Dual weapon enchantment?

One value for a to-hit bonus, another for a damage bonus.

Yea or nay?

Have you tried not playing D&D?

Have you tr--
Oh, got here before me.

>hey guys what about this simple houserule for some nonspecified D&D-like system
>LOL WHY ARE YOU PLAYING D&D IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT

When a person is in such obvious need of guidance it's bad form to wait until they themself have to realise it.

>no one asked you
>Dual weapon enchantment? Yea or nay?
>no one asked

If you're talking about 3.5 style enhancement bonuses I feel like the real thing to keep in mind is what that would mean for weapon cost. If it cost the same amount of GP overall I feel like people would overall mostly only care about the to-hit unless they're a crit-heavy character or something
You're just being trolled

I didn't have 3.5-style enchantment bonuses in mind, really. I've not played much 3.5, but in my old AD&D group you couldn't just commission enchanted gear, at unless you know a guy who knows a guy and are willing to break the bank. Usually, the only cost-effective way to get enchanted gear was to either hope that the local merchant had it in stock, or to loot it from a labyrinth yourself.

The spells for enchanting a weapon's to-hit bonus and its damage bonus would be different though, possibly requiring different material components. Roguelikes that have this mechanic will have two different types of scrolls for the two different bonuses, and maybe a third type of scroll that raises both.

I think separating the spells to cast those would be a mistake in 5th ed due to the concentration limit, and I think in general unless you're giving the caster something in exchange for a fairly random downgrade (it's not exactly like the magic weapon spell was breaking the game) there's really no point

As for to-hit and damage being not directly related I think that's always been the case with specific magic items in pretty much every edition, it's just the "+X Weapons" in particular that follow that (and by extension every customized magic weapon in 3.5, which as far as I know was really the only edition where you were sort of expected to be able to commission shit like that)

For what purpose? What problem would it solve?

"This weapon is magically light, and very precise, as if the blade itself seeks to bury itself into flesh, but cuts lightly."

"This mace is heavy, and it seems it hits twice with every hit (like a bunkerbuster missile, a secondary magical explosion happens)."

The difference between savage magical items that maim and kill and duelist magical items, or something like that.

Imo, you don't need it and it causes more confusion, and I've even implemented +hit/+damage into my shitty homebrew because it's just so much faster and easier (had a +damage only one before, playtesters weren't happy).

>concentration limit
I'm not talking about temporary bonuses here; I'm talking about the item itself being a "+2, +1 longsword". For concentration-based temporary effects, there would be a spell to augment both at the same time.

Or is the way you enchant weapons in 5e just "cast this spell, then cast permanency"?

No, I was referring to the spells for enchanting part of what you were saying. Permanency spell isn't even a thing in 5th ed

>playtesters weren't happy
What didn't they like about it? Did they offer any specific criticisms?

Alright you wise guys, what do enchantment systems look like in other games? I'm curious. Does each item have a list of all the enchantments that are applied to it? That seems kind of like a more complex version of the system OP is describing

t. Summermemer

As long as they're not huge bonuses, yeah sure why not.

Great reason to amp up the threat level

Why would you need an enchantment system?

Actually, I favour removing numeric enchantments entirely.

I like how 5th ed magic swords that DO stuff. No more arbitrary +2 upgrade over dat shit house +1.

Awesome, this is a flame tongue, and this is an icebrand and they are bad ass relics. Improvise, the flametongue is a hilt that erupts into flames and strikes supernatural fear into icey creatures for they instinctively recognize a weapon designed to kill them.

Bam, now its cooler and got a history. Its also not required at all for the base game.

As for other systems, few are as item focused as dnd. Rogue Trader is one where the gubbinz are pretty important to some folks. At least half the games in the 40rpgverse have you grubbing in the dirt for whatever you can find though, and others have you starting out with the most disgusting kit, depending on the requirements of the book.

I prefer grubbing for whatever you can get, but w/e.

Anyway, yeah, get rid of numeric enchantment and make it a static bonus as they level up to prevent depower creep. Give the same bonus to suitably high level mooks and such, but not henchmen.

Yet the comment "stop playing dnd" is still not very helpful, especially given its frequency. Let him enjoy what he will and come to the decision to branch out on his own.

I fluff numeric enchantments as simple modifiers to the quality of the item. It can be from magic, or it could just be from its superior Dwarven craftsmanship.

This means that it makes even less sense to let players just commission whatever equipment they want. The gear has to have a place it came from, and where it came from determines how nice it's going to be. How nice it is is expressed by a numeric plus or minus.

This means that all gear has baseline stats based on the gear type and the material, and all other numeric differences are expressed as modifiers. A generic rapier is no different from a generic cutlass except one deals piercing damage and the other deals slashing damage.

Because the setting has enchantments?

The sooner we stop responding to trolls the sooner they stop trolling.

>This means that it makes even less sense to let players just commission whatever equipment they want
What are you talking about? They can commission a sword from that dude over there, who can make it as high as +3 (or whatever), and then get someone to enchant it with something (or maybe the same dude can do it, maybe he's some badass legendary smith or something).

It'll cost a shitload, and possibly require some quest or another (to convince him and/or to get the materials needed), but there's nothing in there that says people can't make sweet loot for others.

I meant "commission it without effort". If you're sending them off on quests to procure the proper materials, then that seems alright to me. I'm talking about people looking in the rulebooks for the enchanted item cost table and just paying that much money on the assumption that somebody in town has the skill and resources to make it.

>t. (something)
Where does this come from? I see it everywhere and it seems like it should be some sort of publishing-related thing, but it's ogooglebar.

How easy it should be to commission any given item really comes down to what kind of game you're running. Grim and gritty dungeon crawls in a low fantasy setting mean that people probably shouldn't be able to make anything much better than baseline at all, regardless of how much money you have or how many quests you go on for raw materials. On the other hand, a high fantasy setting should probably mean that every little town has at least one or two magic items and major cities have everything in the book for sale and multiple people who you can commission to custom make you something else.

Typically I prefer where major cities have on or MAYBE two people who can make high quality gear (in D&D terms up to around +4-5) who can make you whatever you want (and has a selection of a dozen or so premade magic-ish items on hand) but won't necessarily do it for (only) mere cash.

Its from /int/, it's basically "regards"

I think it's finnish?

>/int/
>finnish
Figures.