+2 Weapon vs. +1 Weapon, cost efficient? [Archive] - Wizards Community

+2 Weapon vs. +1 Weapon, cost efficient? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
tate
02-14-04, 05:50 PM Is a +2 weapon really Worth the extra 6,000 gp?? I am creating a character (Ftr L5) and my DM is allowing 10,000 gp for his starting wealth (seems high I know, but its a high magic place). So now I wonder if I should buy a Flaming, +1 Spiked Chain or just a +1 Spiked Chain. With the extra 6,000 gp I could get a Mithral Brestplate so my speed stays high, or get some Boots of Longstriding or Expiditious Retreat. So with my Strength of 19, I am already doing 2d4+6 damage, so does the extra d6 really make it worth the 6 grand? I'm not sure so any opinions would be great. Thanks

Tom
tarkin
02-14-04, 06:27 PM I have found that a +1 flaming weapon is usually worth it.
channel_dunlap
02-14-04, 08:03 PM with the new damage reduction setup, I have a hard time understanding why anyone goes above +1 anymore. Get your +1, and just start stacking elementals onto it, you're still getting through any /magic damage reduction.
Sheer_FALACY
02-14-04, 08:25 PM While at low levels, increased damage is worth it, at high levels to-hit is more imporant. Besides, a THFer power attacking for 1 with a +2 weapon does about the same damage as flaming, and the ability to choose is probably worth the .5 additional average damage.
Edymnion
02-14-04, 10:34 PM Originally posted by channel_dunlap
with the new damage reduction setup, I have a hard time understanding why anyone goes above +1 anymore. Get your +1, and just start stacking elementals onto it, you're still getting through any /magic damage reduction. Exactly. 3.5 totally nerfed high enchantment bonuses.

But I find it tends to balance out at about a +3 now instead of +5 in 3.0, you get most of the To-Hit bonus, and an extra +2 in enchantments.
Dire Celestial Bonobo
02-15-04, 12:00 PM Originally posted by tate
Is a +2 weapon really Worth the extra 6,000 gp?

Define "worth".

Should a character spend 80% of his money on a single item? Probably not - that 6000gp could get you +1 AC (armour), +2 Str (guantlets), and some emergency potions (Invis, healing).

However, if you've got lots of money, is +2 much better than +1?

For a spiked chain damage-dealer with Str 19, it would give you 13 vs. 12 average points of damage on a successful hit - 8.5% better. However, you would also hit approximately 10% more often (such as 11+ vs. 10+ needed to hit), meaning the +2 weapon would deal an average of about 20% more damage. Alternatively, you could Power Attack for another 2 points of damage, giving you 15 vs 12 average damage, or 25% higher.

YMMV, but I would diversify (+AC is important, since you have no shield) rather than go for the +20-25% to damage.

(As for elemental weapons, they're rarely worth it with a two-handed weapon, especially if you have Power Attack. You can PA for +2 to get almost the same damage, but unaffected by any elemental resistances, or you can use the +1 to hit against especially tough monsters; boosting your to-hit from 25% to 30% when THF is usually worth more than +2.5 damage.)
Seeker95
02-15-04, 12:34 PM A number of DMs I know rule that you can have no more than 50% of your wealth tied up in a single ite, So...

in my campaign, you wouldn't have this quandary.
Edymnion
02-15-04, 12:57 PM Originally posted by Seeker95
A number of DMs I know rule that you can have no more than 50% of your wealth tied up in a single ite, So...

in my campaign, you wouldn't have this quandary. Yup, I use this one as well. For a normal game, no single item worth more than 50% of your total character wealth. For a low magic game, I drop it down to 25% of your total character wealth.
tate
02-15-04, 04:31 PM Yeah at first my DM didnt have such a rule, I asked. Now he is being even harsher. He says that we get to pick one item of up to 3,000 gp value, and then with our remaining gold he rolls randomly or semi-random to see what we get. So basically we get a +1 weapon and some potions I think. Kindof a shame, but its his call. Personally I let players who join the game late spend as much as they want on a single item, but sometimes I up the price a little so it really is the only good item that they get, besides some decent armor and potions maybe. I feel that if a player wants to put all their eggs in one basket, they can. Just beware rust monsters and Ogre Barbarians wiht Improved SUnder. Well, thanks for the replies.

Tom
Seeker95
02-15-04, 06:42 PM Originally posted by tate
So basically we get a +1 weapon and some potions I think. Kindof a shame I once had a first level character that was allowed to start out with a potion of cure light wounds. I thought he was the luckiest halfling in the land!
TaisharMalkier
02-16-04, 01:28 AM Zug Zug.

