Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 105349" data-attributes="member: 2011">Thanks gnfnrf.I now understand why it is ambiguous.My personal take is that the first interpretation is almost definitely what was meant (i.e. the interpretation that segregates the two halves at the word “and”). The second interpretation makes the spell a joke for several reasons, especially at higher levels.1) Say a Paladin has a 50% hit chance against a given evil creature and is using a longsword (magical or not). So, he has a 5% chance of critting. The spell bumps that up to a 10% chance of critting. This is equivalent (in this case) of adding +1 to the crit range (+1.95 if you need a 20 to hit a given AC, +0.05 if you need a 2 to hit), but only against evil creatures, and you do not get any +1 enhancement bonus to the weapon like you do with Magic Weapon. Yawn.2) The Paladin does not get the spell until either 4th or 6th level. Hence, by the time he gets it, he almost always already has a +1 weapon and will not often gain the benefits against DR 1 or incorporeal evil creatures.3) Paladins do not have another spell which can take the place of this one once they start to run into +2/?? and higher DR creatures with the exception of Greater Magic Weapon which may or may not work depending the DR and the Paladin level. So, the spell is only real useful (with the second interpretation) for a couple of levels and then, only if the Paladin does not have a magical weapon at all. If he has a magical weapon, the spell is only marginally useful.4) On the other hand, negating +5/?? DR is a somewhat powerful ability, but if only one class in your party can do it due to a spell that he may or may not have memorized, it’s no big deal. In other words, no other class has this unique spell. The second interpretation does not make the spell that unique, it makes it ludicrously wimpy. All it gains is the automatic critical feature against evil creatures over the Magic Weapon spell of the Cleric that Clerics get at first (class) level, 3 to 5 levels earlier than a Paladin. Plus, Magic Weapon actually does give a +1 enhancement bonus which neither interpretation of Bless Weapon does.Basically when I compare the second interpretation to Magic Weapon, I wonder why anyone would want to ever cast Bless Weapon when all it does is mostly give you a crit boost at the expense of only being able to be used against evil creatures and losing +1 to hit and +1 to damage against all creatures. Granted, if you had the Improved Crit feat (which a Paladin could not get until 9th level) and a Scythe, you could min-max this spell to boost your crit chance from say 10% to 25% (in say a 40% chance to hit circumstance). But, that’s a very focused path to make the spell semi-worthwhile. By 9th level, Paladins are often running into creatures with a +2/?? DR.Remember, such a boost does not often help that much. Based on the roll you need to hit, this is the increase in average damage (using the uber min/max Improved Critical Scythe example):20 5.25% to 10%19 11% to 20%18 17.25% to 30%17 24% to 40%16 31.25% to 50%15 36.25% to 55%14 41.25% to 60%, etc.It’s less if the Paladin does not have a magical weapon. It’s less if he does not have Improved Critical. It’s less if he uses a lower crit range weapon than a Scythe.For a magical longsword, the average damage changes to:20 5.25% to 10%19 11% to 20%18 16% to 25%17 21% to 30%, etc.Or basically, a 9% increase in average damage (actually slightly less than that since you do not get that if you need a 20 to hit). If the sword is non-magical, Magic Weapon does much better since most characters do not average 10 or more points of damage, Magic Weapon is also +1 to hit, and Magic Weapon affects more creatures.In fact, on average, the same level Bless spell does a LOT more than the second interpretation of Bless Weapon: >5% increase in average damage for many party members (plus the saving throw boost) vs. many creatures compared with +9% increase in average damage for one party member vs. only evil creatures.I just don’t buy the second interpretation at all. Yes, this spell is literally ambiguous due to the ambiguity of the English language.But, totally castrating a unique single class spell for a class that traditionally is designed to stand up to the most fearsome of evil creatures really does make the Cleric more powerful across the board than the Paladin. Even in that solely Paladin-like situation of interposing himself between evil and the rest of the world, the Cleric is now better at that as well. Sigh.I think the proponents of the second interpretation are ignoring the fact that the spell is basically worthless for the most part with that interpretation because of some misconceived fear that it might be too powerful with the first interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification