Epic Greater Magic Weapon spell?

[Kae'Yoss]

For permanent weapons that's true, but there doesn't seem to be anything limiting the +'s of a higher level GMW spell within the core rules.

The problem here is that before ELH came out, you coulnd't have a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or highter, so noone bothered to make a spell for that.
I'd say, there were no non-epic means to improve a weapon beyond +5 before, and there shouldn't be now. A +6 weapon would be an epic weapon, so you could only achieve that by epic means. Otherwise you just had to invent a 9th-level spell (or so) and have 18th-level parties running around with +6 weapons.
I would introduce a house rule: if you have greater magic weapon and use enhance spell on it, you can have up to +10 (normally enhance spell only works with damage spells), or +15 with two enhances, and so on. This way you couldn't achieve that before you were epic, but you still wouldn't need an epic spell (which involves a lot of ad hoc and high DC's)

HEL Pit Fiend
Start with the seed:fortify base DC 17
Ad Hoc +12 for placing enhancement bonuses on weapons (also gives first +1 bonus)
increase spellcraft DC by 8 for every +1 bonus increase (make the DC higher if you wish)

Thus:
a +1 weapon, spellcraft DC 29
a +2 weapon, spellcraft DC 37
a +6 weapon, spellcraft DC 69
a +12 weapon, spellcraft DC 117

Hm... I like that. Since there's no seed in ELH that can grant an enhancement bonus to weapons or armors (and for other things, as well: I tried to create an epic flame strike, and had to use the heal seed in order to emulate the "half damage divine" effect) you need to make ad hoc decisions and these seem adequate.

You could use some factors to lower the dc a bit: Increase the casting time or decrease the duration (ad hoc -2 for half duration - quite the opposite of +2 for double duration).



Unlike with weapon bonuses, I don't mind having non-epic effects increase your ability scores by more than 6, as it is already possible.
- Tensers transformation gives you +2d4 STR and DEX, being possibly +8
- Bite of the werebear increases STR by 16
- An empovered Bull's Strength can give you +7 bonus (the same goes for all the other 2nd-level spells wich improve an ability score, of course). If you're allowed to use the same metamagic feat more than once (I'm not entirely sure if this is allowed officially, since the epic feat enhance spell for the first time notes that it can be taken more than once and that it's effects stack. Could be that you can apply every feat only once...) you could empower those spells three times, for a possible +15.
- Divine Power gives you STR 18, which could be a lot if you have low STR (10 is not that far off for a cleric)
- The greater frenzy class feature gives a +10 frenzy bonus to strength, and this is usually accompanied by +4 from the barbarian rage.
- The feat of strength (strenght domain special power) gives you a STR bonus equal to your cleric level. At 20th level, this would be +20

Although it is true that most of those things are limited in a way (either they are personal or have a very short duration), it is possible, while there's no way (I know of) to make your weapon a +6 weapon or greater weapon, even for a single attack! Also, an enhancement bonus to the weapon is more critical than the bonus to an ability score, since it makes you bypass DR.

I would not allow a "Even Greater Magic Weapon" spell (with bonuses above +5) of level 9th or lower in my campaign, but I would have nothing against Greater Bull's Strenght (or Cat's Grace, Endurance, Eagle's Splendor, Fox' Cunning or Owl's Wisdom), with 2d4 instead of 1d4+1, as a 6th-level spell or so. Or 2d6 at 9th level.

 

[kreynolds]

What about a spell that allows a weapon to bypass DR up to a certain plus, but gives no other bonuses (to-hit or damage.)

What would be the ad-hoc adjustment for that?

Actually, I've been wondering about this myself. I was kinda disappointed to find that they had not included an epic version of Sure Striking. This would be quite handy as a spell as well.

 

[da chicken]

Because it's a spell. It is a non-epic spell that allows an ability bonus higher than +6. So, according to the rules, it doesn't really matter what you think, does it? Either you agree with the rules and you are correct, or you disagree and you admit that you use a house rule. One or the other pal. The evidence is right there in your face and you have nothing to counter with.

