How do I handle loot with +1 but with no specified enchantment?

[bendking]

I'll keep this one short:
During I campaign I have been running (Savage Tide) the PC's often loot off the bad guys' corpses a Short Sword +1 or some such, but there is actually no specified enchantment on the equipment.
What does this mean? Is that an empty enchantment spot which I can fill to my liking? Or that they can? I realize this might be a noobish question to ask, but I really need to know.

[PaucaTerrorem]

It's a +1 to attack and damage.

[Lorddenorstrus]

He is correct it's a "simple" +1 enhancement bonus for +1 to attack rolls and damage.

By simple I mean part of a frustrating system that makes no sense. For my group me and one of the others who DM sat down and rewrote it into a small "You can buy this and put this crap on stuff." So far it's worked better for everyone.

[bendking]

Is loot with this simple enchantment still worth 2,000 gold more for being enchanted?
If so, that's just junk to sell.
Also, is MW Studded Leather +1 a +1 to AC according to this system? And is it worth 1,000 gold more?

I don't quite understand what's the system your DM put in place, do you mind trying to explain it again?

[ngilop]

Is loot with this simple enchantment still worth 2000 gold more for being enchanted?
If so, that's just junk to sell.

I don't quite understand what's the system your DM put in place, do you mind trying to explain it again?

{ scrubbed }

[bendking]

{ scrubbed }

Hmm, I think I'm going to quit D&D.
Thanks for the constructive advice! I'm gonna go get a job!

[OldTrees1]

Is loot with this simple enchantment still worth 2,000 gold more for being enchanted?
If so, that's just junk to sell.
Also, is MW Studded Leather +1 a +1 to AC according to this system? And is it worth 1,000 gold more?

Yes, a +1 weapon is worth 2000gp more than a masterwork weapon. In addition to the +1 damage, you can hit incorporeal creatures(50% of the time), and you can ignore DR X/magic.

Studded Leather +1 has a market price of 1000gp more than Masterwork Studded Leather, but a Masterwork Chain Shirt is usually a better deal. However a +1 Chain Shirt is usually worth its market price of +1000gp more than a Masterwork Chain Shirt.

PS: Please look past ngilop's unintentional rudeness.

[lonewulf]

Hmm, I think I'm going to quit D&D.
Thanks for the constructive advice! I'm gonna go get a job!

Dont get a job! What kind of fool are you!? D&D is far more rewarding!

[General Sajaru]

Is loot with this simple enchantment still worth 2,000 gold more for being enchanted?
If so, that's just junk to sell.
Also, is MW Studded Leather +1 a +1 to AC according to this system? And is it worth 1,000 gold more?

I don't quite understand what's the system your DM put in place, do you mind trying to explain it again?

If your players have better than +1 enhancements on their weapons, then yes, a +1 Short Sword is indeed junk to sell (unless they'd like a backup weapon).

For the studded leather, you don't need to specify that it's masterwork if it also has a +1 enhancement bonus on it; all magic weapons and armor are already of masterwork quality, and are worth the value of the masterwork item plus the value of the enhancement bonus specified in the DMG.

[eggynack]

I'ma do a general thing, cause it seems necessary. Our noble short sword started its life as a masterwork weapon, holding its price of 310 GP, and a +1 to attack as its sole modifier. Then, on one strange and fanciful day, some wizard, bountiful in his caprice, chose to deliver onto it a +1 enchantment, creating a +1 short sword. This is possible because the weapon was masterwork, but at the same time, it was the only enchantment possible, because the weapon was not previously enchanted. This leaves the weapon with a +1 to both attack and damage, and would make it cost 2,310 GP.

The wizard then decides to go above and beyond, for that is something he is occasionally wont to do. Thus, he applies a flaming enchantment to the weapon, made possible by the fact that the weapon is already enchanted. This leaves the wizard with a +1 flaming short sword. To evaluate this weapon's capabilities, we consider separately the +1 and the flaming, and we're left with a weapon with a +1 to attack and damage, and +1d6 fire damage on a successful hit. To evaluate its price, you add together the +1 from the standard +1, and the +1 that is flaming, and reach the fact that it should be priced as a +2 weapon. Thus, this weapon would cost 8,310 GP.

[Chronos]

Given that the OP is clearly misunderstanding the magic weapon/armor system, perhaps we should actually explain it, instead of mocking him?

