Removing weapon plus requirements, how bad of a balance issue would this be?

[inuyasha]

I'm considering ruling in one of my campaigns that magic weapons and armor do not have to be +1 in order to gain special effects, so one could have a sanctified dwarven warhammer that is undead bane, not +1 undead bane, or a magical suit of armor that counts as fortification, but doesn't grant any extra AC due to being +1 or +2

I'm wondering if this would be a good or bad idea, since I tend to like giving my players cool magic items, not numbers-focused ones. The +1, +2, etc. is still useful for the purpose of damage reduction, but it just wouldn't be a necessity. I never liked the tremendous price gap in magic weapons, (from 2k to 8k to a whopping 18k) and I think that removing this rule could help a little with that.

What do you guys think about this idea? Is it a good plan or a bad one?

EDIT: Gaah, this was meant for 3.X/PF.

[Deaxsa]

First of all , wrong forum. Second, it's not a problem at all. It's a dumb rule to begin with. Third, in my games the enchantment can never even be +x unless it's from magic weapon(the spell ) or something. All that is handled by masterwork, with more master rafted weapons costing more money. You can even focus on damage vs atk. So I've handed out stuff like. +0/3 dagger with vicious on it: it does 1d4+2d6+3 damage, you take 1 d6, and this is before modifiers. The only thing it breaks are the weapon enchants that give a bonus based on the the enhancement bonus. Which, while a problem for my way, isn't for your way.

[Knaight]

I'm guessing this is for 3.0 judging by the +X specific damage resistance. Regardless though, there is no problem with this.

[BRC]

I would say yes, but only if there isn't a custom magic item mart in play.

The one benefit I can see of the +1 rule is that it makes it hard for a character to stockpile situational magic weapons. I'm specifically thinking of Bane weapons.

When the cheapest Bane weapon you can get is 8000, it's pretty expensive, and probably not worth it to just fill the bag of holding with a dragonbane sword, an undead bane sword, ect ect.

But, if you can get a Bane version of your favorite weapon for a mere 2k, then for the price of one +2-equivalent weapon, you can get a Bane weapons (+2 enhancement, +2d6 damage) for 4 of the more common enemy types. If the campaign regularly finds itself fighting Undead, or Goblinoids, or Dragons or whatever, then cheap access to Bane weapons could get out of control.

But that's really the only danger point I see. Maybe keep the +1 requirement specifically for Bane weapons or something?

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Moved.

[Telok]

I did this for a campaign, we went from level 3 to 15 with this rule and there were no problems. Zero, none, nada. I saw a wider variety in the enchantments people were willing to use beyond the usual best 5.

[inuyasha]

Thanks for all the replies, guys! I appreciate the feedback on this.

The vast majority of the items are going to be found as treasure, nobody in the group can make weapons/armor as of yet, and I seldom have true "magic item marts" so things like a bane weapon for every type is fairly unlikely to happen.

[SangoProduction]

Hey inuyasha, Sango here.

I would say it'd cause basically no real changes, aside from making the more interesting weapons ("I can have a sword that's hot and cold? Cool!"...not the best example.) come around a little earlier.

I mean, compare a +1 Longsword to a Flaming Longsword. around a +2.5 point average damage difference (which is basically nothing), and you are 5% less likely to hit, but it's much cooler, and more notable.

[Eisfalken]

Looks good to me. I'd be sure to preserve the fact that the weapon counts as magic for DR purposes, and I would still limit the weapon to a total of +10 "pluses" of enhancement until epic levels, just to keep relative difficulties even, but that's all.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I've actually been using the kakita quality (from the kakita katana, in Oriental Adventures) to kinda-sorta bypass the standard magical +1 enhancements. Due to the wording on magic weapons, the standard rules specify that magical weapon qualities require an enhancement bonus, but not a magical enhancement bonus. This means that the kakita quality (which is a nonmagical enhancement bonus) is sufficient to add magical qualities onto a weapon. Thing is, the pricing guide does specify that the price is based on magical enhancement bonuses (or their equivalents), so the scaling cost of magical enhancement equivalents doesn't change, even if the kakita quality is applied.

Thus far, I haven't seen any issues at all; it just means I get an extra +1 at high levels, before the epic pricing comes into play. That really isn't a problem, that I've noticed, since you can easily get a +24 or better weapon by combining a +1/+9 (equiv) bow, +1/+9 (equiv) arrows, and greater magic weapon, under the standard rules. (Not to mention all the dozens of enhancements you can stack on an unarmed strike.)