When someone starts a new character (for whatever reasons) I give them equipment, and some money (usually not much, unless wizard).

"For a spiked chain damage-dealer with Str 19, it would give you 13 vs. 12 average points of damage on a successful hit - 8.5% better. However, you would also hit approximately 10% more often (such as 11+ vs. 10+ needed to hit), meaning the +2 weapon would deal an average of about 20% more damage. Alternatively, you could Power Attack for another 2 points of damage, giving you 15 vs 12 average damage, or 25% higher."

You only hit 5% of the time more often. If you hit on a 12, you hit 60% of the time. If you hit on a 13, you hit 65% of the time.

Regardless, later on you generally use what you get from treasure =P.

Cheers
Dire Celestial Bonobo
02-16-04, 01:35 AM Originally posted by TaisharMalkier
You only hit 5% of the time more often. If you hit on a 12, you hit 60% of the time. If you hit on a 13, you hit 65% of the time.

If you hit on a 13, you hit 40% of the time (since 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 is 8 chances out of 20, 8/20=0.4 = 40%).

If you hit on a 12, you hit 45% of the time.

If you hit on a 12, you will hit 45%/40% = 1.11 = 11% more often than if you hit on a 13.
Thelon Fairblade
02-16-04, 09:46 AM IMC, we house ruled that "DR X/magic" exists in 5-pt blocks. A +1 weapon only bypasses 5 points of DR x/magic.

If your foe has DR 10/magic, your +1 weapon still treats him as having 5 DR. A +2 weapon would bypass DR 10/magic completely, but a +3 weapon is required to bypass DR 15/magic.

Otherwise, the benefit of +1 to hit is greater for someone who is applying a lot of bonuses to damage. The Power Attacker is a good example, but so is the sneak-attacking rogue. +9d6 sneak attack = nothing if you miss!
Heron_Marked_Blade
02-16-04, 09:58 AM Originally posted by Thelon Fairblade
IMC, we house ruled that "DR X/magic" exists in 5-pt blocks. A +1 weapon only bypasses 5 points of DR x/magic.
I like that.
tarkin
02-16-04, 10:27 AM Mathemetically +2->+5 weapon do make sense.

But people ENJOY doing huge amounts of damage, and getting special affects.
Vorpal Warhammer
02-16-04, 10:50 AM Higher pluses are nice if your DM likes to Sunder. A Storm Giant wielding a gargantuan +1 adamantine greatsword can't even scratch your +2 club.
Josh Wilhoyte
02-16-04, 02:37 PM Higher pluses are nice if your DM likes to Sunder. A Storm Giant wielding a gargantuan +1 adamantine greatsword can't even scratch your +2 club.

Unfortunately, in 3.5 that's no longer true. Well, it's kinda true. He won't scratch it, but he will cut through it like a hot knife through butter. In 3.5, the "need an equal or higher enhancement bonus on a weapon to Sunder a magic weapon" rule went bye-bye. The increased the amount of Hardness and Hitpoints granted by an enhancement bonus to the weapon, but they removed the necessity of having a +2 weapon to sunder a +2 weapon. In 3.5 a non-magical adamantine greatsword could hack through a +5 Longsword pretty easily.
Vorpal Warhammer
02-16-04, 02:46 PM Originally posted by Josh Wilhoyte
Unfortunately, in 3.5 that's no longer true. Well, it's kinda true. He won't scratch it, but he will cut through it like a hot knife through butter. In 3.5, the "need an equal or higher enhancement bonus on a weapon to Sunder a magic weapon" rule went bye-bye. The increased the amount of Hardness and Hitpoints granted by an enhancement bonus to the weapon, but they removed the necessity of having a +2 weapon to sunder a +2 weapon. In 3.5 a non-magical adamantine greatsword could hack through a +5 Longsword pretty easily. This is from the Magic Weapons section of the SRD:Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points.I know the 1 to the hardness and hitpoints is wrong, but the rule about having a matching enhancement bonus hasn't been removed. Was this dealt with in the eratta?
tate
02-16-04, 02:49 PM Someone got to it faster than I did. . . read on if you really want to, but its already been covered. . .

******

Um, about that "need a higher plus to sunder" thing. I believe its still there. v3.5 DMG page #228 magic item "Shatterspike. . . This longsword may damage weapons of up to +4 enchantment" This weapon is adamantine so according to your rule, could damage up to +5 but it says it can only go up to +4. They made it a point to say that because the weapon is only a +1 weapon, and somewhere else I believe they say can only sunder up to its plus, but I am currently at a loss for an exact page number. Is there an errata that I am unaware of or maybe you were just mistaken?
Josh Wilhoyte
02-16-04, 04:04 PM I know the 1 to the hardness and hitpoints is wrong, but the rule about having a matching enhancement bonus hasn't been removed. Was this dealt with in the eratta?