On your sword, the +1 is the specified enhancement. Every magical weapon has some numerical bonus, which can range from +1 to +5. You add that number to the attack rolls and damage rolls you make with that weapon. Some, but not all, magical weapons also have other abilities, which usually have a cost that's also expressed as a plus: For instance, flaming is a +1 ability. To find a weapon's total value, you add up all of its special abilities, add that to the numerical bonus, and then look that up in the table.

So, for instance, a +1 weapon with no other abilities (like the one on your loot table) is worth 2000 GP more than a masterwork weapon of the same kind. A +1 flaming weapon or a +2 weapon with no special abilities both have the same value, which is 8000 GP more than masterwork. A +1 flaming shocking weapon, a +1 holy weapon, a +2 flaming weapon, or a +3 weapon with no special abilities, all have the same value, 18000 GP, and so on.

There are two limits on the power of a (non-epic) weapon: The numerical bonus can't be more than +5, and the total of the numerical bonus and all special abilities can't be more than +10. So a weapon that's at the limit might, for instance, be +5 and vorpal (vorpal is worth +5), or it could be +1 with nine different cheap special abilities.

[bendking]

Given that the OP is clearly misunderstanding the magic weapon/armor system, perhaps we should actually explain it, instead of mocking him?

On your sword, the +1 is the specified enhancement. Every magical weapon has some numerical bonus, which can range from +1 to +5. You add that number to the attack rolls and damage rolls you make with that weapon. Some, but not all, magical weapons also have other abilities, which usually have a cost that's also expressed as a plus: For instance, flaming is a +1 ability. To find a weapon's total value, you add up all of its special abilities, add that to the numerical bonus, and then look that up in the table.

So, for instance, a +1 weapon with no other abilities (like the one on your loot table) is worth 2000 GP more than a masterwork weapon of the same kind. A +1 flaming weapon or a +2 weapon with no special abilities both have the same value, which is 8000 GP more than masterwork. A +1 flaming shocking weapon, a +1 holy weapon, a +2 flaming weapon, or a +3 weapon with no special abilities, all have the same value, 18000 GP, and so on.

There are two limits on the power of a (non-epic) weapon: The numerical bonus can't be more than +5, and the total of the numerical bonus and all special abilities can't be more than +10. So a weapon that's at the limit might, for instance, be +5 and vorpal (vorpal is worth +5), or it could be +1 with nine different cheap special abilities.

Thank you very much, that was very sharp explanation.
My sincere gratitude to every other commenter who helped me grasp the numerical value enhancment system, which I was not aware of.

EDIT:
What does a +1 on a piece of armor do? +1 to Armor bonus?

[Venger]

Is loot with this simple enchantment still worth 2,000 gold more for being enchanted?
If so, that's just junk to sell.
Also, is MW Studded Leather +1 a +1 to AC according to this system? And is it worth 1,000 gold more?

I don't quite understand what's the system your DM put in place, do you mind trying to explain it again?

Thank you very much, that was very sharp explanation.
My sincere gratitude to every other commenter who helped me grasp the numerical value enhancment system, which I was not aware of.

EDIT:
What does a +1 on a piece of armor do? +1 to Armor bonus?

one thing I don't think anyone's mentioned (and the point of your confusion, which is not well explained in the rules)

a weapon must have some numerical bonus of at least +1 before you are allowed to put any actual magical properties on it.

so if you want a vicious longsword or a fleshgrinding rapier or what have you, it has to be at least +1 first. so you might see a "+1 flaming longsword" but you will never see just a "flaming longsword" without any +x. it's against the rules.

Yes. it gives +1 to armor. magic armor also lets you subtract its +x value from armor check penalties.

example: you find some +1 full plate. the normal ACP is -6. since this is +1 full plate, you only take -5 to your ACP stuff.

[eggynack]

one thing I don't think anyone's mentioned (and the point of your confusion, which is not well explained in the rules)
a weapon must have some numerical bonus of at least +1 before you are allowed to put any actual magical properties on it.

I think I had that one in my nifty narrative retelling of the weapon rules. Folks were probably mislead by the pointlessly obfuscating and whimsical vocabulary.

[Deaxsa]

magic armor also lets you subtract its +x value from armor check penalties.

example: you find some +1 full plate. the normal ACP is -6. since this is +1 full plate, you only take -5 to your ACP stuff.

This is a gigantic lie. A house rule, if you will. And not a terrible one, if you don't go superhigh level.

