I did state 35 damage at 70% hitrate)

Except you can get more versatility out of a +1 weapon and +9 of enchantments, and then just slap a CL 20 GMW for +5 and +9.

[marphod]

Well, for a 20th fighter yeah, but 20th fighters have a +5 weapon with another +5 worth of enhancements. (And I did state 35 damage at 70% hitrate)

No, they don't. That's my entire point.

A 20th level Martial character will have a +1 weapon with +5 to +7 of enchantments (maybe more, but it is rarely cost effective), plus a golf bagMagnificent Quiver filled with +1 weapons (or ammo) with +3 to +4 worth of enchantments. And then they hand a wand of Greater Magic Weapon (16th or 20th caster level) to their friendly Caster/UMD monkey. Viola. A +4 or +5 weapon with plenty of enchantments on it/them.

(Or they have a Persistent Magic Weapon, Greater, Legion cast. ... Why does GMW,L have minutes/level duration rather than hours?)

Getting an enhancement bonus greater than +1 is pointless (unless you use my aforementioned interpretation of weapon crystal restrictions, in which case you MIGHT have one or two +3 weapons). Or if you pick up a legacy weapon which has it in the progression.

Even at 5th level, a 8th-level wand of Greater Magic Weapon is worth more than a +2 weapon. The wand costs 360gp per charge. Where a +3 weapon (+2 and an elemental die) costs 10,000gp more than a +2 weapon (+1 and an elemental die; 18,350+gp v 8,350+gp). You need to use about 3/5ths of the entire wand before it becomes the more expensive option. a 12th CL wand also works, at 19 charges before it becomes more expensive. And this savings persists every time you would want to upgrade the weapon. A +1 Weapon with +5 enchantments costs 72,000gp+; the same weapon with a +5 Enhancement costs 200,000gp+. You can get a whole lot of 20th level GMW spells (at 900gp per) for 128,000 GP.

[Diamondeye]

I'm really not sure what exactly this accomplishes. Then again, I don't buy that non-enhancement effects are more "flavorful"; they're just more specific about it. This strikes me as a houserule that really doesn't accomplish very much.