quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DnDChick
Striking: This weapon has the equivalent of a +3 enhancement to hit and damage. Twice per day, however, its enhancement to damage can be increased to +6. Once per day, the enhancement to damage can be increased to +9. This special ability can only be applied to bludgeoning weapons.
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, greater magic weapon; Market Price: +3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another couple questions - first, since this thing already has a +3 enhancement, and can go higher 3/day, it's actually worth slightly more than a +3 weapon... unless, of course, the assumption is that it already has to be +3 before this enchantment can be applied, in which case the price seems too high. Also, when the weapon enhancement is used, it only applies to damage, yes? (Thus not overcoming Damage Reduction x/+5.) If so, it seems odd no matter *which* of the above two interpretations is used... I'd change to power to read as follows:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striking: This weapon's enhancement bonus may be increased by +3 twice per day, and by +6 once per day. This effect lasts for one attack, and for that attack the weapon acts as a weapon of it's raised enhancement, (thus overcoming DR and increasing both the attack roll and damage done.)
Caster Level: 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, greater magic weapon; Market Price: +2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since a weapon must be at least +1 to have another bonus, this will let the enchantment be put on any weapon, raising a +1 weapon to a +4 twice per day and to a +7 once per day. Having the full benefits of the bonus also makes the power more worthwhile. Lastly, I wasn't sure why this could only be applied to Bludgeoning weapons - nostalgia? That's really a 'feel' application, I believe, so I didn't include it in my revision. Anyway...
You did a lot of very nice work on these, and those are the only two that seemed to stand out as a bit odd - but, as such, it looks great!