You totally misunderstand the entire concept of mitigating circumstances. However, if you want to ignore a reasonable argument, I guess I can't stop you.

 

[kreynolds]

You totally misunderstand the entire concept of mitigating circumstances.

I understand them just fine. You have yet to convince me that you have a solid argument. I just don't see where you're coming from.

However, if you want to ignore a reasonable argument, I guess I can't stop you.

It isn't reasonable at all. How can you explain a multiempowered Bull's Strength? How about a multiempowered Cat's Grace? Eagle's Splendor? Those three spells do nothing but grant you a stat bonus, and none of those three spells come with any draw backs, such as your hands turning into paws.

All three spells are fully within the rules. All three spells are fully explainable by the rules. Most importantly, however, all three spells grant an ability bonus higher than +6, and it isn't epic level magic.

 

[da chicken]

If you insist:

The argument is based on the fact that the +6 enhancment to ability scores line is already overcome by non-epic rules. Enhancement, inherent, racial, level, etc. Plus spells such as polymorph xxxx and shapechange and quadruple empowered bull's strength (thanks to a rod of metamagic). So it isn't a problem, as in non-epic terms there's very little difference between 30 Str and 35 Str. It's all "stupidly high".

The same cannot be said for enhancment bonuses. The only way to overcome the +5 enhacement bonus to a weapon is with an artifact: The Sword of Kas.

I honestly don't care if you get a luck bonus or a Str bonus. It's the fact that it is an enhancement bonus that bothers me. I think you're understating the value of an enhancement bonus. In Non-epic terms, you've just created a weapon that can't be sundered and can sunder anything! It can damage epic level monsters with DR xx/+6, another thing I feel non-epic PCs should not be able to do.

It violates the spirit of the ELH by giving PCs access to powers which can normally only be gained through the use of the ELH.

I might consider allowing an 8th or 9th level spell to achieve this level of power, but ony with caster levels over 20.

That's my beef with it.

 

[kreynolds]

The argument is based on the fact that the +6 enhancment to ability scores line is already overcome by non-epic rules. Enhancement, inherent, racial, level, etc. Plus spells such as polymorph xxxx and shapechange and quadruple empowered bull's strength (thanks to a rod of metamagic). So it isn't a problem, as in non-epic terms there's very little difference between 30 Str and 35 Str.

The argument is partially based on that. I merely pointed out that a spell need not be epic to grant a high bonus to a stat.

The same cannot be said for enhancment bonuses. The only way to overcome the +5 enhacement bonus to a weapon is with an artifact: The Sword of Kas.

Now I understand. You're confused about my argument. My argument, specifically the one you challenged me on, was never about the enhancement bonus of a sword. My argument was focused upon stats. You questioned my logic by stating that non-epic spells should not grant a stat bonus higher than +6, as that is what epic spells are for. I proved you wrong by showing you a spell that does in fact grant a stat bonus way over +6.

You're response to this was merely "Spell still sucks, though." KaeYoss provided even more spells that go over +6, which you ignored.

I honestly don't care if you get a luck bonus or a Str bonus.

Why the sudden backpeddaling? Your entire argument with me, up until this point, was based on your opinion that non-epic spells can't, or shouldn't, grant an ability bonus higher than +6, which has been proven otherwise (By myself and KaeYoss). Now you're saying you don't have a problem with it?

It's the fact that it is an enhancement bonus that bothers me.

I can understand that. A spell granting a bonus higher than +5 is pretty potent.

I think you're understating the value of an enhancement bonus.

Not at all.

It violates the spirit of the ELH by giving PCs access to powers which can normally only be gained through the use of the ELH.

Maybe, but again, your argument against me focused on spells that grant high ability bonuses. I defended my argument, quite successfully, I might add. I was not arguing about weapon enhancement bonuses.

