Problems with Greater Magic Weapon

[BlindKobold]

Are the villians going to TARGET the weapons? Otherwise they have to use Area Effect dispel which will target the lowest level enchantment. If they some low level spell on themselves, the dispel will affect the low level enchantment instead of the magic weapon.

Also remember... each dispel magic is one less counterspell or one less fireball!

 

[Dr. Zoom]

BlindKobold wrote:

Are the villians going to TARGET the weapons? Otherwise they have to use Area Effect dispel which will target the lowest level enchantment.

Actually, the area dispel starts with the highest level spell or effect and continues to the lowest level spell or effect. As soon as one dispel check is successful, the dispel ends for that creature or object.

 

[Malin Genie]

Ridley's Cohort hit the nail on the head, methinks. Any group relying heavily on magical buffing with a day's duration will be very powerful under the circumstances of casters able to sleep 8 hours every night, with spellbooks accessible, with deities able to reach the plane they're on, etc

By 12th-15th level, the kind of challenges you throw at the players should include 'environmental' ones. Different planes, attacks on spellbooks, etc Keep them on the run, or at least unable to sleep, for 2-3 days, and spellcasters who have blown all their spells on the 'morning buff' will begin to regret it. A smart spellcaster opponent can use nightmare to completely knock out one of the spellcasters for the next day...

and fatigue/exhaustion penalties are lovely to watch

 

[the Jester]

Jester, I don't have a problem with Cat's Grace, Endurance etc. just more power to my players if they use those.

But they'll never buy or use another Belt of Giant Strength. The party cleric casts on himself Twice empowered Bull's Strength on the morning, and that's up to +10 to STR. Way better than the Belt. They also trade spells, for example the sorc will lend the cleric an empowered endurance for a death ward. This is actually a good thing, IMHO.

Of course I use Dispels against them, and with some succes, but's there are two points in this:

1) Dispels don't kill anyone

2) Dispels usually affect only a few of the 8+ buffing spells

The Cleric they are up against is usually better of launching flame strikes than dispels.

Well, I have to wonder if a twice-empowered bull's strength is worth an antimagic field, disintigrate, circle of death, etc. I think I'd rather have the item than commit a 6th-level slot every day to buffing. One of the great things about the buffers is that they're relatively low level, or at least some of them are.

I agree with... um... whoever left the post about "environmental" attacks. Whatever happened to bookworms, after all? There are lots of times when you know you'll need a spell in advance and it really affects your usual choices ("since we're going to fight sahuagin I'd better pack water breathing, freedom of movement and water walk for quick escapes... hm, better make that two water breathings to be safe...")

I haven't yet found gmw to be too powerful in my campaign, and I think that there are ways to deal with it. Again, there are lots of monsters with immunity or resistance to a specific type of weapon damage; if your party always uses gmw on arrows just throw out some critters immune to piercing. Sure they can save it til they know what they're fighting but who says the next encounter won't include something immune to a _different_ type of weapon?

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Wouldn't that be unfair and frustrating to the players (I mean all you suggested)? They have a wand -> steal it! They have a spell -> it doesn't work. They have a magic weapon --> it HEALS the monster.

Don't be so quick to dismiss these suggestions. Each of them, used in moderation, is a perfectly valid, even dramatically appropriate idea.

1) Wands aren't exactly irreplacable items, especially when wizards usually have Craft Wand as a feat, so players shouldn't get too attached to them. After all, if a high level spellcaster has stealthy servants, why wouldn't he have them steal wands from his enemies if possible? If the party is up against a thieve's guild, isn't it only natural that their items would become targets? If they are facing fighters/guards/henchmen, wouldn't wands become automatic targets for sundering?

2) Why wouldn't there be monsters HEALED by magic weapons or spells. The precedent exists with monsters that are absolutely immune to spells (Rakshasa, golems), why is it such a stretch to imagine a beast that is immune to magic weapons but not normal? Seems like an interesting twist to me.

3) The precedent for creatures hurt only by specific materials exists as well. Rokugon has jade and crystal vulnerabilities and in the 2nd edition Ravenloft guide to ghosts there is a section about keying the permanent destruction of ghosts to specific, exotic items. Researching the vulnerabilities of a specific monster makes for great roleplaying opportunities. I do this sort of thing on a fairly regular basis. Keeps the players on their toes and brings a touch of the exotic to monster encounters, which is always a good thing.

