Is it worthwhile to instead temporarily enhance your weapons?

[SangoProduction]

(Note: We will only be considering the difference between +1 to +5 weapons, and their related enhancement costs compared to scrolls that enhance them. We will not be considering the fact that with these scrolls available, you can suddenly take a +1 weapon with +4 worth of different enhancements, and still have a +5 bonus to hit and damage.)

So, for +1 weapons, the cost is 2000 gp. Not that big of an ask, really.
Then again, a scroll of Magic Weapon is worth 25 gold. You can cast it nearly 100 times (80 specifically) before even breaking even.
As a minutes-long spell, however, it is somewhat inconvenient to use. If you wanted it to be hours-long, you'd need Greater Magic Weapon, which would cost 375 gp, and suddenly you only get to buy 5 of them before you break even.
(But that's still profitable, depending on the campaign.)

A +2 weapon goes for 8,000 gp.
A scroll of GMW at +2 goes for 600 gp. You'll get 13 scrolls for the same cost.

A +3 weapon is 18k. Scroll is 900. So, 20 scrolls for this cost.

A +4 weapon is 32k. Scroll is 1200. So 26 scrolls.

A +5 weapon is 50k, and a scroll is 1500. So 33 scrolls.

Interestingly enough, the scroll-efficiency increases semi-linearly. This is because the caster level is not squared in the cost. The enhancement bonus is.
And while it gets more and more efficient to instead temporarily enhance compared to permanently, it's also a lot more convenient, with up to an 18-hour duration by +5.
(All of this is ignoring any chicanery you may try and pull that improve caster level, or apply metamagics to scrolls, or the ability to store away active buffs for later.)

So, overall, for typical roll20 campaigns, starting around +3 weapons, it's actually probably mathematically superior to just temporarily enhance, rather than permanently enhance, your weaponry. Unless the thought of permanently expending a resource on a day-by-day basis causes you so much anxiety that you would prefer to pay the premium to just not have to deal with it.

[Ramza00]

forgot which dragon magazine, but they did temporary weapon enhancements at something like half cost so it was 25x charges or 50 charges for this half cost thing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How much would a 1/day item of greater magic weapon that uses your HD as its CL cost? I imagine that'd be quite cost-efficient.

Also, the tooth of Leraje, CL 20; 21,600 gp. 1/day +5 weapon for 20 hours/day. And if you have a friendly spellthief available, the entire party gets that benefit for all of their manufactured weapons (and the monk's unarmed strikes).

[Darg]

Also don't forget that while your crafted magic weapons can't go above a +10 total bonus, a +1 sword with +9 in abilities can still get a greater magic weapon to improve to +5 and +9 or +14 total. Outside of an AMZ or dysjunction, a magic weapon isn't touched by an area dispel.

This means that greater magic weapon is worth +x enhancement above and beyond what you could normally afford at the expense of being temporary. For example a +1 keen icy burst longsword has an enhancement cost of 32,000 gp. If you had an oil of greater magic weapon +3, the sword would have the effect of a 72,000 gp weapon for just 1,800 gp per 12 hour application, enough for 22 doses (40,000 gp cost difference). That said, having a 12th+ level wizard/cleric cast a plentiful 3rd/4th level spell slot is basically free.

The temporary enhancement also allows martials to use different weapons made of different materials effectively and cheaply, thus increasing versatility.

Also, one last thing to remember is that if you aren't a caster, scrolls aren't reliable until high levels of UMD.

[Biggus]

So, for +1 weapons, the cost is 2000 gp. Not that big of an ask, really.
Then again, a scroll of Magic Weapon is worth 25 gold. You can cast it nearly 100 times (80 specifically) before even breaking even.
As a minutes-long spell, however, it is somewhat inconvenient to use. If you wanted it to be hours-long, you'd need Greater Magic Weapon, which would cost 450 gp, and suddenly you only get to buy 4 of them before you break even.
(But that's still profitable, depending on the campaign.)

A +2 weapon goes for 8,000 gp.
A scroll of GMW at +2 goes for 675 gp. You'll get 11 scrolls for the same cost.

