Is it better to have a +4 Mace or special 1d6 mace with 2d6 fire damage?

[Hiredgun]

I'm confused, is it always better to get a +4 or +5 weapon, or is it better to stick with a weapon that does normal damage initially but has a special attached to it (like the 2d6 fire damage with another 10% possibility of doing an additional 1d6 damage). Help I found lots of +4 weapons and don't know what to do. Thanks.

[BlackJesus666]

I´d go for the extra damage or special abilities weapons.

But leave those plain +4 / +5 weapons in an extra slot, in case you encouter enemies, that can be only hit by high enchanted things.

[fable]

I'm with our last poster on this. Throughout the Bioware and BIS RPGs I've made a point of keeping many of the better weapons with special effects; but it always pays to have at least a couple of simple, highly enchanted weapons for those critters who are immune to lower forms of attack.

[Schwoebli]

well, I have to disagree.

a +5 is better than a normal weapon +2d6 firedamage.

a normal weapon +2d6 damage gives you 7 extra damage per attack (average). a +5 weapon gives you +5 damage each attack (2 less) but you get also +5 to hit and you can hit enemies with resistances till +5. it's an obvious choice for me what is better in general


ok, ok, there are some enemies which are weak against fire.

[baileyatbrats]

Yes. Keep them both.
The plus 4 and 5s wil be the most useful in the long run. Keeping in mind that high armor class precludes many foes from being hit by normal weapons. [AC 20 gets hit with a 16 or better (assuming all of your other mods total to that amount- asttack bonuses, weapon deficiencies. etc.) with a plus five weapon. You need a 20 to hit with a normal weapon. - that's a 20% better chance to hit that character.]
So the question is..... Do I need to hit or do I need to do damage? (A gnome attacking an ice giant with a normal weapon can probably hit, so might like to do more fire damage.) A fighter attacking an armored fighter will want a better chance to hit and choose the plus 5.

There's my two cents.

[fable]

Originally posted by Schwoebli
well, I have to disagree.

a +5 is better than a normal weapon +2d6 firedamage.

Consider: you may be facing a foe that can be wounded by either, but casts Web against foes. Assuming your party member doesn't have an item that offers free movement, a weapon that does so will work quite well, thank you. And on top of that, it kills just beautifully.

Similarly, I still relish those special "flasher" darts that Jan Jansen could manufacture and use in BG2. They weren't particularly powerful, but they had a chance to stun. I froze some of my worst foes in their tracks with those darts, preceded by a spell or two to lower resistance.

Mind, I'm not saying forget about +5 weapons. All I'm suggesting is that a good strategy employs weapons to suit every conceivably situation.

[1-800-DOCTORB]

I have to agree with Schwoebli on this one. A +5 weapon will "always" hit with that 5 damage bonus. Consider a flaming longsword is 1d8+1 with an additional 1d6 fire damage (there may or may not be a weapon "exactly" like this in IWD2, but this is just an example), but a longsword +5 is 1d8+5. Not only does it out-bonus the flaming longsword in terms of hitting opponents by +4, but it will always add +5 damage as well instead of maybie 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. The flaming lonsword's damage potential is 3-15, but the longsword +5's damge potential is 6-13. Personally I feel safer in knowing that I'm gonna hit more often, and that I will always do 6 damage at least, no matter what.

[koz-ivan]

i usually use the higher enchant level, unless the added bonus is too good to ignore.

the first iwd taugt me to keep a diverse selection of weapons, some edged, some blunt & some piercing. i tend to keep the elemental stuff just in case of emergency.

[baileyatbrats]

Right.
The elemental stuff helps for elementally challenged foes.

I also keep a mundane weapon on hand for each character because of conditioning from earlier games. (Some monsters are immune to magic weapons.)

The best benefits from the special but not high bonus weapons toend to be resistances. (I'm still in chapter one, so I'm not sure what there is in IWDII)
Negative plane protection while fighiting vampires can be worth 4 additional attack points. (It's useless against living creatures though, so keep the plus 4.)

I think Hiredgun will find that changing weapons might help in a battle or two. Then he'll see the wisdom..... Mmmmmmmmmmmmm wiiiisdom.

[koz-ivan]

i do like fable's approach of having weapons to suit every situation, but imo it gets to be too much. (but some are just too cool! i love hitting a foe w/ fire cold and electricity at the same time while hitting it w/ an acid arrow - what a show!)

my sorc is much more likely to prey upon an elemental weakness. w/o the sorc i would try to have a wider selection of weapons.

i do like having a mix of blades, blunts, & pokey weapons.

[baileyatbrats]

koz-ivan:
"i love hitting a foe w/ fire cold and electricity at the same time while hitting it w/ an acid arrow - what a show!"

A la the flail of ages in Baldur's Gate 2.
I'd like to see some more heads on tha thing. Level drain/particle beam/magic reduction/plane shifting/intellect reduction

(btw I was hit by a plus 5 intellect reducing sap at birth.)

[1-800-DOCTORB]

The problem I find with having tons of weapons to fit all situations is that even in those situations, I just won't bother switching to the better weapon. If the added elemental damage will really make a differance, but my main weapon is capable of winning me the battle anyway, albiet a little slower, I really won't bother to switch.

[Gruntboy]

Keep a mix, its obvious. But sell your "extra" +5's for the cash.

[Chris Boney]

One thing you might consider as well is, that a critical hit doesn't multiplay the added elemental damage.

I really prefer weapon+x over a weapon +elemental damage.

Chris