Why is it Enchant - Shield, and not offhand?

Off-hand is a pretty broad category. Adding enchantments to such items doesn't seem to lend the same focus as other categories might. Enchantments tend to have certain restrictions by slot. Boot enchants might be speed-oriented, which doesn't make sense for a chest slot. Chest slots might have additional armor which doesn't make sense for gloves. Gloves might have an agility bonus which doesn't make sense for a helmet. And so on.

Off-hand is composed of shields, weapons, and items both frivolous and advantageous. To start tossing out additional stats into such a category could get sloppy easily. A shield enchant isn't going to be worth anything on a caster off-hand, so you have the potential of needing to generate a multitude of enchants for all these little distinctions, while adding little to the bottom-line. In the space it takes five enchants to be useful for different slots, you could very well need just as many enchants for a single slot. This could become bloated and full of clutter.

Just something to consider.

Q u o t e:


This is a far, far, far more believable reason than anything else.

Then believe that one. I simply was trying yet another approach to this. I aimed at a certain point. Some people agree with this point, others want to take a general idea and dissect into specifics.

What it does come down to is added stats, though. So, yes, there would be a rebalancing of items if we allowed enchantments to be placed on every single item in the game in the strive for more, more, more.

Q u o t e:
Don't talk down to your customers, Tesric - it's tacky.

I don't see where I'm doing that. I see quite the opposite.

Q u o t e:


I think you would have done better to bring up a comparison between caster weapons, specifically staff vs one-hand and offhand, and the varied enchants available now. To be able to enchant an offhand as well as putting + 40 spell damage on your mainhand would give you a clear advantage over someone using a staff, provided no extra work was done to make them more comparable in effectiveness. And we all know how slow changes are progressing already, so lets not give them any more to chew on.

Oh, I could have done a lot better, to be sure. Part of the risk in engaging people for discussion rather than pre-formatting everything.

I see your point and thank you for it. It is, at the least, a measured contribution.