Why does a +1 weapon give +1to hit and damage, but +1armor only +1Ac

[Nolthestranger]

Shouldn't it give 1Ac and some sort of a damage resistance ? Doesn't that whole balance make the game geared towards aggression ?
A +1 enhancement can give you +2 to hit, that it, twice what you'd get with the defensive counterpart.

Would you change that in your games ? Has someone ?

[magic9mushroom]

Shouldn't it give 1Ac and some sort of a damage resistance ? Doesn't that whole balance make the game geared towards aggression ?
A +1 enhancement can give you +2 to hit, that it, twice what you'd get with the defensive counterpart.

Would you change that in your games ? Has someone ?

Well, a +1 on a weapon does cost twice as much as a +1 on a suit of armour, and if you go TWF it's four times.

Really, the bigger issue is that attack bonuses scale with level and AC doesn't.

[AnimeTheCat]

It is balanced on the front end, and enhancement bonuses are far from where the game loses it's attack vs defence balance.

Armor gets a +1 enhancement bonus to AC for each point of enhancement bonus it has (i.e. a +3 Breastplate grants a +8 armor bonus to AC)
Weapons get a +1 enhancement bonus to the attack roll for each point of enhancement bonus it has (i.e. a +4 longsword would have +4 to hit)

Armor enhancement bonuses are half the cost of weapon enhancement bonuses, so for the cost of a +1 sword, you can a +1 armor and a +1 shield. The +2 weapon costs twice as much as the +2 armor. There's the first balancing factor on the front end or enhancement.

The next comes from the fact that you can only have a maximum of +5 to hit or +5 enhancement bonus to the armor's AC. The is inherently balanced. With an equally powerful weapon and armor, you'll never be any better off than when you started. Pair that with the first mitigating factor, and you've still got balance within the enhancement system.

Here's where the real imbalance happens. Base Attack Bonus. Every class gets it. Every class gets better and better at hitting things, but very few classes (monk and... i dunno that's the easiest one) get an inherent "Base Defense Bonus". So just by gaining class levels you get better at hitting things but you don't get better at not getting hit just for gaining levels.

[Mr Adventurer]

Because the weapon is twice as expensive.

[Saintheart]

Nitpicking, but a +1 weapon doesn't give a +1 to hit and damage. A masterwork weapon gives you the +1 damage, and making it a magic, +1 weapon only adds a +1 to the attack roll, because you can't have a magic weapon unless it's a masterwork weapon first. Thus, strictly speaking, the ratio is 1 to 1.

[dancrilis]

A masterwork weapon gives you the +1 damage, and making it a magic, +1 weapon only adds a +1 to the attack roll

I believe you will find you have that backwards.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#masterworkWeapons


A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

[Willie the Duck]

Shouldn't it give 1Ac and some sort of a damage resistance ? Doesn't that whole balance make the game geared towards aggression ?
A +1 enhancement can give you +2 to hit, that it, twice what you'd get with the defensive counterpart.

From a genuinely abstract theoretical or symmetry-seeking perspective, it might seem that way. However, there are about a bazillion conflating issues before you can make that assessment. Irrespective of magic item bonus, to-hit goes up naturally as you level, yet AC goes up in a bizarre combination of stats, mundane purchases (going from scale mail at start to maybe plate or chain shirt), other magic items, spells, etc. Everyone has damage, and it goes up in haphazard jogs, while most entities don't have damage reduction (and those that do often have circumvention methods). So you're not wrong that attack and defense aren't mirror images, but pointing at the differences between +1 armor and +1 weapons as the primary culprit is kinda putting the cart before the horse.

I mean, there are systems like that. Hero System (focusing strictly on basic attacks for the moment) is like that -- the attacker rolls 3d6 vs the default difficulty of 10, and adds their offensive value, then subtracting the opponent's defensive value (which cost approximately the same, in build resources) and then if they hit apply damage, resisted by their opponent's damage resistance (which again cost pretty close to the same). There are pros and cons to that symmetry. A straight up fight between two vanilla brawler types in that system would end up being pretty much waiting on luck (one side hitting more frequently, or someone rolling exceptionally high damage, such that it overwhelms their opponent's DR), excepting that there are about a half-dozen different flavors of attack v. defense, so it becomes something of a rock-paper-scissors between types ("your physical defense is equal to my physical offense, but I suspect you were worried about psychic attack, and thus also spent points on mental defense, leaving less points to spend on energy-defense, and I have a decent energy attack"), and of course because there are all sorts of other things like shoves and entangles and blinding your opponent, etc.

