Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 286161" data-attributes="member: 786">The problem with the other options...Option 3 would dramatically decrease the power of Magic Weapon, etc.Option 1 is essentially a *much* longer duration of the same spells, but with out the spell cost. Both essentially boil down to &quot;making a magic item without an item creation feat&quot;.As someone pointed out in another thread, you never want *any* house rule advantage to be a no-braniner to choose (or as a friend of mine says, &quot;Neat stuff is almost always broken.&quot;).I can understand the objection to spending a full feat on this, though. Perhaps a better solution would be to make it just another weapon quality (which seemed to be the intent of the poster in the first place). If so, the new quality must be strictly worse than &quot;holy/unholy&quot;, and no better than any of the +1 equiv weapon qualities (since this is essentially a +0 quality).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GuardianLurker, post: 286161, member: 786"] The problem with the other options... Option 3 would dramatically decrease the power of Magic Weapon, etc. Option 1 is essentially a *much* longer duration of the same spells, but with out the spell cost. Both essentially boil down to "making a magic item without an item creation feat". As someone pointed out in another thread, you never want *any* house rule advantage to be a no-braniner to choose (or as a friend of mine says, "Neat stuff is almost always broken."). I can understand the objection to spending a full feat on this, though. Perhaps a better solution would be to make it just another weapon quality (which seemed to be the intent of the poster in the first place). If so, the new quality must be strictly worse than "holy/unholy", and no better than any of the +1 equiv weapon qualities (since this is essentially a +0 quality). [/QUOTE]

Verification