[Khedrac]

I mean, compare a +1 Longsword to a Flaming Longsword. around a +2.5 point average damage difference (which is basically nothing), and you are 5% no less likely to hit, but it's much cooler, and more notable.
Fixed that for you.

A magic weapon still needs to be masterwork which gives the same +1 to hit as a +1 weapon.

[Fizban]

There are a good number of weapon abilities that are priced based on the total cost including the minimum +1. Removing that makes them a whole tier of cost cheaper, which some people don't mind but is obviously not intended by the system. Bane is a notable example as mentioned, at 2k instead of 8k, when the property itself is worth a +4 total bonus against its target. Spell Storing is one less people would think about, allowing you to store 3rd level spells for the same 2k instead of 8k, compared to a 9k Pearl of Power. The +1 Eager Warning Gaunlet is now just 8k for +7 initiative. If your PCs can't make or buy weapons then the prices don't really matter anyway, you could just as easily leave the +1 on and count them as worth less WBL then listed if you wanted. If you think weapons are overpriced then go ahead, but don't be surprised if showering them in extra magic makes them stronger than expected in the future.

[Pugwampy]

How easy do your weapon break ?

My fumble rules have normal weapons broken or destroyed but magic weapons are nigh indestructable ..............unless up against a higher level magic weapon .

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There are a good number of weapon abilities that are priced based on the total cost including the minimum +1. Removing that makes them a whole tier of cost cheaper, which some people don't mind but is obviously not intended by the system. Bane is a notable example as mentioned, at 2k instead of 8k, when the property itself is worth a +4 total bonus against its target. Spell Storing is one less people would think about, allowing you to store 3rd level spells for the same 2k instead of 8k, compared to a 9k Pearl of Power. The +1 Eager Warning Gaunlet is now just 8k for +7 initiative. If your PCs can't make or buy weapons then the prices don't really matter anyway, you could just as easily leave the +1 on and count them as worth less WBL then listed if you wanted. If you think weapons are overpriced then go ahead, but don't be surprised if showering them in extra magic makes them stronger than expected in the future.Considering how screwed the lower-tiered mundanes are already by the system, and they generally require the most expensive items in the game (magic weapons) just to function properly, making them less expensive is more of a feature than a bug, really.


How easy do your weapon break ?

My fumble rules have normal weapons broken or destroyed but magic weapons are nigh indestructable ..............unless up against a higher level magic weapon .And this just makes everything worse.

[Gnaeus]

Considering how screwed the lower-tiered mundanes are already by the system, and they generally require the most expensive items in the game (magic weapons) just to function properly, making them less expensive is more of a feature than a bug,

I agree, for weapons intended as weapons. The problems I see are weapons for utility (I have 20 daggers +0 with spell storing) or cheap buffs like whichever one added to initiative.

[ComaVision]

The weapon enchantment Smoking is already a steal at 8k, making it cost 2k would be crazy.

[exelsisxax]

The weapon enchantment Smoking is already a steal at 8k, making it cost 2k would be crazy.

Almost as crazy as making mirror image a 2nd level spell with no material components!


wait.....

[ComaVision]

Almost as crazy as making mirror image a 2nd level spell with no material components!


wait.....

Casters have good things so giving them more good things for cheaper has no effect?

I'm not worried about MARTIALS picking up good stuff for cheaper.

[Gnaeus]

Casters have good things so giving them more good things for cheaper has no effect?

I'm not worried about MARTIALS picking up good stuff for cheaper.

20 spell storing tiny daggers + 0 isn't a boon for the party muggles.

[exelsisxax]

Casters have good things so giving them more good things for cheaper has no effect?

I'm not worried about MARTIALS picking up good stuff for cheaper.

Casters already have blur and it won't stack. It really doesn't help casters but does help martials.

[ComaVision]

Casters already have blur and it won't stack. It really doesn't help casters but does help martials.

50%>20%
Permanent>1 min/caster level

[exelsisxax]

50%>20%
Permanent>1 min/caster level

+50%>+30%

Someone got a bigger benefit than the other.

[Flickerdart]

This change makes "caster sticks" stronger. A mundane character has good reasons to buy +X enchantments, but a caster who only wants something to hold so he can get the bonuses from warning, eager or whatever would never get it normally. With this change in place, a mere 2000gp now buys anyone Uncanny Dodge, for example. If using such a houserule, you may wish to rebalance some of these properties.

Also, adorning yourself with a few extra magic bucklers for passive properties suddenly became a lot more affordable.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I agree, for weapons intended as weapons. The problems I see are weapons for utility (I have 20 daggers +0 with spell storing) or cheap buffs like whichever one added to initiative.Dividing by 50 for enhancing ammo is already a thing. This is far less abusable.