 

[Numion]

Well, I have to wonder if a twice-empowered bull's strength is worth an antimagic field, disintigrate, circle of death, etc. I think I'd rather have the item than commit a 6th-level slot every day to buffing. One of the great things about the buffers is that they're relatively low level, or at least some of them are.

For the wizard, no it's not worth it. For the cleric who likes to buff himself up and wade in to the melee swinging his greatsword, yes it is! 8 points more strength equals 6 points more damage per hit, so it adds up nicely during the day. (Certainly more than, say one harm).

 

[Darklone]

Call me dumb

Ok don't find that one about the not stacking of magical properties...

But I am sure you don't get +10 points of Strength with a double empowered Bulls Strength: Standard stacking rules: double and double is triple. Since +5 points is max for bulls strength, empower it once and you got +7. empower it twice and you got 9. (round down each time)

As for area dispels and spells on weapons: Wouldn't sound logical if it makes a difference for an area dispel if you cast a silence on a rock or on a weapon that someone holds. So I would rule it dispels such things.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Call me dumb

Ok don't find that one about the not stacking of magical properties...

But I am sure you don't get +10 points of Strength with a double empowered Bulls Strength: Standard stacking rules: double and double is triple. Since +5 points is max for bulls strength, empower it once and you got +7. empower it twice and you got 9. (round down each time)

I would disagree. A double-empowered Bull's Strength has exactly a 2X effect (1.5 + .5) Why add intermediate steps into the calculation?

If you want to do things that way, you should logically also multiply and round down every magic missile individually in an empowered version of the spell. Perhaps for Fireballs as well.

So do your 5-missile maximized empowered Magic Missiles do 37 points of damage or 35?

IMO your method only makes more sense if 3e used double of a double is a quadruple. That implies a two-step calculation.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Call me dumb

I would disagree. A double-empowered Bull's Strength has exactly a 2X effect (1.5 + .5) Why add intermediate steps into the calculation?

Because then it's consistent with what's written at the end of the "Maximize Spell" feat, PH p. 83: "An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result."

This indicates that, yes, there is a two-step process; that any step of "empowering" only adds half the original result, not a greater prior-feat-enhanced result.

 

[Victim]

It's obviously bad if players can use their spells to gain some extra power. Having spells and knowing how to use them effectively should make no difference in a character's power.

I tihnk the real problem isn't so much with greater magic weapon as it is with the lack of other spells. If there was a spell similar to GMW that gave effective enhancement bonuses for special abilities and overwrote GMW, then more people would want vanilla +X weapons so they could use Greater Weapon Enhancement or something.

Spells <> Magic Items

A character can use spells to duplicate effects on magic items or use magic items to duplicate the effects of spells. Most magic item seem to follow this rule. Boots of Speed = Haste. In many cases, the magic items are much better of of their durations. However, they're roughly equivalent.

However, in the case of magic weapons, spells that give special abilities don't scale as well as GMW, and thus are less efficient. Therefore, casters prefer using GMW to boost others' weapons. Next, the fighter types who use the weapons will tend to want weapons with lots of special abilities since GMW seems so good and everyone uses it. After all, there's little point in going to great lengths to aquire a +3 weapon if the GMW is equal or better.

However, spell equal to GMW that gave abilities would mean that casters could use either spell to great effect. Then permanent enchantments would reflect either whatever spell the creator didn't like using, or what the recipient of the weapon thinks is necessary for bare minimum performance. This bare minimum preference will vary more depending on style. Rapier weilders will almost certainly want automatic Keen weapons, since they benefit most from it, dual weilders might want elemental damage, and surestrike on the off hand weapon, archers will still get magic bows and hope for spells on arrows because arrows are too expensive - by the time they can afford them, they'll probably have 3 shots per round and thus eat a stack of 50 enchanted arrows in less than 20 combat rounds; too wasteful, especially for high end weapon - tanks will probably go for extra plusses so they can hit every attack and gain extra damage with power attack if need be.