Of Magic Swordery

[Neon Knight]

So, if I remember correctly, +1 point of attack bonus is more or less equivalent to +2 points of damage. This is the basis of the Weapon Focus and Specialization feats.

So, in theory, a +2 Sword (which gives a +2 bonus to attack and damage) is equivalent to a sword that gave +3 to attack bonus or a sword that gave a +6 bonus to damage.

How reasonable do you think this is? Are they truly equal?

Second query:

I seem to remember something about the OD&D (or was it 2nd Ed? I can't remember) rules differentiating magic swords from similar enchanted instruments of maiming. I can't remember precisely what this differentiation was. Could anyone assist me?

[Azerian Kelimon]

So, if I remember correctly, +1 point of attack bonus is more or less equivalent to +2 points of damage. This is the basis of the Weapon Focus and Specialization feats.

So, in theory, a +2 Sword (which gives a +2 bonus to attack and damage) is equivalent to a sword that gave +3 to attack bonus or a sword that gave a +6 bonus to damage.

How reasonable do you think this is? Are they truly equal?

Second query:

I seem to remember something about the OD&D (or was it 2nd Ed? I can't remember) rules differentiating magic swords from similar enchanted instruments of maiming. I can't remember precisely what this differentiation was. Could anyone assist me?

That's only true for those who use two handers. Else, it's a buncha crap.

[Neon Knight]

That's only true for those who use two handers. Else, it's a buncha crap.

Could you elaborate on this statement?

[Chronos]

In 2nd edition D&D, magic items weren't built from a menu of "take a base item, add whatever you want to it, with the costs coming from this table". They were all specific items, so for instance, if you wanted a weapon of speed, it was going to be either a short sword or a scimitar (technically, one of those was "of swiftness", but they had the same effect). It so happened that most of the nicer weapons were swords (no such thing as a vorpal or dancing axe, for instance), but that wasn't different rules covering swords, it was just a different application of the same rules.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Based on designer words, the default fighter wielded two handed weapons (Swords, bah), and used power attack, which gives 2 points of damage per one point of BAB sacrificed, which is what makes enhancement bonus midly useful and the reason the designers managed to delude themselves into thinking weapon focus and specialization were useful. AB is of very little use for a TWF'er or sword and boarder, since they don't get PA to pour all their BAB to. They only get AB up enough to reliably hit, not to gross levels to PA it off.

[Neon Knight]

Re Chronos: Those aren't the rules I'm vaguely recalling. It had something to do with the way attack and damage bonuses where applied. Thank you anyway, though.

Re AK: I see. That makes sense. A +3 attack longsword isn't going to be as valuable as a +6 damage longsword, because that +3 attack could only be turned into +3 damage, unless the sword was wielded in two hands.

Hm. Tricky, that. Accursed PA rules. Of course, I thought I had seen a mathematical proof that a +1 to attack was, on average, equivalent to +2 to damage, because of the increased probability of hitting. Did I imagine this apparently hypothetical equivalence?

[Matthew]

So, if I remember correctly, +1 point of attack bonus is more or less equivalent to +2 points of damage. This is the basis of the Weapon Focus and Specialization feats.

I don't think it was ever thought out quite like that. +1 to hit is generally better than +2 to damage, but it depends on just how much damage you're doing.

So, in theory, a +2 Sword (which gives a +2 bonus to attack and damage) is equivalent to a sword that gave +3 to attack bonus or a sword that gave a +6 bonus to damage.

How reasonable do you think this is? Are they truly equal?

No, that is a faulty premise. They aren't equal, they depend on total damage. The basic equation is the average probability to hit [0.00 to 1.00/21] (depending on various ways of handling 1s and 20s) multiplied by average basic damage [3.5 or 1D6].

I seem to remember something about the OD&D (or was it 2nd Ed? I can't remember) rules differentiating magic swords from similar enchanted instruments of maiming. I can't remember precisely what this differentiation was. Could anyone assist me?

Take a look here: Philotomy Jurament's OD&D Musings

[Neon Knight]

Re Matthew: Just what I was looking for. Thank you.

So apparently, I invented this whole thing (other than the 1e magic swords thing) and created some pseudo memory backing it up. Oh well. Not the first time I've done something stupid like that, and certainly not the last.