A +3 weapon is 18k. Scroll is 900. So, 20 scrolls for this cost.

A +4 weapon is 32k. Scroll is 1125. So 28 scrolls.

A +5 weapon is 50k, and a scroll is 1.35k. So 37 scrolls.

Interestingly enough, the scroll-efficiency increases semi-linearly. This is because the caster level is not squared in the cost. The enhancement bonus is.
And while it gets more and more efficient to instead temporarily enhance compared to permanently, it's also a lot more convenient, with up to an 18-hour duration by +5.


Where are you getting these numbers from? A scroll of GMW usually costs 375GP for the basic version, then 600GP, 900GP, 1200GP and 1,500GP for +2/3/4/5. Also, the +5 version lasts 20 hours, not 18.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Do note that magic fang and the greater version can be made permanent via permanency, while (greater) magic weapon can be made effectively (semi-)permanent through the use of Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell or (un)hallow + acorn of far travel (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?546179-Un-Hallow-that-Stacks). Sure, Persistent Spell is "only" 24 hours (and Extended is 48), but it's certainly better than only a few hours until later levels.

[SangoProduction]

Where are you getting these numbers from? A scroll of GMW usually costs 375GP for the basic version, then 600GP, 900GP, 1200GP and 1,500GP for +2/3/4/5. Also, the +5 version lasts 20 hours, not 18.

You are quite possibly correct. I'd have to actually go back through the math.

EDIT; OK, you are actually correct.

Basic problem stemmed from it being an unreasonable PITA to find the spell online, and I chose to avoid spheres.
But yeah. For some reason I started at CL 6 for the +1 and increased by 3 CL every +1. It was a strange choice.

[pabelfly]

Custom magic item rules are here: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm

A Wand of Magic Weapon costs 750 gold and has 50 charges (spell level 1, caster level 1). So, 15 gold per charge.
A Scroll of Magic Weapon costs 25 gold for a one-use item (spell level 1, caster level 1).

There's also a question whether a custom item has a reasonable price, to prevent exploitation. I think both are pretty reasonably-priced.

The real advantage of a magic weapon over a spell or scroll, is that it doesn't cost any turns to activate it. You have the effect even when being ambushed or being separated from other party members. The turn economy is what I'd be worried about in this situation - you don't want to be wasting turns in DnD. Having someone else give up turns in combat to give you a buff is not a good way to save gold.

[Jack_Simth]

(Note: We will only be considering the difference between +1 to +5 weapons, and their related enhancement costs compared to scrolls that enhance them. We will not be considering the fact that with these scrolls available, you can suddenly take a +1 weapon with +4 worth of different enhancements, and still have a +5 bonus to hit and damage.)

So, for +1 weapons, the cost is 2000 gp. Not that big of an ask, really.
Then again, a scroll of Magic Weapon is worth 25 gold. You can cast it nearly 100 times (80 specifically) before even breaking even.
As a minutes-long spell, however, it is somewhat inconvenient to use. If you wanted it to be hours-long, you'd need Greater Magic Weapon, which would cost 375 gp, and suddenly you only get to buy 5 of them before you break even.
(But that's still profitable, depending on the campaign.)

A +2 weapon goes for 8,000 gp.
A scroll of GMW at +2 goes for 600 gp. You'll get 13 scrolls for the same cost.

A +3 weapon is 18k. Scroll is 900. So, 20 scrolls for this cost.

A +4 weapon is 32k. Scroll is 1200. So 26 scrolls.

A +5 weapon is 50k, and a scroll is 1500. So 33 scrolls.

Interestingly enough, the scroll-efficiency increases semi-linearly. This is because the caster level is not squared in the cost. The enhancement bonus is.
And while it gets more and more efficient to instead temporarily enhance compared to permanently, it's also a lot more convenient, with up to an 18-hour duration by +5.
(All of this is ignoring any chicanery you may try and pull that improve caster level, or apply metamagics to scrolls, or the ability to store away active buffs for later.)