Personally, my house rules (aka my personal gigantic lies) regarding this are simple: I allow you to buy bonuses to stats (attack, damage, acp, ac, etc) all as mundane masterwork improvements, but the cost is dependent on the availability, the desired level of strength, all that jazz (tbh, it's not an exact science, very ball parked), and them let the players invent enchantments and tell them the prices of those. It's much more vague, but also more fun and unique.

[eggynack]

This is a gigantic lie. A house rule, if you will. And not a terrible one, if you don't go superhigh level.

Well, more of a half lie. The +1 full plate would indeed have an ACP of -5, as stated, but that's because all magic armor is also masterwork, and masterwork armor reduces ACP by one. I'm also not entirely sure where level fits into all of this. I can't really see +5 armor reducing ACP by five being game breaking at high levels, when casters dominate the earth.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, more of a half lie. The +1 full plate would indeed have an ACP of -5, as stated, but that's because all magic armor is also masterwork, and masterwork armor reduces ACP by one. I'm also not entirely sure where level fits into all of this. I can't really see +5 armor reducing ACP by five being game breaking at high levels, when casters dominate the earth.

"Hmm...on the one hand, the wizard is creating clone armies, Rings of Infinite Wishing, and impregnable, undetectable pocket dimensions. On the other hand, this dude can perform an Olympic-level acrobatics routine while wearing full plate armor. Nah, I have to do something about that second guy; we all know that fighters can't have nice things."

[Venger]

I think I had that one in my nifty narrative retelling of the weapon rules. Folks were probably mislead by the pointlessly obfuscating and whimsical vocabulary.

you did address it, I was just clarifying for the OP.

This is a gigantic lie. A house rule, if you will. And not a terrible one, if you don't go superhigh level.

Personally, my house rules (aka my personal gigantic lies) regarding this are simple: I allow you to buy bonuses to stats (attack, damage, acp, ac, etc) all as mundane masterwork improvements, but the cost is dependent on the availability, the desired level of strength, all that jazz (tbh, it's not an exact science, very ball parked), and them let the players invent enchantments and tell them the prices of those. It's much more vague, but also more fun and unique.

well, since no sensible person ever buys armor with a numerical bonus of higher than +1, it is technically true.

yeah, I just conflated that in my mind and forgot that it came from mwk and not the magic bonus since there' never a call for +2 or higher armor.

honestly, it's not a bad houserule.

Well, more of a half lie. The +1 full plate would indeed have an ACP of -5, as stated, but that's because all magic armor is also masterwork, and masterwork armor reduces ACP by one. I'm also not entirely sure where level fits into all of this. I can't really see +5 armor reducing ACP by five being game breaking at high levels, when casters dominate the earth.

"Hmm...on the one hand, the wizard is creating clone armies, Rings of Infinite Wishing, and impregnable, undetectable pocket dimensions. On the other hand, this dude can perform an Olympic-level acrobatics routine while wearing full plate armor. Nah, I have to do something about that second guy; we all know that fighters can't have nice things."

indeed.

[EisenKreutzer]

well, since no sensible person ever buys armor with a numerical bonus of higher than +1, it is technically true.

yeah, I just conflated that in my mind and forgot that it came from mwk and not the magic bonus since there' never a call for +2 or higher armor.

Derailing the thread slightly, but could you explain the reasoning behind this?

[Extra Anchovies]

Derailing the thread slightly, but could you explain the reasoning behind this?

It's generally better to get +1 armor and +1 weapons with 9 points' worth of properties, and then bring the enhancement bonuses up to +5 via greater magic weapon and magic vestment.

[OldTrees1]

Derailing the thread slightly, but could you explain the reasoning behind this?

This forum, in general, prefers qualitative improvements over quantitative improvements. Therefore they assert such.

Greater Magic Weapon/Magic Vestments are a supporting detail.

[Venger]

Derailing the thread slightly, but could you explain the reasoning behind this?

not really a derail, we're still talking about the fiddly and poorly explained magic armor/weapons system in the game.

it's like this:

back in 3.0, some monsters had things like "dr 10/+2" so if you had a +1 weapon, you could not bypass their DR. consequently, there was some value to buying a weapon that had a numerical bonus of higher than +1.

in 3.5, the designers realized this was a stupid idea, taxing the melee brutes, who are most dependent on equipment, and allowing casters to just bypass it with magic as they always had, so all instances of "dr/+x" were redone to be "dr/magic"

thus, there is never a reason to want a weapon that has a numerical bonus of higher than +1. you only buy the +1 because it's a tax before you can start putting useful properties like warning or keen or what have you on your weapon.

the way magic enhancements are priced, they cost more for each one you buy, so buying a +1 equivalent property on a +1 item is a lot cheaper than buying it for a +2 weapon, so you're doing nothing but cheating yourself out of a lot of money for a measly tohit/damage bonus if you buy a weapon with a +2 or higher before putting enchantments on stuff.

the same thing is true for armor. it's better to start jamming soulfire or whatever on there right away instead of paying zillions of gold for a bonus to your flatfooted AC.

