Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Crafting a Sun Blade


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew


I did a search for this and found nothing definitive. So I will pose the question here and see if we can have some of the people who really understand the system chime in.

I want to craft a Sun Blade. I want to make it out of Cold Iron and I want to change the wording to say Long sword instead of short sword.

First, is this possible? And if so how much does it cost?

The next question, (and there was a small thread about this that really did not answer the question) is what about adding properties to such a weapon? Say I get enough gold to add Holy to it, any idea what my baseline is?

My Gut feeling is that you build it up from a +2 bonus. So, 25,335 - 4,000 (the cost of crafting a +2 weapon) = 21,335 is the cost of adding "sun blade" to an item.

Can anyone clear this up? It is something that if I am lucky will be happening for my paladin in the near future and I want to know exactly what I am doing.

As an aside: Has anyone thought about crafting a Holy Avenger Sun Blade for epic level play? Seems to me like the ultimate paladin sword... maybe even ranked as an artifact?


Ask your GM, the standard policy is that specific items only come in one flavor.


Blue Star wrote:
Ask your GM, the standard policy is that specific items only come in one flavor.

This is what I plan to do. I would just like to have something solid to present to him when it gets to that point.


I think that's only "standard policy" if by "standard policy" you mean "Pathfinder Society Rules".

As far as the base rules themselves go, the items given in the book are presented as some specific weapons; there is nothing indicating that these are the only ones that exist. You still do need your GM's permission to invent variations, however.

As far as your cost calculations, 35 is the cost of the bastard sword, and 300 is for the masterwork component, so the magical properties of the sword cost 25,000gp. If all you wanted to do was make it a long sword, instead of a bastard sword, I doubt any reasonable GM would object to that, and the cost would simply be 25,315gp.

Adding Holy to it gets more tricky; I'd probably treat it as a +5 weapon if I were your GM (due to the fact that +5 gives a crafting cost of 25,000) for purposes of determining the addition of other enchantments. So, under that rule, adding "holy" would boost it's cost by 24,000gp. I might be convinced that it should be treated as a +4 weapon, as that is the highest bonus it gives, and the other powers are simply added costs which do not directly increase the bonus.


I agree final decision is on the DM. I just want to submit the request to him as something that makes sense and is not trying to game the rules in any way.

I want the short sword wording in the sword to be replaced by Long sword. This is because that is the weapon my character uses and because it is the favored weapon of Iomedae (one of the 3 gods he follows).

As for adding Holy.. Id be willing to pay for it from a +4 base but I think that is wrong. The only bonus the weapon has as a constant is +2 so it seems like that should be the base. Also, if you started from a +5 base the weapon could never be upgraded to a full +10, which also seems wrong.


Vult, I've played around with the Sunblade as well. You are correct, the base enhancement is +2, so 4,000 of its creation cost are wrapped up in this and the rest is abilities added, such as counting as a weapon two dice higher, its extra to hit and damage, etc. Were I pricing this out as a DM, here's what I'd call it: 350 gp base for the price of a MW greatsword, 4,000 for the +2 and 21,000 for the abilities. It would be considered a longsword dealing greatsword damage since the shortsword version goes up to bastard sword damage. Others may see this differently, but this is how it's been ruled in my own games. Keep in mind, if you add more non-enhancment abilities to the blade, the price for said abilities will be on top of the 21,000.


Thank you, I was hoping I wasn't looking at it in a biased way.

I am ok with leaving it at bastard sword damage, but I agree you are probably right that it should be greatsword damage.

Seems like the the 21,000 is correct for the price of the 'sun blade' quality though.


You might be able to slip that past your GM, depending on how deeply he thinks about it, but I would not permit it myself.

The reason is that it's a +4 against evil creatures. Depending on the campaign, that could possibly be almost everything that you fight. So, treating what is, effectively, a +4 weapon in the majority of cases that come up, as only being a +2 base cost, is very unbalanced.

Shadow Lodge

I have to agree with Rudy2 about it being +4 but for different reasons. Here is a break down on the costs

Bastard Sword: 35gp
Masterwork: 300gp

+2 effect
holy:+2 its good aligned and deals extra damage so this is by far the closest +2 hit and damage is easily worth the same as +2d6 damage
Daylight: 54,000 but since it only last while in use I would divide by 3 or or so lets say 18000.
There is nothing like the short sword thing so lets just say they gave that for free or rolled it into the daylight.

+4 effect is 32,000 and the Daylight is 18,000 so with the weapon and masterwork we come out at 50,335. Which happens to be the cost of the weapon.

I did this off the cuff and was totally surprised when I nailed the number. But it all makes sense. I would consider this a +4 weapon for enchanting purposes.


Seriphim84 wrote:

I have to agree with Rudy2 about it being +4 but for different reasons. Here is a break down on the costs

Bastard Sword: 35gp
Masterwork: 300gp

+2 effect
holy:+2 its good aligned and deals extra damage so this is by far the closest +2 hit and damage is easily worth the same as +2d6 damage
Daylight: 54,000 but since it only last while in use I would divide by 3 or or so lets say 18000.
There is nothing like the short sword thing so lets just say they gave that for free or rolled it into the daylight.

+4 effect is 32,000 and the Daylight is 18,000 so with the weapon and masterwork we come out at 50,335. Which happens to be the cost of the weapon.

I did this off the cuff and was totally surprised when I nailed the number. But it all makes sense. I would consider this a +4 weapon for enchanting purposes.

Well there's sort of an ability to do the shortsword-bastard sword thing.