So, overall, for typical roll20 campaigns, starting around +3 weapons, it's actually probably mathematically superior to just temporarily enhance, rather than permanently enhance, your weaponry. Unless the thought of permanently expending a resource on a day-by-day basis causes you so much anxiety that you would prefer to pay the premium to just not have to deal with it.

It gets better if you use wands (both for ease of use and for monetary cost).

Actions cost, however. Don't bother with doing this for a Magic Weapon spell at minutes/level: Greater Magic Weapon only, that way you can always have it up by casting outside of combat.

The big gotchas are as follows:
The occasional surprise. If you use that CL 12 wand of GMW at 8 am in the morning (good for all day), but then get attacked at night? You're either burning two charges each day for 24 hours of coverage, or you're spending precious rounds buffing your weapon (it's worse at CL 8 - three a day).
Downtime: If you spend three months of down time while your party casters craft new gear, then you're either minus the enhancement on your weapon during that time (and are spending a precious round buffing your weapon in an unexpected conflict), or you're burning charges every day of that three months.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

8 am in the morning...Does 8 am ever occur at any point that isn't in the morning? I've never experienced 8 am in the afternoon, evening, or nighttime.

[Maat Mons]

Depending on how "morning" is defined, places in the Arctic or Antarctic Circle might allow this.

[RSGA]

Plus there could be world endangering threats that give unchanging celestial conditions, so it's possible be 8 A.M. in the night or 8 A.M. in the noon.

[Chronos]

There's really no point in Persisting an hour/level spell like Greater Magic Weapon. Extend is just as good from level 12 on, and even at lower levels, you just Extend it and occasionally recast it. And of course, if you have a wizard or cleric, you don't even need the scrolls or wands.

Also, I don't think that a wand of GMW counts as a "custom item". Wands and scrolls can explicitly be made of any spell of the appropriate level.

[King of Nowhere]

It gets better if you use wands (both for ease of use and for monetary cost).

Actions cost, however. Don't bother with doing this for a Magic Weapon spell at minutes/level: Greater Magic Weapon only, that way you can always have it up by casting outside of combat.

The big gotchas are as follows:
The occasional surprise. If you use that CL 12 wand of GMW at 8 am in the morning (good for all day), but then get attacked at night? You're either burning two charges each day for 24 hours of coverage, or you're spending precious rounds buffing your weapon (it's worse at CL 8 - three a day).
Downtime: If you spend three months of down time while your party casters craft new gear, then you're either minus the enhancement on your weapon during that time (and are spending a precious round buffing your weapon in an unexpected conflict), or you're burning charges every day of that three months.

in addition to that, the next bane is dispelling. get hit by a (greater) dispel magic, and your sword will stay good; if you're enhancing it with a scroll, you may lose its benefit.
get hit by disjunction, you may lose your magic weapon, but you'll surely lose your buff spell. then again, against disjunction you have the advantage that you are not losing as much wealth as you would be if you lost your +10 sword.

so it really depends on the campaign specifics.

but the next major benefit is burocracy. get a +5 weapon, write it on your sheet, forget about it. keeping track of buff spells is much harder. unless you are in the kind of campaign where you can count on never being surprised or dispelled.

[ciopo]

The "problem" I have of doing day-long buffs by scrolls is how difficult it is to adjudicate if "today" is a day worth of using the scroll.

Thise 33 scroll of GMW +5 could well be "a month" of timeskip that's resolved in 5 minutes of table time. Consuming one whenever there is a scene change has the samey problem.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I generally prefer to play psionic manifesters, and metaphysical weapon doesn't have a maximum enhancement bonus (unlike greater magic weapon), so getting an epic enhancement bonus (by revving up one's manifester level to absurd heights, which isn't hard) is entirely possible. You can use power stones, and according to the rule in CPsi, you can manifest from a minimum-ML power stone using your own ML, meaning you can get the benefit of an epic-level greater magic weapon out of a level 1 "scroll."