It's generally better to get +1 armor and +1 weapons with 9 points' worth of properties, and then bring the enhancement bonuses up to +5 via greater magic weapon and magic vestment.

yeah, plus magic weapon/vestment exists

This forum, in general, prefers qualitative improvements over quantitative improvements. Therefore they assert such.

Greater Magic Weapon/Magic Vestments are a supporting detail.

huh? magic enhancements are quantitatively better than a to-hit bonus because they provide better effects, there isn't any subjectivity there.

[OldTrees1]

huh? magic enhancements are quantitatively better than a to-hit bonus because they provide better effects, there isn't any subjectivity there.

huh? When did I say they didn't/did? I merely pointed out that this forum generally prefers qualitative improvement. Thus they would assert the option with the greater qualitative improvement regardless of which was better quantitatively.

[Venger]

This forum, in general, prefers qualitative improvements over quantitative improvements. Therefore they assert such.

Greater Magic Weapon/Magic Vestments are a supporting detail.

huh? When did I say they didn't/did? I merely pointed out that this forum generally prefers qualitative improvement. Thus they would assert the option with the greater qualitative improvement regardless of which was better quantitatively.

you're right. I had mistakenly thought that quantitative=objective and qualitative=subjective, so I thought you were saying it was just everyone's opinion that enhancements were better than +1s when it was the other way around, and i was really confused.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder, the quantitative (i.e. purely numerical) improvements are actually better. For weapons, they allow you to beat various forms of DR without needing special materials/aligment (and GMW won't help there) while on armor, they allow your armor to better resist sunders and dispels and thus their protection to continue functioning.

[P.F.]

In Pathfinder, the quantitative (i.e. purely numerical) improvements are actually better. For weapons, they allow you to beat various forms of DR without needing special materials/aligment (and GMW won't help there) while on armor, they allow your armor to better resist sunders and dispels and thus their protection to continue functioning.

They are actually better than the quantitative improvements in 3.5, anyhow. In my Paffinder group around 10th level we still use the qualitative permanent enhancements combined with spells and those potion-like oils and rinses to overcome damage reduction. But, we are also campaigning primarialy against foes with known immunities and weaknesses, and we are willing to accept the potential action economy cost of applying the quantitative and/or relevant enhancements on the spot.

[Necroticplague]

The main reason that I can think of for "get a +1, spend the rest on actual properties" is simply cost comparison. Due to the way the items are priced, every extra +1 has an exponentially increasing cost. However, the benefit is linear, with each +1 providing the same bonus. Thus, your average AC/gold goes down with each +1. Past +1, it is more cost efficient in terms of AC to buy a different item providing AC than another +1 on your armor (ring of deflection, amulet of natural armor). Combined with the fact Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment spells exist, and it just plain is most cost efficient to use your armor and weapon for interesting properties. This is especially true if you have a lot of weapons to boost (like your greatsword, armor razors, armor spikes, gauntlets, poisoned rings, braid blades, and various hidden blades).

[torrasque666]

Granted though, if you have a +3 weapon, you don't have to waste time waiting for someone to cast GMW on your hitstick and then spend your move action attaching a greater weapon crystal, if you use one. I mean, half the time the only ones people mention around here are Truedeath and Demolition.

[Extra Anchovies]

Granted though, if you have a +3 weapon, you don't have to waste time waiting for someone to cast GMW on your hitstick and then spend your move action attaching a greater weapon crystal, if you use one. I mean, half the time the only ones people mention around here are Truedeath and Demolition.

Eh, GMW is hour/level duration, so that's not really a concern.

[Chronos]

It increases quadratically, not exponentially. It'd be exponential if each new ability you added cost as much as all the previous abilities combined.

And the bit about "+1 and a bunch of abilities" is less relevant for armor than for weapons, since unlike weapons, most armor abilities just have a fixed price. The only +x armor abilities in the DMG are the various levels of fortification and spell resistance, ghost touch, and invulnerability, all of which are rather underwhelming.