IMPACT
PRICE +2 BONUS
AURA moderate transmutation CL 9th WEIGHT —
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are
not light weapons. An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic
jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one
size category larger. In addition, any bull rush combat maneuver
the wielder attempts while wielding the weapon gains a bonus
equal to the weapon’s enhancement bonus; this includes all bull
rush attempts, not only those in which a weapon is used, such
as Bull Rush Strike, Shield Slam, or Unseat.

The kicker here is that a short sword is light, and that a bastard sword isn't exactly one size larger. Basically if I were GMing I'd tell the player to just make an 'imitation' by using the weapon and material of choice, and then adding +2 enhancement, Holy, and Impact. Sure, it's 2d6 instead of +2 attack and damage, and you lose the ability to cast sunlight, but specific weapons are just that- specific. If you want something different, you're going to get something different.


Seriphim84 wrote:
I did this off the cuff and was totally surprised when I nailed the number. But it all makes sense. I would consider this a +4 weapon for enchanting purposes.

Don't forget, it *also* does double damage against undead and negative energy creatures, which is about equivalent in power to adding a "bane" effect for both of those creature types (which would be +2 attack and +2d6 damage)


Rudy2 wrote:
Seriphim84 wrote:
I did this off the cuff and was totally surprised when I nailed the number. But it all makes sense. I would consider this a +4 weapon for enchanting purposes.
Don't forget, it *also* does double damage against undead and negative energy creatures, which is about equivalent in power to adding a "bane" effect for both of those creature types (which would be +2 attack and +2d6 damage)

Adding those 2 bane types onto my pseudo-sunblade makes it +8. So between the extra damage and size change not functioning exactly the same, and the sunlight power, it sounds like it's +10 enhancement worth already.

Which honestly sounds like more proof you can't change specific weapons.


It's just proof that specific weapons don't necessarily fit neatly into the formulas, and need careful GM judgement to alter.

All this being taken into account, I think I would count it as a +5 in my game if a player wanted to alter it. That's how much it costs in total, and it seems a fair enough approximation of it's actual power.


OK first let me see if I understand what you are planning:

A Sunblade that deals damage as a Bastard Sword But counts as a Longsword for all things including Feats is made of Cold Iron and is going to be upgraded later on.

Is that correct. If so I actually have one completely made for you.


With respect to either way the sunblade may be created, for the purpose of this thread,could the player not just add the cost of cold iron and the difference of a bastard to greatsword and call it even on the creation? Then, when/if he has the chance to upgrade it further, he and the GM work out what they think is fair?


Honestly:

The way I done it is I figured up the cost of the magical Bastard Sword then subtracted that from the Sunblade for the Counts as thing.

Then I made a Cold Iron version of the Bastard Sword and then added the Counts as value. I effectively created an extra Weapon Enchantment that allows a weapon the count as another weapon that is just a flat GP coat like Transformative is.

I also have a Relic that combines the effects of the Sunblade and Holy Avenger.


Azaelas what were the numbers you came up with? The base bonus and cost?

Also, what were the stats on said relic?


I can't access my laptop right now unfortunately it is pretty expensive.

The Relic was a +5 Cold Iron Holy Bastard Sword that counts as a Shortsword or Longsword based on what the wielder prefers. It shines as per the Spell Light and can light even supernatural/magical darkness.

It is named Solar Edge and is technically available only via a quest and bonds magically to one user at a time in its non-intelligent form.

But I usually make it an intelligent weapon.


Alright, so what does everyone think it would cost to combine the Holy Avenger and the Sunblade?

What would it cost to add the Holy Avenger to the Sunblade and vice versa?

Shadow Lodge

Well as none of the abilites overlap except the base +2 and the weapon. I would just ad them together.

120,630
+50,335
-------
170,965
-8,335 (+2 Masterwork Bastard Sword cost)
-------
162,630

Or Arguably multiply the second weapon(cheaper weapon) by %50 for separate abilities. If you do then it would be:

50,335
-8,335 (+2 Masterwork Bastard sword)
------
42,000
*%50
------
63,000
+120,630
-------
183,630

Depending on how your DM would rule it.


Hmm gotta love the Alchemy of Magic Item creation...

(Alchemy is considered in a modern sense to be the fusion of Art and Science)


A sun blade is a +5 weapon based on price.


Ultimate Campaign, page 170 wrote:
Some new items are really existing magic items with a different weapon or armor type, such as a dagger of venom that is a rapier instead of a dagger or a lion’s shield that’s a wooden shield instead of a metal shield. For these items, just replace the price of the nonmagical masterwork item with the cost of the new type of item. For example, a rapier of venom has a price of 8,320 gp instead of the dagger of venom’s price of 8,302 gp.

In other words, yes you can have a Sunblade be a greatsword, or Celestial Armor made of mithral full plate, you must simply replace the costs of the mundane items.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Ultimate Campaign, page 170 wrote:
Some new items are really existing magic items with a different weapon or armor type, such as a dagger of venom that is a rapier instead of a dagger or a lion’s shield that’s a wooden shield instead of a metal shield. For these items, just replace the price of the nonmagical masterwork item with the cost of the new type of item. For example, a rapier of venom has a price of 8,320 gp instead of the dagger of venom’s price of 8,302 gp.
In other words, yes you can have a Sunblade be a greatsword, or Celestial Armor made of mithral full plate, you must simply replace the costs of the mundane items.

I have always felt this was the RAI to magic items but it is great to see it in writing! Thank you for the reference.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Crafting a Sun Blade All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.