[Darg]

in addition to that, the next bane is dispelling. get hit by a (greater) dispel magic, and your sword will stay good; if you're enhancing it with a scroll, you may lose its benefit.
get hit by disjunction, you may lose your magic weapon, but you'll surely lose your buff spell. then again, against disjunction you have the advantage that you are not losing as much wealth as you would be if you lost your +10 sword.

so it really depends on the campaign specifics.

but the next major benefit is burocracy. get a +5 weapon, write it on your sheet, forget about it. keeping track of buff spells is much harder. unless you are in the kind of campaign where you can count on never being surprised or dispelled.

Dispel magic does not effect magic weapons unless specifically targeting it. And honestly that's usually a good thing over having your normal buffs be targeted.

[King of Nowhere]

Dispel magic does not effect magic weapons unless specifically targeting it. And honestly that's usually a good thing over having your normal buffs be targeted.

If your weapon is inherently magic, it is not affected by a dispel cast on you.
But if your weapon has a greater magic weapon cast on it -
Actually, i never considered the distinction between you and your gear in terms of targeting. So ok, perhaps if you are the target of the sispel, your sword is fine. If it's an area dispel, however, the buff on the sword definitely counts.

[Anthrowhale]

Personally, I prefer a permanently enchanted +1 with a GMW layered on top. The baseline +1 means that you can bypass DR/magic even after a dispelling and enables special abilities. If you go beyond that it gets expensive and also cuts into the amount of special abilities you can add.

Note that if you have an appropriate caster available, an L3 slot, a lesser rod of chain spell (27.2k gp), and 2 L3 pearls of power (18k gp) can effectively give you GMW 63 times/day for an amortized cost/daily casting of 717 gp.

(Edit: fixed price)

[King of Nowhere]

Personally, I prefer a permanently enchanted +1 with a GMW layered on top. The baseline +1 means that you can bypass DR/magic even after a dispelling and enables special abilities. If you go beyond that it gets expensive and also cuts into the amount of special abilities you can add.

Note that if you have an appropriate caster available, an L3 slot, a lesser rod of chain spell (14k gp), and 2 L3 pearls of power (18k gp) can effectively give you GMW 63 times/day for an amortized cost/daily casting of 508 gp.

worth noting a rod of chain spell is a homebrew item, though a very reasonable one to allow.
not sure why you'd want it anyway; sure, it would let you cast gmw many times, but on many different weapons; unless you ahve a very large party, there's not much use for it.

your point stands, though, that it's cheaper to get a pearl of power and get the party wizard to cast gmw than it is to buy scrolls every time. especially as you level up.
the convenience can increase with the level of cheese allowed. if you can buff your caster level to ludicrous levels, then you may well get a +5 weapon at level 10 this way.

[Anthrowhale]

worth noting a rod of chain spell is a homebrew item, though a very reasonable one to allow.
It's in Complete Arcane page 146. Apparently, the price is slightly higher---I updated the calculation.

[Darg]

If your weapon is inherently magic, it is not affected by a dispel cast on you.
But if your weapon has a greater magic weapon cast on it -
Actually, i never considered the distinction between you and your gear in terms of targeting. So ok, perhaps if you are the target of the sispel, your sword is fine. If it's an area dispel, however, the buff on the sword definitely counts.

Magic items are explicitly exempted from Area dispel.


For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, you make dispel checks as with creatures. Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.

And the target of a targeted dispel is only one creature, one object, or one spell. Not a creature and all their items.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Magic items are explicitly exempted from Area dispel.

And the target of a targeted dispel is only one creature, one object, or one spell. Not a creature and all their items.Hmm. What about spells affecting magic items? Sounds like those are exempt, as well.

[Anthrowhale]

And the target of a targeted dispel is only one creature, one object, or one spell. Not a creature and all their items.

I believe the traditional approach here is Chain Dispel Magic[targeted variant]. It's one of the nice offensive applications of chain spell since there is no damage for chain spell to halve and there is no saving throw for chain spell to reduce by 4.

[King of Nowhere]

Magic items are explicitly exempted from Area dispel.



And the target of a targeted dispel is only one creature, one object, or one spell. Not a creature and all their items.

that line means "area dispel does not suppress items", like a targeted dispel on an item. but a buff spell on a weapon is absolutely affected


Area Dispel

When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius.