[grarrrg]

From a broad perspective:
Ultimately, Attack-potential MUST be higher than damage-potential, otherwise fights stalemate and nothing happens.

[Saintheart]

I believe you will find you have that backwards.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#masterworkWeapons

Of course I do!

[Nolthestranger]

A (surprinsingly) great amount of answers in such a short time, thanks to you all
I had absolutely missed the cost factor for one, and the whole train of thoughts about what this seeming imbalance meant to the meta of fights

Happy to see this forum still brimming with life

[Asmotherion]

i've argued it should give DR equal to it's hardness; The explaination i received satisfied me:

The thing is when you receive a hit it's the times the hit doesn't hit the armor but "some soft spot" in it's design.

hiting the Armor would be a sunder attempt.

[HouseRules]

A common house rule of stacking master work with magic enhancements would be a thing?


Item Crafted Cost Enhancement Bonus Damage Bonus
Master Work 300 gp +1, +0 vs 3.0 DR or DR/Magic +0
+1 2000 gp +1 +1
Master Work +1 2300 gp +2, +1 vs 3.0 DR +1
+2 8000 gp +2 +2
Master Work +2 8300 gp +3, +2 vs 3.0 DR +2
+3 18000 gp +3 +3
Master Work +3 18300 gp +4, +3 vs 3.0 DR +3
+4 32000 gp +4 +4
Master Work +4 32300 gp +5, +4 vs 3.0 DR +4
+5 50000 gp +5 +5
Master Work +5 50300 gp +6, +5 vs 3.0 DR +5

[weckar]

+1 armor preserves the bonus of masterwork as well, while +1 weapons override it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

An armour's masterwork bonus is just lessening the penalties for wearing armor while a weapon's makes the weapon better, which is an important note.

[Segev]

Interestingly, prior to 3e, magic weapons had two +x designations. A sword that gave +1 to hit and +1 to damage would be a "+1/+1 sword." You could, in fact, find +3/+1 swords, +1/+0 swords, and even +1/+2 swords. The simplification to the bonus applying equally to both hit and damage is something 3e introduced for, well, simplicity.

[Willie the Duck]

Interestingly, prior to 3e, magic weapons had two +x designations. A sword that gave +1 to hit and +1 to damage would be a "+1/+1 sword." You could, in fact, find +3/+1 swords, +1/+0 swords, and even +1/+2 swords. The simplification to the bonus applying equally to both hit and damage is something 3e introduced for, well, simplicity.

I'm trying to remember that showing up. I know 2e AD&D's equivalent to 'masterwork' level swords could be +1 damage, or +1 hit, or +1hit, +1 damage, but I don't recall much of that in magic items. There were plenty of "+1, +3 vs giants" style weapons, but I'm not remembering ones with diverging to-hits and damages, which editions were those in?

[Segev]

I'm trying to remember that showing up. I know 2e AD&D's equivalent to 'masterwork' level swords could be +1 damage, or +1 hit, or +1hit, +1 damage, but I don't recall much of that in magic items. There were plenty of "+1, +3 vs giants" style weapons, but I'm not remembering ones with diverging to-hits and damages, which editions were those in?

I thought 2e; I must be remembering 1e. It was something of a big deal to get a +3/+3 weapon when the party did when I was first playing.

[Mr Adventurer]

A common house rule

I've never heard of this house rule in play nor seen it discussed on these forums. So I am not sure how common it is.


Interestingly, prior to 3e, magic weapons had two +x designations. A sword that gave +1 to hit and +1 to damage would be a "+1/+1 sword." You could, in fact, find +3/+1 swords, +1/+0 swords, and even +1/+2 swords. The simplification to the bonus applying equally to both hit and damage is something 3e introduced for, well, simplicity.

I don't remember this from my 2e or BECMI days.

[HouseRules]

You are forgetting the Three Little Brown Books where it says that only Thor's Hammer gives +3.
Everything else gives +2 according to OD&D.

[DrMotives]

There's a d20 system liscensed game based on 3e, the Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time RPG, where every class has a scaling AC bonus that rises with level in addition to BAB & saves. I can't recall if this is an untyped bonus or a dodge bonus, but either way it's a mechanic that I've thought more than once might be interesting to import into D&D.

[Jay R]

The simplest answer is this:

Because a +1 weapon costs an additional 2,000 gp, and +1 armor costs an additional 1,000 gp.