This change makes "caster sticks" stronger. A mundane character has good reasons to buy +X enchantments, but a caster who only wants something to hold so he can get the bonuses from warning, eager or whatever would never get it normally. With this change in place, a mere 2000gp now buys anyone Uncanny Dodge, for example. If using such a houserule, you may wish to rebalance some of these properties.

Also, adorning yourself with a few extra magic bucklers for passive properties suddenly became a lot more affordable.Casters already get magic weapons for half price (or even less, since there are plenty of spells for that kind of thing). The mundanes get the most benefit from the change, by far.

[Gnaeus]

Dividing by 50 for enhancing ammo is already a thing. This is far less abusable.

Casters already get magic weapons for half price (or even less, since there are plenty of spells for that kind of thing). The mundanes get the most benefit from the change, by far.

Spell storing isn't available on ammunition, only on melee weapons. Half of 2000 is way cheaper than half of 8000 for disposable effects. Mundanes don't actually save that much because they want magic weapons anyway. The big winners are actually your melee casters like clerics, who can get cheap effects, but then also have the same enhancement bonuses as before with greater magic weapon.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Spell storing isn't available on ammunition, only on melee weapons.Nothing in spell storing requires it to be added to melee weapons only. In fact, even the tables don't say anything about not being craftable onto ammo. You just don't find them randomly. Unless you have a source explicitly requiring melee only? Otherwise, the crafting rules allow it just fine.


Half of 2000 is way cheaper than half of 8000 for disposable effects. Mundanes don't actually save that much because they want magic weapons anyway. The big winners are actually your melee casters like clerics, who can get cheap effects, but then also have the same enhancement bonuses as before with greater magic weapon.Clerics have plenty of other options on how to play, so they can take or leave slightly cheaper weapons. Mundane martials have no choice in the matter, and they require much higher bonuses on their weapons, while a cleric can forgo that extra +1 (no matter how expensive it is) and spend it on other stuff, making up the difference with a cheap buff.

Casters get magic weapons and weapon bonuses for free. Mundanes largely can't. Mundanes require expensive magic weapons (often several of them) just to function. Casters generally don't, as they can cast a spell or two and get what they want anyway.

What I'm getting at is that casters may get better benefits overall, but mundanes get massively larger proportional benefits. If a caster's working at lvl 100 and gets a +10 boost in efficacy, that's a bigger boost overall than a mundane working at lvl 10 and getting +9, but the mundane is still getting a 90% increase, which is much bigger than the caster's 10%.

[exelsisxax]

Pathfinder spellstoring, not sure which system DM uses.


This special ability (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/spell-storing) can only be placed on melee weapons.

EDIT: looks like a PF specific rule. 3.5 is almost verbatim, with the subtraction of that line. But by the description, it doesn't do anything with ammunition. Without a wielder, there is nobody to decide to discharge the spell with the free action.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Pathfinder spellstoring, not sure which system DM uses.3rd Edition doesn't have the same restriction, fortunately. At least, not that I'm aware of.

[Gnaeus]

3rd Edition doesn't have the same restriction, fortunately. At least, not that I'm aware of.

Well it does only activate if the wielder desires, and you don't wield ammunition. But ok. I agree that if your DM allows your cleric to be full attacking with inflict serious wounds arrows, the cost is likely to be the least of your problems. Still, it's a difference in cost after crafting from 80 gp/arrow to 20/arrow.

But I still disagree with the rest of your point. For a lot of reasons.
1. The muggle can't make the items in question. For him to benefit at all, he would have to find or commission that +10 wierd thing that doesn't have even a +1 bonus.
2. Lots of things have DR or are only affected by magic. I don't think it's even very smart to have a +10 weapon without a point of enhancement bonus. Unless you can give it one as a class ability.
3. For melee type casters, it's not that they can "take it or leave it". They get all the goodies for free. The Druid was going to cast GMF anyway. The Cleric was going to cast GMW anyway. This way they just get an extra +1 level of special weapon effect for no extra cost at all.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

But I still disagree with the rest of your point. For a lot of reasons.
1. The muggle can't make the items in question. For him to benefit at all, he would have to find or commission that +10 wierd thing that doesn't have even a +1 bonus.And he'd be wasting 38,000 gp on something that's almost pointless, while a caster would be wasting a mere 19,000 gp. The muggle gets a much larger benefit with this one. Meanwhile, you can get a +5 enhancement bonus for just over half the price that the muggle pays via the tooth of Leraje.


