What's the game balance reason for needing a +1 weapon before enchanting further?

[Kid Socrates]

I understand that in the rules that a weapon must first be a +1 before you can put special enchantments on it like flaming, shock, keen, so forth and so on on it. I'm assuming this is for low-level balance, that a lower-level character dealing an extra 1d6 elemental damage per round might tip the scales of balance. I'm just not sure it's that much of a difference.

The rules weigh an enchantment like flaming and shock (+1d6 elemental damage on successful hit) equally with a standard +1 bonus (+1 to hit, +1 to damage). The rules just say you have to have a +1 sword/hammer/what-have-you first before you put a special enchantment on it. Since the rules don't say you have to have a +2 weapon before putting special abilities equal to +2 on it, I assume it's for low-level balance.

The first thing that came to mind is someone putting flaming, frost, and shock on a sword and doing an extra 3d6 of elemental damage per round, and that could add up very quickly. Not sure if that's much beyond 2d6+1, but I'm also not that deep into the math of it.

My reason for asking is that low level magical weapons strike me as boring. I don't know when wealth level recommendations bring it up to +2 equivalent weapons, but all the abilities you can put on a weapon are much more interesting to me than a flat +1-5.

Is lower-level balance the reason they made that design decision, and would removing that enchanting restriction upset that balance?

 

[Nail]

What's the game balance reason for needing a +1 weapon before enchanting further?

So that the special abilities (flaming, holy, etc) aren't too cheap. Although Flaming is only a +1 ability, it's effective cost is +2, because of the prereq. That's a good idea.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

And that's about right, since the +1d6 absolutely guarantees the minimum of the +1 to damage that you would get on just a +1 enhancement item.

I know that you don't also get a +1 to attack like you would with a +1 enhancement, but we all know that BAB doesn't scale with AC anyway. If you didn't force +1 enhancements, my guess is that most people woulnd't take too many of them, especially at the start.

 

[Rhun]

Because a +1 weapon is only giving you +1 damage, and not a +1 to hit. You already have that because the weapon must be masterwork.

So a Masterwork Flaming longsword is quite a bit better than a standard +1 longsword, if you don't balance things out by saying a weapon must have the +1 enhancement bonus before adding other enchantments.

 

[The_Ditto]

I know that you don't also get a +1 to attack like you would with a +1 enhancement, but we all know that BAB doesn't scale with AC anyway. If you didn't force +1 enhancements, my guess is that most people woulnd't take too many of them, especially at the start.

yes you do ... that "+0" flaming sword is masterwork .. which gives you the +1 to attack ..

 

[Henry]

In other words, if you don't, the "flaming" or "keen" or whatever is about 6,000 gp cheaper for the same item...

 

[MINI]

Cost aside I think magic items also get a much greater hardness and resistance to damage (Each +1 adds 2 hardness and 10 hp's). Sinking you money into the item might as well afford you a bit more protection against having it ruined.

Also, flaming or keen are coined as magical abilities but not 'magical'. You can magically enhance something that is first 'magical'. While this may also be related to item cost you just cant simply expect to enhance something not magical with a magical ability. That said you could employ technology in your games to make a sword is designed so that when it clangs it lets out a sonic noise disrupting to the ears of humanoids, dealing an extra d6; its just a mechanical source of damage vs magical.

 

[irdeggman]

Don't forget overcoming DR/magic

A flaming weapon that didn't have any + enhancement wouldn't count - sinct the magic refers to an enhancement bonus.

Or would this new type of system bypass that restriction also?

 

[Slaved]

I would prefer if the +1 was not required to get more. It would make for more interesting options for magical weapons early on.

A weapon without the +1 would not overcome magic damage reduction I believe so that is a penalty for it.

Flaming itself averages out to being less effective overall than a simple +1 according to some thread around here so the balance issue there should be ok too.

If the +1 to hit from masterwork winds up being a problem then it can be modified to do something else, but I do not think that it would be. It still costs a lot of gold to get there. Although I would prefer for it to make some difference after the first +1. Perhaps the +1 to hit could be replaced with some other minor option once the weapon gets its first magical +1.

 

[Nail]

A weapon without the +1 would not overcome magic damage reduction I believe so that is a penalty for it.

Not at low level it isn't. The balance comes about because of Fire Resistance. As a rule of thumb, +1 atk = +2.5 damage for expected damage calculations.