|
I dunno what the official ruling is, but you could probably just note the cost difference between the greataxe and the battle axe and call it good. The specific magic weapon entries have always seemed like more of a guideline to me than stone-cold-immutable-truths. Isn't there an adamantine battle axe listed in the magical weapons section? Likely not the only weapon that can be made of adamantine, and only serves to reinforce my position. Of course, magic item construction always falls under the purview of the GM, so that's the final arbiter.
That is entirely up to your GM, there are no rules supporting switching out weapons like that, but there aren't really any rules preventing it either.
I don't see why you couldn't swap the weapons out like that. Makes sense to me.
Switching the life-drinker "property" over to a battleaxe should be no problem, assuming this is not for Pathfinder Society Organized Play; PFS does not allow one to custom-build items. I can think of at least one module that gives an NPC a kukri of life-stealing (instead of using a longsword as the base).
That is entirely up to your GM, there are no rules supporting switching out weapons like that, but there aren't really any rules preventing it either.
The problem with this statement is that there doesn't have to be a rule preventing something, if there isn't a rule to enable it in the first place. There's no rule specifically saying I can't fly, because unless I have something that lets me fly, I can't.
While it's perfectly reasonable to, as a house-rule, allow these enchantments to be switched around, I wouldn't allow it. There's a reason these custom weapon abilities aren't just listed on the table of abilities which can be added to a weapon. Often, they have abilities you can't get in any other way, which makes it a trade-off between having the type of weapon you want and having the special property you want. Trade-offs are interesting. Also, allowing them to be switched creates more headaches: Why can't I get a Fanged Falchion enchant on a Sword of Life Stealing (or vice versa)? I'd do 2 points of Con damage and a negative level each time I crit! Additionally, these enchants don't factor towards the +10 cap for magic weapons. I could have a Fanged, Life-Stealing Sword of Subtlety that's still only a +2 weapon (highest of the existing items), which I can then add +8 more enchantments to!
|
|
For clarification of my post; I wouldn't in any way consider adding these special-entry abilities to have the option of including any of the "+x" special abilities added. Just give the option of swapping around the base weapon. Assassin's Dagger not quite right? Fine, Assassin's Kukri. Just not Vorpal Assassin's Kukri.
For clarification of my post; I wouldn't in any way consider adding these special-entry abilities to have the option of including any of the "+x" special abilities added. Just give the option of swapping around the base weapon. Assassin's Dagger not quite right? Fine, Assassin's Kukri. Just not Vorpal Assassin's Kukri.
Yeah, that would be the most minimal change necessary, and would cause the least disruption. It'd still make the choice less interesting, but it wouldn't cause any larger issues.
I'm pretty sure the "official" answer will be something like: Ask your GM.
The existence of a unique magic item doesn't really affect the balance of weapon choices, so I can't see any reason for a GM to prohibit this, unless they're some kind of purist.
The problem with this statement is that there doesn't have to be a rule preventing something, if there isn't a rule to enable it in the first place. There's no rule specifically saying I can't fly, because unless I have something that lets me fly, I can't.
well I guess since there is no rule saying your characters can go to the bathroom, all your characters are going to die of bladder infections.... not all situations are covered by the rules, and it is not desirable to have every situation covered by the rules... this is a game of interaction between people, and judgement calls on the part of the GM are going to have to be made from time to time, otherwise there is no reason to have a GM at all.
Just being the wierd sort that I am, I would word my permission differently.
Something like, "Someone making a life drinker is going for the most damage possible so it is always created in a greatsword or greataxe. However, this one was made by/for a gnome. So his greataxe can be used by you as a battleaxe."
well I guess since there is no rule saying your characters can go to the bathroom, all your characters are going to die of bladder infections.... not all situations are covered by the rules, and it is not desirable to have every situation covered by the rules... this is a game of interaction between people, and judgement calls on the part of the GM are going to have to be made from time to time, otherwise there is no reason to have a GM at all.
The problem with this statement is that there doesn't have to be a rule preventing something, if there isn't a rule to enable it in the first place. There's no rule specifically saying I can't fly, because unless I have something that lets me fly, I can't.
You missed my point. I said that there doesn't need to be a rule preventing something unless there's a rule enabling it. That has nothing to do with whether or not something is allowed in the first place.
One thing to consider when changing the base weapon is if the new weapon has synergy with the special affects. For example, Life Drinker going from a two handed axe to a one handed is not going to change much, but if you made it a dagger, you could have people duel-weilding them and handing out a boat load of negative levels. You can get the same thing with crit range. If the weapon is balanced with doing something cool when you crit with a 20, it can get game-breakingly good when it starts doing it's thing on a 18-20.
It adds a lot of flavor to shake things up every now and then, just keep an eye on what you are doing.