2. Lots of things have DR or are only affected by magic. I don't think it's even very smart to have a +10 weapon without a point of enhancement bonus. Unless you can give it one as a class ability.Overcoming DR/Magic is a fine quality for a +1 to have, but having the choice between an extra +1 equivalent and a +1 enhancement bonus should be in the player's hands. Plus, there are plenty of ways to get a +1 enhancement bonus, from psionic powers to spells to class features to other magic items (such as the tooth of Leraje for a +5).

Thing is, having DR/Magic is basically pointless as it stands. Everyone has a +1 weapon at later levels, and even many that don't also have DR/Magic, meaning they can overcome DR/Magic themselves. This actually increases the value of that DR immensely, which is a good thing, I think.


3. For melee type casters, it's not that they can "take it or leave it". They get all the goodies for free. The Druid was going to cast GMF anyway. The Cleric was going to cast GMW anyway. This way they just get an extra +1 level of special weapon effect for no extra cost at all.If they get it for free, why force the muggle to pay out the wazoo for a lesser effect?

[Sayt]

You might want to have a look at the automatic bonus progression system from Pathfinder unchained. It provides for the elimination of the "big six" number enhancers (cloak of resistance, Ring of protection etc) and builds those bonuses into the characers level progression. Personally I'd still allow items that boost cmb/d and skills, but it let's you get rid of a lot of the +number items in favor of actual interesting things.

In this system, magic weapons work exactly as you've proposed, you strip the enhancement bonus off of weapons and just make it a part of the character.

[Fizban]

Casters already get magic weapons for half price (or even less, since there are plenty of spells for that kind of thing). The mundanes get the most benefit from the change, by far.
Only if the only loot you ever get is straight cash. If you're looting and selling mostly magic items, as intended, then every time you sell you're only getting half the value: crafting gets you magic items equivalent to what you would normally have but specialized to your tastes, not free money. It only "doubles" your money when the DM lets you treat starting WBL as straight cash, rather than actually rating you by the total value of your magic items regardless of their source.

Also ignores feat costs etc.

[SangoProduction]

Hey. Hey. We get it. Casters are gods. We get it.

So, instead of trying to talk about that. Let's get back to the OP's question.

So: Just tell your players that "caster sticks" require +1 enhancement modifier before they get cool stuff and actual weapons don't require an enhancement modifier. There done.

[Crake]

Only if the only loot you ever get is straight cash. If you're looting and selling mostly magic items, as intended, then every time you sell you're only getting half the value: crafting gets you magic items equivalent to what you would normally have but specialized to your tastes, not free money. It only "doubles" your money when the DM lets you treat starting WBL as straight cash, rather than actually rating you by the total value of your magic items regardless of their source.

Also ignores feat costs etc.

If you look at most treasure generation methods, I think you'll find that a decent amount of treasure results from valuables and coins, rather than magic items.

[darkdragoon]

Probably not a good tradeoff on the stuff you need to actually hit with although I suppose you might eek more out of some by being able to shuffle around more.

Utility perhaps, but then becomes more of "what are you doing that requires this to be cheaper that couldn't be solved by having more money or making everything cheaper, faster to craft in general?"


[QUOTE=Sayt;21446362]You might want to have a look at the automatic bonus progression system from Pathfinder unchained. It provides for the elimination of the "big six" number enhancers (cloak of resistance, Ring of protection etc) and builds those bonuses into the characers level progression.

The rate of progression makes that a fairly poor choice.

[Pugwampy]

And this just makes everything worse.

Its great awesome sauce fun fun fun . :smallbiggrin:

[Gnaeus]

Thing is, having DR/Magic is basically pointless as it stands. Everyone has a +1 weapon at later levels, and even many that don't also have DR/Magic, meaning they can overcome DR/Magic themselves. This actually increases the value of that DR immensely, which is a good thing, I think.

If they get it for free, why force the muggle to pay out the wazoo for a lesser effect?

It's a good thing for the monsters. It doesn't change anything for the direct casters except giving them cheaper effects. It's an awful thing for the fighter who finds that he can't hit shadows at all.

Good question. When you design a game system, please consider it. But all the change does is give clerics and Druids more stuff for free with spells they were already casting. You want to nerf casters? You want to nerf GMW? That's a fair discussion. This change makes CoDzilla farther ahead of fighters at the job of being a fighter than they already are.

[stanprollyright]

The vast majority of the items are going to be found as treasure, nobody in the group can make weapons/armor as of yet, and I seldom have true "magic item marts" so things like a bane weapon for every type is fairly unlikely to happen.