The way it is currently written between the PHB and the DMG, it is confusing. The DMG says as you quoted while the PHB says each enhancement bonus adds, IIRC, +2 Hardness and +5 Hitpoints. Given that the "need a +2 to destroy a +2" statement in the DMG is in the same section as the +1 Hardness and +1 Hitpoints, some people have assumed this was a bad cut and paste from 3.0 and that it shouldn't be there. There was no official answer. However, in the latest Dragon, the Sage finally addressed the issue. The "+1 Hardness, +1 Hitpoint, need a +2 weapon to break a +2 weapon" reference in the 3.5 DMG is an artifact that 3.0 and should not be in the rules. The official rules are that an enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +5 hitpoints, and you no longer need an equal or higher enhancement bonus to Sunder a magical weapon. Personally, I wasn't pleased with this statement, but there it is.
anglar
02-16-04, 07:30 PM Originally posted by Josh Wilhoyte
The "+1 Hardness, +1 Hitpoint, need a +2 weapon to break a +2 weapon" reference in the 3.5 DMG is an artifact that 3.0 and should not be in the rules. The official rules are that an enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +5 hitpoints, and you no longer need an equal or higher enhancement bonus to Sunder a magical weapon. Personally, I wasn't pleased with this statement, but there it is.

Which is why I still go by this addage "When Skip Willams is my DM, I'll play exactly the way he says to play. Until then, it's my house equals my rules."
Gandilas
02-17-04, 01:00 AM Hello.

To prevent people from just making +1 weapons and piling on enchantments, I house ruled the following:

Can't have more enchantments on a weapon than you have pluses. For example, you have have a +1 Keen, but not a +1 Keen, Flaming. For that you'd need a base bonus of +2.