I might consider allowing an 8th or 9th level spell to achieve this level of power, but ony with caster levels over 20.

Personally, I would only allow a 9th level spell to give a weapon enhancement bonus higher than +5. So, on this, you and I agree. However, that was never my argument, and you know that.

That's my beef with it.

Much more clear. Thank you.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't care if weapons with +6 or more violate the spirit of the ELH. I don't think it to be right that only people who buy that book may use +6 swords.

I just say that you shouldn't have a +6 or better weapon while you are within the normal rules: whether you use the ELH to go beyond those rules or make something up shouldn't care.

I'ts also not about enhancemant bonus versus other bonuses. I have no problems with a non-epic spell that grants an enhancement bonus of +7 or so. If it doesn't apply to weapons! I would allow non-epic characters to have spells (maybe even equipment) that gives more than +6 on an ability score, and I would *maybe* even allow a +6 armor, but no +6 weapon. It's because the bonus to weapons enables you to overcome DR.

As I said, I wouldn't even allow a "normal" 9th-level spell to create a +6 weapon, cause that would enable a 18th-level caster (or maybe 17th-level, if the spell has a faster progression, like +1 for every two caster levels). I would require the character to be beyond level 20. That could be achieved by an epic spell, or just with a house rule that allows enhance spell to be used with greater magic weapon. You'd end up with a spell that uses up a 7th level spell slot (or maybe you could rule that it has to be hightended to 5th level before it is enhanced, to end up with a 9th-level slot) but you had to epic since enhance spell is an epic feat..

 

[James McMurray]

Thanks for the input folks.

 

[da chicken]

The argument is partially based on that. I merely pointed out that a spell need not be epic to grant a high bonus to a stat.

[...]

Now I understand. You're confused about my argument. My argument, specifically the one you challenged me on, was never about the enhancement bonus of a sword. My argument was focused upon stats. You questioned my logic by stating that non-epic spells should not grant a stat bonus higher than +6, as that is what epic spells are for. I proved you wrong by showing you a spell that does in fact grant a stat bonus way over +6.

[...]

You're response to this was merely "Spell still sucks, though." KaeYoss provided even more spells that go over +6, which you ignored.

[...]

Why the sudden backpeddaling? Your entire argument with me, up until this point, was based on your opinion that non-epic spells can't, or shouldn't, grant an ability bonus higher than +6, which has been proven otherwise (By myself and KaeYoss). Now you're saying you don't have a problem with it?

I'm not backpedaling. I was, originally, ambiguous. I never meant to imply epic enhancement bonuses to abilities should be prohibited at non-epic levels. All I ever cared about was enhancement bonuses to weapons. That's why your argument involving bite of the werebear was pointless, but (on a completely unrelated note) I still argue it was a poor choice to prove your point.

Maybe, but again, your argument against me focused on spells that grant high ability bonuses. I defended my argument, quite successfully, I might add. I was not arguing about weapon enhancement bonuses.

Did it?

I understand you got confused when I dismissed bite of the werebear seemingly out-of-hand, but if you look at my arguements before that (exactly one post) I never explicitly said stat enhancments.

In fact, if you re-read it, I implicitly said in my original post that I was talking only about weapons and not about stats:

That doesn't work at all. Only epic-level magic can make an epic-level effect. +6 enhancement or higher is epic.

And we know that a +6 enhancment to an ability is not epic.

Personally, I would only allow a 9th level spell to give a weapon enhancement bonus higher than +5. So, on this, you and I agree. However, that was never my argument, and you know that.

Actually, no I didn't.

I thought you were arguing that because some epic enhancement bonuses are available at non-epic levels (those to stats) then epic enhancments to weapons should automatically also be allowed. I was saying th

Much more clear. Thank you.

Yes.

Bite of the werebear still isn't a very good spell, though.

 

[Gwarthkam]

the suggestions posted here (By Cloudgatherer and others) have spellresistance: Yes (harmless)

Why would there be SR?, GMW doesn't have it.