Double weapon buffing

[Deset Gled]

You are "creating a magic weapon", when casting MW or GMW... just not a permanent one.


Mike

I am with Infiniti2000 on this one (what can I say, I'm in a cooperative mood). Casting MW or GMW does not constitute creating a magic weapon. The two are distinctly different in a number of ways, including, but not limited to, XP cost, time to create, cost, and quality of material. I would not apply magic weapon creation rules to casting MW any more than I would apply the rules of Magic Vestment to armor creation rules (which, by the way, is not at all since you can use MV to enchant clothing, but cannot use armor creation rules to do so).

Do you have any reason besides the magic weapon creation rules to back up your standpoint?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The definition of "magic weapon" is "any weapon with a +1 or greater enhancement bonus."

MW and GMW provide a "+1 or greater enhancement bonus."

 

[burnrate]

Besides MW and GMW there are spells like sonic weapon (CA) and Keen Edge that enchant a weapon without giving it an enhancement bonus as such. Both of these are enhancement equivalent for the purposes of magic item creation of course, but don't necessarily meet the definition above.

I'm inclined to treat a double weapon as a weapon for these purposes since there doesn't seem to be any indication in the rules that I should do otherwise.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Looking at the "confusion" between Crafting magic arms and armor and casting MW or GMW, I understand the point that is being made. The point is that if you allow MW to affect both ends of a staff, for example ... then when a wizard goes to permanently enchant a staff with a +1 on both ends they also sohould be able to just cast the spell once. [Regardless of whether they would have to do one or two permanencies afterward]

The point is that if you allow a casting in combat to effect both ends, then you should allowing it to effect both ends in every situation, including crafting arms.

After all, fair is fair.

 

[FEADIN]

I think that the spell gives the enhancement for the two ends, it's not like crafting a magical object, no need to be masterwork and the chapter on weapons includes double weapons, they are treated as two weapon for fighting nothing more.
Axe, Orc Double: An orc double axe is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
A creature wielding an orc double axe in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

 

[boolean]

Looking at the "confusion" between Crafting magic arms and armor and casting MW or GMW, I understand the point that is being made. The point is that if you allow MW to affect both ends of a staff, for example ... then when a wizard goes to permanently enchant a staff with a +1 on both ends they also sohould be able to just cast the spell once. [Regardless of whether they would have to do one or two permanencies afterward]

The point is that if you allow a casting in combat to effect both ends, then you should allowing it to effect both ends in every situation, including crafting arms.

After all, fair is fair.

Interesting side point: The Magic Weapon spell (and it's Greater version) has absolutely nothing to do with crafting a magic weapon. Any character with sufficient caster level and the feat can craft a magic weapon, even if they can not cast the spell.

 

[burnrate]

I'm a bit surprised there isn't an FAQ addressing this subject. It seems like something that would have popped up in the past. Since it hasn't, I'm going to rule that one of these spells affects the entire double weapon, but I'll keep my eyes open for evidence pointing to a more concrete answer.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Interesting side point: The Magic Weapon spell (and it's Greater version) has absolutely nothing to do with crafting a magic weapon. Any character with sufficient caster level and the feat can craft a magic weapon, even if they can not cast the spell.

I'm not sure I really understand the point. That's not a criticism, just me looking for clarification. If in fact you are stating that the exact spell MW or GMW aren't used ... then that may be true but is kinda moot.

For example, the spell keen edge. It clearly states in the descriptor of the spell that doubles the threat range of the weapon. So, from this standpoint it could be argued that it effects the whole wepon, because it says it doubles the threat range of the weapon.

However, suppose one was making a weapon to have the magical special ability for keen. According to the keen descriptor in the DMG, it doubles the threat range for the weapon. So, no problem. But, on p. 286 of the DMG it clearly states that "creating magic double-headed weapons weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities. No, I don't think anyone wants to argue that to make a keen weapon the spell keen edge need be cast. (look at the keen descriptor and read the DMG top of p. 286)

My point is that if I want to make a keen double-bladed sword, I'd have to make one end keen and then make the second end keen. I can't do both ends with the same construction, so to speak. If I can't do it at weapon construction, why should a spell be able to do it in combat? A spell is a spell is a spell .... doesn't matter where its cast.

 

[Infiniti2000]

My point is that if I want to make a keen double-bladed sword, I'd have to make one end keen and then make the second end keen. I can't do both ends with the same construction, so to speak. If I can't do it at weapon construction, why should a spell be able to do it in combat? A spell is a spell is a spell .... doesn't matter where its cast.

The problem is that just because a spell is needed as a prerequisite for construction of an item, this does not mean that you use the spell description to adjudicate the item (unless the item description says something to the effect of functions like 'spell'). As an example, look at a monk's belt. In addition to the abilities specifically granted by the belt, do you also grant all the effects of a righteous might? I.e. permanently enlarged size, DR, etc.? No, certainly not. So, don't look to the prerequisites to adjudicate items.

Therefore, also don't look to the construction of items to adjudicate how spells function. It's a serious, logical fallacy.

 

[burnrate]

I think I'm changing my mind on this one because of the spell Blades of Fire in CA. It specifically states in the description that it affects up to two melee weapons you are wielding. The reason that becomes important is that we can compare it to Sonic Weapon in CV.

Sonic Wepon adds 1d6 sonic damage for 1 min/level.

Blades of Fire adds 1d6 fire damage for 1 round and is swift.

Although swift is pretty cool, I doubt that the swift casting capability alone is enough to make up for the duration delta here and that fact that fire is inferior to sonic. I think the difference is made up by the up to two melee weapons note in Blades of Fire. Now, the spell is on the ranger list as well as the S/W, so maybe it doesn't mean anything, but I think it may.

Thoughts?