So, best you could have would be a +5 weapon with +5 worth of extra enchantments/abilities on it.
Sheer_FALACY
02-17-04, 01:05 AM I do think that various +'s of DR is better than the blanket DR /magic of 3.5. I also think that the +1 trumps silver attitude of 3.0 was the stupidest way to make weapon material irrelevant. I ALSO think that the DR 50/whatever of 3.0 was a way of saying "don't even try". In conclusion, I think that /magic DRs should have numbers attached to the end without increasing the numbers or overriding material/aligned DRs.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tate 02-14-04, 05:50 PM	Is a +2 weapon really Worth the extra 6,000 gp?? I am creating a character (Ftr L5) and my DM is allowing 10,000 gp for his starting wealth (seems high I know, but its a high magic place). So now I wonder if I should buy a Flaming, +1 Spiked Chain or just a +1 Spiked Chain. With the extra 6,000 gp I could get a Mithral Brestplate so my speed stays high, or get some Boots of Longstriding or Expiditious Retreat. So with my Strength of 19, I am already doing 2d4+6 damage, so does the extra d6 really make it worth the 6 grand? I'm not sure so any opinions would be great. Thanks Tom
tarkin 02-14-04, 06:27 PM	I have found that a +1 flaming weapon is usually worth it.
channel_dunlap 02-14-04, 08:03 PM	with the new damage reduction setup, I have a hard time understanding why anyone goes above +1 anymore. Get your +1, and just start stacking elementals onto it, you're still getting through any /magic damage reduction.
Sheer_FALACY 02-14-04, 08:25 PM	While at low levels, increased damage is worth it, at high levels to-hit is more imporant. Besides, a THFer power attacking for 1 with a +2 weapon does about the same damage as flaming, and the ability to choose is probably worth the .5 additional average damage.
Edymnion 02-14-04, 10:34 PM	Originally posted by channel_dunlap with the new damage reduction setup, I have a hard time understanding why anyone goes above +1 anymore. Get your +1, and just start stacking elementals onto it, you're still getting through any /magic damage reduction. Exactly. 3.5 totally nerfed high enchantment bonuses. But I find it tends to balance out at about a +3 now instead of +5 in 3.0, you get most of the To-Hit bonus, and an extra +2 in enchantments.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 02-15-04, 12:00 PM	Originally posted by tate Is a +2 weapon really Worth the extra 6,000 gp? Define "worth". Should a character spend 80% of his money on a single item? Probably not - that 6000gp could get you +1 AC (armour), +2 Str (guantlets), and some emergency potions (Invis, healing). However, if you've got lots of money, is +2 much better than +1? For a spiked chain damage-dealer with Str 19, it would give you 13 vs. 12 average points of damage on a successful hit - 8.5% better. However, you would also hit approximately 10% more often (such as 11+ vs. 10+ needed to hit), meaning the +2 weapon would deal an average of about 20% more damage. Alternatively, you could Power Attack for another 2 points of damage, giving you 15 vs 12 average damage, or 25% higher. YMMV, but I would diversify (+AC is important, since you have no shield) rather than go for the +20-25% to damage. (As for elemental weapons, they're rarely worth it with a two-handed weapon, especially if you have Power Attack. You can PA for +2 to get almost the same damage, but unaffected by any elemental resistances, or you can use the +1 to hit against especially tough monsters; boosting your to-hit from 25% to 30% when THF is usually worth more than +2.5 damage.)
Seeker95 02-15-04, 12:34 PM	A number of DMs I know rule that you can have no more than 50% of your wealth tied up in a single ite, So... in my campaign, you wouldn't have this quandary.
Edymnion 02-15-04, 12:57 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 A number of DMs I know rule that you can have no more than 50% of your wealth tied up in a single ite, So... in my campaign, you wouldn't have this quandary. Yup, I use this one as well. For a normal game, no single item worth more than 50% of your total character wealth. For a low magic game, I drop it down to 25% of your total character wealth.
tate 02-15-04, 04:31 PM	Yeah at first my DM didnt have such a rule, I asked. Now he is being even harsher. He says that we get to pick one item of up to 3,000 gp value, and then with our remaining gold he rolls randomly or semi-random to see what we get. So basically we get a +1 weapon and some potions I think. Kindof a shame, but its his call. Personally I let players who join the game late spend as much as they want on a single item, but sometimes I up the price a little so it really is the only good item that they get, besides some decent armor and potions maybe. I feel that if a player wants to put all their eggs in one basket, they can. Just beware rust monsters and Ogre Barbarians wiht Improved SUnder. Well, thanks for the replies. Tom
Seeker95 02-15-04, 06:42 PM	Originally posted by tate So basically we get a +1 weapon and some potions I think. Kindof a shame I once had a first level character that was allowed to start out with a potion of cure light wounds. I thought he was the luckiest halfling in the land!
TaisharMalkier 02-16-04, 01:28 AM	Zug Zug. When someone starts a new character (for whatever reasons) I give them equipment, and some money (usually not much, unless wizard). "For a spiked chain damage-dealer with Str 19, it would give you 13 vs. 12 average points of damage on a successful hit - 8.5% better. However, you would also hit approximately 10% more often (such as 11+ vs. 10+ needed to hit), meaning the +2 weapon would deal an average of about 20% more damage. Alternatively, you could Power Attack for another 2 points of damage, giving you 15 vs 12 average damage, or 25% higher." You only hit 5% of the time more often. If you hit on a 12, you hit 60% of the time. If you hit on a 13, you hit 65% of the time. Regardless, later on you generally use what you get from treasure =P. Cheers