If you're the one deciding which items to give out like that, do whatever you want. Make a bunch of +0 flaming/freezing/shocking/keen/ghost touch/merciful/deadly/wounding/vicious/holy/unholy weapons, so that each party member has something unique and flashy. Don't give out +0 bane weapons or "caster sticks", namely spell storing/conductive/dueling. If they get crafting feats make them follow the rules as normal, but let them put enchants on top of the +0 weapons as if they are +1. Those weapons are special. Or decide which properties you want to be cheaper and only let those be put on +0 weapons. I don't see a problem with any of the armor abilities being on +0 items except spell storing; most of them mimic low level utility spells. It might actually encourage casters to be more suboptimally gishy, while giving the martial party members some raw golf bag versatility.

[inuyasha]

I honestly don't have a problem with +0 spell storing and +0 bane weapons. I'll hand them out when appropriate, and I trust my players won't make a dagger for every type of monster, or a stack of daggers that each contain a fireball.

I think it would be cool to have elven relics like Sting that function more or less normal, but glow with piercing blue light specifically when fighting goblins, or a consecrated dwarven hammer for undead, or even an an elven scimitar of spell storing that's etched with runes, allowing it to function as a conduit for the caster's magic. I like to encourage my players to treat their magic items like objects with a history and/or a purpose, not just a stats boost.

[stanprollyright]

In my experience most parties do eventually take crafting feats and/or find/hire an npc crafter or infinite magic shop at some point, so setting a precedent is important. But if you're generally choosing which magic items to hand out there should be no problem.

[Telok]

In my experience most parties do eventually take crafting feats and/or find/hire an npc crafter or infinite magic shop at some point, so setting a precedent is important. But if you're generally choosing which magic items to hand out there should be no problem.

Yeah, that sort of stuff matters a bit. My setting didn't have magic marts. A few scroll and potion shops, a "lower level casters make stuff to graduate school" shop with random stuff capping at CL 6 or 7, and a few npcs who could make stuff on commission but charge extra. Add in that the characters never settled or started a base. The setting didn't have 12th level wizards making hundreds of +1 protection rings for lower level characters either.

Without unlimited buying and people who aren't trying to break the game removing the +1 had no effect beyond seeing more variety in enchantments. There was no "caster stick" issue either, since the casters had better things to spend money on. Something like 3/4 of the magic loot in the game was armor, weapons, and generally class neutral utility stuff. I set it up so that casters bought gear where warriors upgraded loot, but that was intentional.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's 3.X; the natural variation between different character builds will vastly overshadow nearly any (non-insane) houserule.

[inuyasha]

Yeah, that sort of stuff matters a bit. My setting didn't have magic marts. A few scroll and potion shops, a "lower level casters make stuff to graduate school" shop with random stuff capping at CL 6 or 7, and a few npcs who could make stuff on commission but charge extra. Add in that the characters never settled or started a base. The setting didn't have 12th level wizards making hundreds of +1 protection rings for lower level characters either.

Without unlimited buying and people who aren't trying to break the game removing the +1 had no effect beyond seeing more variety in enchantments. There was no "caster stick" issue either, since the casters had better things to spend money on. Something like 3/4 of the magic loot in the game was armor, weapons, and generally class neutral utility stuff. I set it up so that casters bought gear where warriors upgraded loot, but that was intentional.

You've pretty much summed up how my campaign works pretty well.

[Forumlurker]

Just popping in to say something that nobody else has yet mentioned. The masterwork property (required to enchant a weapon) adds +1 to attack rolls. The +1 enchantment adds +1 to hit and damage, which overwrites the masterwork property.

By doing away with the +1 requirement for non-numerical enchants, all your players are losing is +1 to damage, as any magic weapon without a numerical enchant automatically gives +1 to attack rolls. Just a little something I noticed.

[inuyasha]

You're right! I overlooked that myself!

That I think fits, so I'll keep the Masterwork requirement, because I'm thinking that a lot of magic items would have to be well crafted anyway, stuff like priceless Dwarven relics, or ancient Elven gear, etc.

[Khedrac]

Just popping in to say something that nobody else has yet mentioned.
Wrong:

A magic weapon still needs to be masterwork which gives the same +1 to hit as a +1 weapon.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother - if you had said "noticed" I'd probably agree with you...


You're right! I overlooked that myself!
Read all replies carefully (admittedly it's a mistake I make myself - but that's how I know about it).

[inuyasha]

Aah! Sorry Khedrac, my mistake :smallredface:.