For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected.

For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, you make dispel checks as with creatures. Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.
so, the sword is an object, it is the target of a spell, you make dispel checks as with creatures. the sword itself, as a magic item, is not affected. but the spells on the swords are affected.

[Darg]

that line means "area dispel does not suppress items", like a targeted dispel on an item. but a buff spell on a weapon is absolutely affected

so, the sword is an object, it is the target of a spell, you make dispel checks as with creatures. the sword itself, as a magic item, is not affected. but the spells on the swords are affected.

If the creature paragraph said this would you say the same?


For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected. Small or smaller creatures are not affected by an area dispel.

Your argument would be the same as saying that small or smaller creatures are affected by an area dispel even though the hypothetical text said otherwise. The only difference is that the target type is creature, not object.

There is no text saying that the ability to be unaffected by area dispel is limited to weapon special abilities.

[Chronos]

No, that's not the only difference from that hypothetical example, because in your example, there's no other way that creatures are affected. A Dispel Magic on a creature by itself, with no spells acting on it, would do nothing anyway, so if you specifically call out some creatures being unaffected, you can't be referring to the normal effects of Dispel Magic on creatures themselves. But magic items, themselves, are normally affected by Dispel Magic, and so by saying that they're unaffected, the clear intent is that an area dispel does not have that normal effect on magic items themselves.

[King of Nowhere]

If the creature paragraph said this would you say the same?



Your argument would be the same as saying that small or smaller creatures are affected by an area dispel even though the hypothetical text said otherwise. The only difference is that the target type is creature, not object.

There is no text saying that the ability to be unaffected by area dispel is limited to weapon special abilities.
I can see your point, but it's an entirely different scenario.
The difference - and main issue here - is an ambiguity in the text because the same sentence "targeting a magic item" is used for two entirely different things: dispelling all active buffs on the item, just like it was a creature; and suppressing the item.
So, after the text says that an area dispel affects all creatures and items in the area, it has to specify that it does not suppress magic items - unlike the targeted dispel. But since they use the same word "targeting" to indicate different concepts, they created confusion.
While in your example there would be no reason to add "small creatures are not targeted" except to specify an exception, in the actual text there is a very important reason to add that magic items are not targeted: without that eentence, it would seem like dispel magic suppresses all items in the area.
And so it is clear - to me and to everyone else i ever played with - that the sentence on magic items not targeted refers to suppression, not to buff removal.

Even by rai, it's by far the most sensible reading. Why gmw on a normal sword would be affected by dispel, but not on a +1 sword? Does an enhancement bonus protect buff spells on the items from being targeted? And what if the party fights animated objects, does it mean an area dispel would be ineffective against their buffs?
I can concede that both your reading and my reading are correct from a purely grammatical perspective. But language cannot be removed from its context. And the context makes it clear that area dispel can hit all active spells in an area, and target dispel hits all buff spells on a single target, and suppressing an item is a different, specialized application.

[Darg]

But magic items, themselves, are normally affected by Dispel Magic, and so by saying that they're unaffected, the clear intent is that an area dispel does not have that normal effect on magic items themselves.

Magic items are not normally affected by dispel magic. The spell discriminates and says that the magic is suppressed instead of dispelled as is the norm for everything else, and the spell says that magic items are specifically unaffected by the area dispel. To be unaffected only partially, it would have to say that. However it does not.


Even by rai, it's by far the most sensible reading. Why gmw on a normal sword would be affected by dispel, but not on a +1 sword? Does an enhancement bonus protect buff spells on the items from being targeted? And what if the party fights animated objects, does it mean an area dispel would be ineffective against their buffs?

It only protects from the area dispel, not the targeted dispel. A spelled item is not the same as a magic item. The rules function differently for them. You don't cast gmw on a normal longsword and expect to be able to enhance it with +10 worth of special abilities do you? Or that normal armor gets masterwork bonuses from having magic vestment cast on them because magic items are masterwork? Spells have the liberty of being discriminatory in any way they please. They don't have to follow what you think is logical.