Dire Celestial Bonobo 02-16-04, 01:35 AM	Originally posted by TaisharMalkier You only hit 5% of the time more often. If you hit on a 12, you hit 60% of the time. If you hit on a 13, you hit 65% of the time. If you hit on a 13, you hit 40% of the time (since 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 is 8 chances out of 20, 8/20=0.4 = 40%). If you hit on a 12, you hit 45% of the time. If you hit on a 12, you will hit 45%/40% = 1.11 = 11% more often than if you hit on a 13.
Thelon Fairblade 02-16-04, 09:46 AM	IMC, we house ruled that "DR X/magic" exists in 5-pt blocks. A +1 weapon only bypasses 5 points of DR x/magic. If your foe has DR 10/magic, your +1 weapon still treats him as having 5 DR. A +2 weapon would bypass DR 10/magic completely, but a +3 weapon is required to bypass DR 15/magic. Otherwise, the benefit of +1 to hit is greater for someone who is applying a lot of bonuses to damage. The Power Attacker is a good example, but so is the sneak-attacking rogue. +9d6 sneak attack = nothing if you miss!
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-16-04, 09:58 AM	Originally posted by Thelon Fairblade IMC, we house ruled that "DR X/magic" exists in 5-pt blocks. A +1 weapon only bypasses 5 points of DR x/magic. I like that.
tarkin 02-16-04, 10:27 AM	Mathemetically +2->+5 weapon do make sense. But people ENJOY doing huge amounts of damage, and getting special affects.
Vorpal Warhammer 02-16-04, 10:50 AM	Higher pluses are nice if your DM likes to Sunder. A Storm Giant wielding a gargantuan +1 adamantine greatsword can't even scratch your +2 club.
Josh Wilhoyte 02-16-04, 02:37 PM	Higher pluses are nice if your DM likes to Sunder. A Storm Giant wielding a gargantuan +1 adamantine greatsword can't even scratch your +2 club. Unfortunately, in 3.5 that's no longer true. Well, it's kinda true. He won't scratch it, but he will cut through it like a hot knife through butter. In 3.5, the "need an equal or higher enhancement bonus on a weapon to Sunder a magic weapon" rule went bye-bye. The increased the amount of Hardness and Hitpoints granted by an enhancement bonus to the weapon, but they removed the necessity of having a +2 weapon to sunder a +2 weapon. In 3.5 a non-magical adamantine greatsword could hack through a +5 Longsword pretty easily.
Vorpal Warhammer 02-16-04, 02:46 PM	Originally posted by Josh Wilhoyte Unfortunately, in 3.5 that's no longer true. Well, it's kinda true. He won't scratch it, but he will cut through it like a hot knife through butter. In 3.5, the "need an equal or higher enhancement bonus on a weapon to Sunder a magic weapon" rule went bye-bye. The increased the amount of Hardness and Hitpoints granted by an enhancement bonus to the weapon, but they removed the necessity of having a +2 weapon to sunder a +2 weapon. In 3.5 a non-magical adamantine greatsword could hack through a +5 Longsword pretty easily. This is from the Magic Weapons section of the SRD:Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points.I know the 1 to the hardness and hitpoints is wrong, but the rule about having a matching enhancement bonus hasn't been removed. Was this dealt with in the eratta?
tate 02-16-04, 02:49 PM	Someone got to it faster than I did. . . read on if you really want to, but its already been covered. . . ****** Um, about that "need a higher plus to sunder" thing. I believe its still there. v3.5 DMG page #228 magic item "Shatterspike. . . This longsword may damage weapons of up to +4 enchantment" This weapon is adamantine so according to your rule, could damage up to +5 but it says it can only go up to +4. They made it a point to say that because the weapon is only a +1 weapon, and somewhere else I believe they say can only sunder up to its plus, but I am currently at a loss for an exact page number. Is there an errata that I am unaware of or maybe you were just mistaken?
Josh Wilhoyte 02-16-04, 04:04 PM	I know the 1 to the hardness and hitpoints is wrong, but the rule about having a matching enhancement bonus hasn't been removed. Was this dealt with in the eratta? The way it is currently written between the PHB and the DMG, it is confusing. The DMG says as you quoted while the PHB says each enhancement bonus adds, IIRC, +2 Hardness and +5 Hitpoints. Given that the "need a +2 to destroy a +2" statement in the DMG is in the same section as the +1 Hardness and +1 Hitpoints, some people have assumed this was a bad cut and paste from 3.0 and that it shouldn't be there. There was no official answer. However, in the latest Dragon, the Sage finally addressed the issue. The "+1 Hardness, +1 Hitpoint, need a +2 weapon to break a +2 weapon" reference in the 3.5 DMG is an artifact that 3.0 and should not be in the rules. The official rules are that an enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +5 hitpoints, and you no longer need an equal or higher enhancement bonus to Sunder a magical weapon. Personally, I wasn't pleased with this statement, but there it is.
anglar 02-16-04, 07:30 PM	Originally posted by Josh Wilhoyte The "+1 Hardness, +1 Hitpoint, need a +2 weapon to break a +2 weapon" reference in the 3.5 DMG is an artifact that 3.0 and should not be in the rules. The official rules are that an enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and +5 hitpoints, and you no longer need an equal or higher enhancement bonus to Sunder a magical weapon. Personally, I wasn't pleased with this statement, but there it is. Which is why I still go by this addage "When Skip Willams is my DM, I'll play exactly the way he says to play. Until then, it's my house equals my rules."
Gandilas 02-17-04, 01:00 AM	Hello. To prevent people from just making +1 weapons and piling on enchantments, I house ruled the following: Can't have more enchantments on a weapon than you have pluses. For example, you have have a +1 Keen, but not a +1 Keen, Flaming. For that you'd need a base bonus of +2. So, best you could have would be a +5 weapon with +5 worth of extra enchantments/abilities on it.
Sheer_FALACY 02-17-04, 01:05 AM	I do think that various +'s of DR is better than the blanket DR /magic of 3.5. I also think that the +1 trumps silver attitude of 3.0 was the stupidest way to make weapon material irrelevant. I ALSO think that the DR 50/whatever of 3.0 was a way of saying "don't even try". In conclusion, I think that /magic DRs should have numbers attached to the end without increasing the numbers or overriding material/aligned DRs.