Speed Enchant: Why is it a poor choice?

[Dandu]

As long as you're having fun, there are no poor choices.

Not a useful perspective when discussing game mechanics. Kind of like saying "As long as you're having fun, there are no bad chess moves."

While having fun is an important part of playing chess, it's rather hard to dispute that some of the things you do in chess are better than other things you do in chess.

 

[kitcik]

While having fun is an important part of playing chess, it's rather hard to dispute that some of the things you do in chess are better than other things you do in chess.

Similar to PrC's and feat trees in D&D 3.5, the chess rules do not explicitly encourage you to plan ahead.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Similar to PrC's and feat trees in D&D 3.5, the chess rules do not explicitly encourage you to plan ahead.

Planning ahead and making better choices are not the same thing. You could choose classes/chess moves entirely at random, and the person who gets a result of "take a level of Archmage"/"capture his queen" will still have made a better move than the person who got a result of "take a level of Commoner"/"move your queen to B4 so it can be captured."

Also, whether it's explicitly encouraged, implicitly encouraged, or completely ignored in the rules, the fact remains that someone who plans ahead in either game is better off, mechanically, than one who did not. He may be having more or less fun that way, but it is not at all true that having fun is more important than making good choices, as it's entirely possible to have more fun after having made a better choice or for your poor choice now to lead to less fun later.

 

[kitcik]

Planning ahead and making better choices are not the same thing. You could choose classes/chess moves entirely at random, and the person who gets a result of "take a level of Archmage"/"capture his queen" will still have made a better move than the person who got a result of "take a level of Commoner"/"move your queen to B4 so it can be captured."

Also, whether it's explicitly encouraged, implicitly encouraged, or completely ignored in the rules, the fact remains that someone who plans ahead in either game is better off, mechanically, than one who did not. He may be having more or less fun that way, but it is not at all true that having fun is more important than making good choices, as it's entirely possible to have more fun after having made a better choice or for your poor choice now to lead to less fun later.

My sarcasm check exceeded your sense motive.

 

[airwalkrr]

It depends a lot upon the style of game. If there are magic item marts and item crafters willing to enhance whatever you want in the party and the DM allows it, then yes, there are better choices than the speed enhancement in general. But in a party without a caster to grant haste and a DM who is particular about what items he allows into the game, having a speed weapon might be a better alternative to selling it.

 

[cjosephs1s]

Transmuting is looking like a good option. The DM wasn't too thrilled with Wrathful Healing that I really wanted. Something about me doing too much damage (normal attacks do over 200 points of damage and crits can break 1000 on average rolls).

I'd rather not get over a +10 total enchantment bonus as that extra 500,000 gold is a lot to go from +10 to +11. DM is pretty easy going on enchants and we've got a wizard in the party that knows every spell in the PHB, PHB2, and Spell compendium plus all the cleric spells. And a local epic wizard that we "work" for that can craft just about anything or get one of his lackeys to do it. So items aren't really restricted unless the DM just says no. Needs to be from a WotC source though but at this point spells and spell like abilities can be put on items so that should open up the ideas as well too. Just have to come up with a cost or an effective enhancement bonus for it.

And lets try to stay on topic please. Thanks all...so far lots of good suggesstions; just having a hard time choosing. Keep em coming. Maybe something will pop out of the crowd.

 

[Jack Simth]

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION] I've never heard of Wrathful Healing but after finding it its an enchant I've been looking for. Thanks a million. Most of the other enchants are circumstantial though which I'm not big on. If I'm going to spend the money I want a constant enchant that will work all the time against just about any creature I come up against.

I just looked this one up: It seems to be from the 3.0 Enemies and Allies book, in a sidebar on page 20. Not all DM's like 3.0 material, sometimes with good reason.

 

[kitcik]

I just looked this one up: It seems to be from the 3.0 Enemies and Allies book, in a sidebar on page 20. Not all DM's like 3.0 material, sometimes with good reason.

Don't be a hater.

 

[Rampant]

I've always liked collision, also since you probably have a goodly amount of HP vicious might be worth looking at.

 

[Dandu]

Collision's better for archers and possibly for TWF than for melee, since for the price you could just get a +2 enchantment and PA that into a +4 damage bonus.