As for the animated object, constructs are creatures. Even intelligent items are treated as construct creatures. Thus they fall under the creature rules, not the object rules.

[King of Nowhere]

Magic items are not normally affected by dispel magic. The spell discriminates and says that the magic is suppressed instead of dispelled as is the norm for everything else, and the spell says that magic items are specifically unaffected by the area dispel. To be unaffected only partially, it would have to say that. However it does not.

no. it's just spelled ambiguously because "targeted" or "affected" by the dispel, in the case of a magic item, can mean different things.


Spells have the liberty of being discriminatory in any way they please. They don't have to follow what you think is logical.

this, above all, is most wrong. i would have a really hard time playing at any table where this principle applies. science makes a logical sense. the way reality works makes sense. it may be obscure, but there is always a logical sense in everything. there's very few ways to shot down my suspension of disbelief and immersion into the world than telling me "it doesn't have to have sense".




As for the animated object, constructs are creatures. Even intelligent items are treated as construct creatures. Thus they fall under the creature rules, not the object rules.
so you cast gmw on an intelligent magic sword and it can be dispelled by area dispel, while on a dumb magic sword it cannot be dispelled. i guess if you deal charisma damage to the intelligent magic sword and reduce its charisma to 0 (the manual says that something with a charisma of 0 is an object) then it becomes immune to area dispels again. oh, and if you take that animated candelabra - that, as a creature, is vulnerable to area dispel - and pick it up with your hand and use it as a blunt weapon, it becomes suddenly immune to the dispel.
yes, it makes sense.
it makes much more sense than assuming that the line about "not being targeted" refers to not triggering the specific case of "targeted dispel of a magic item". i don't know why anyone would assume that the line references to that specific piece of text. it's not like that specific piece of text is just above the other. it's not like the writers used the same word to refer to two specific effects, forcing them to try to specify which of the two effects actually applies.

[Darg]

no. it's just spelled ambiguously because "targeted" or "affected" by the dispel, in the case of a magic item, can mean different things.

this, above all, is most wrong. i would have a really hard time playing at any table where this principle applies. science makes a logical sense. the way reality works makes sense. it may be obscure, but there is always a logical sense in everything. there's very few ways to shot down my suspension of disbelief and immersion into the world than telling me "it doesn't have to have sense".


so you cast gmw on an intelligent magic sword and it can be dispelled by area dispel, while on a dumb magic sword it cannot be dispelled. i guess if you deal charisma damage to the intelligent magic sword and reduce its charisma to 0 (the manual says that something with a charisma of 0 is an object) then it becomes immune to area dispels again. oh, and if you take that animated candelabra - that, as a creature, is vulnerable to area dispel - and pick it up with your hand and use it as a blunt weapon, it becomes suddenly immune to the dispel.
yes, it makes sense.
it makes much more sense than assuming that the line about "not being targeted" refers to not triggering the specific case of "targeted dispel of a magic item". i don't know why anyone would assume that the line references to that specific piece of text. it's not like that specific piece of text is just above the other. it's not like the writers used the same word to refer to two specific effects, forcing them to try to specify which of the two effects actually applies.

It makes as much sense as a fireball that can spread around corners to "miss" characters and all their items at ground zero. Your sense of immersion has no bearing on game mechanics.

[DrMartin]

Also, the tooth of Leraje, CL 20; 21,600 gp. 1/day +5 weapon for 20 hours/day. And if you have a friendly spellthief available, the entire party gets that benefit for all of their manufactured weapons (and the monk's unarmed strikes).

little sidetrack, but: how does this work?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

little sidetrack, but: how does this work?The teeth of Dahlver-Nar grant spell-like abilities, which means the greater magic weapon effect granted by the tooth of Leraje is a spell-like ability. The spellthief's Steal Spell-Like Ability ability says the following: "Until the spellthief uses the ability (or until the minute elapses), the target cannot use the stolen ability." That means that once the spellthief uses the ability or 1 minute passes, the user of the tooth of Leraje regains his use of greater magic weapon, meaning the spellthief can steal it again.