From a game perspective, it's one weapon, so no.
From a simulationist perspective, I can come up with several excuses why it doesn't work, but the better one being that the head of an axe has to be forged in one piece. If you try to use two different metals, without alloying them, then you have a weak point where the two halves come together. Such a weapon would be likely to break, and could not be masterwork, and therefore not magic.
Also, when fighting with a two-faced axe like that, I'd imagine using the backswing would be a large part of the technique. It would be more difficult to segregate 'with side points toward enemy' than you think.
You Will need your GMs approval but if you get that then you are fine. As it is, in the book, this thing is not really made as a handy exeption therefore the GM approval need.
Beyond that, once you can afford a +3 version it will overcome both cold iron and silver.
I was hoping to see a thread about swords which bend when hot/cold...
|
The rules are really silent on how to make any weapon out of multiple materials. There is no way to price out, say, a darkwood spear with a mithral head.
I've worked out calculations with my players before, but if you're looking for something that's covered by published rules, I am not aware of any.
The rules are really silent on how to make any weapon out of multiple materials. There is no way to price out, say, a darkwood spear with a mithral head.
I've worked out calculations with my players before, but if you're looking for something that's covered by published rules, I am not aware of any.
It's honestly more of a mathematical question. Assuming the item in question is comprised of multiple materials, each with an equal percentage of application, you take the cost of X for each material, and then divide it by the number of different materials in use; once you get the total for each material cost, you add them up, throw in Masterwork and base costs (if the material you're using already covers Masterwork costs, you can skip that), and voila, you have your total.
That being said, the book says when an item is made of more than one (special) material, only the one with the largest composition percentage takes effect, the other doing nothing except looking pretty. I believe the book also says such fashion choices don't really cost anything unless it uses something of extreme value, but don't quote me on that one.
In other words, even if you used multiple materials, the book doesn't really care that you do; if you did, more power to you is how the book reads.
Kind of a bummer this doesn't actually work by the rules...
I'd have very much liked a blade like Backbiter from Percy Jackson. Viridium/Adamantine or some such.
This is also the same game system that requires you to melt 600 gold coins in a cooking pot, pour the Viserys Bane Soup on a 6' long piece of wood that you found in the forest, and then enchant both ends of that piece of wood with 4k worth of "enchantment dust" to get a +1 quarterstaff.
In the meantime the guy who found another, identical 6' piece of wood in that same forest. The second guy only had to melt 300 gold coins into a cooking pot, pour it on the stick, and then only had to spend 2k of enchantment dust because he said "hey look, I'm making a large size +1 club!"
Then the first guy flips out because he didn't even want to use the quarterstaff as a doubleweapon, but the magic simply would not work if he only enchanted one end of his 6' stick. And the second guy just laughs and laughs.
I love pathfinder but some of the rules make zero sense. If you want to do something cool or unique, just ask your DM and stress that you're willing to pay whatever he thinks it would take.
It's perfectly legal to enchant only one end of a double weapon, actually. The process you describe creates a +1/+1 quarterstaff.
Spending a mere 2K gp produces a quarterstaff with one magical end, perfect for someone who is never going to use it as a double weapon. (If someone did try to use it as a double weapon, they'd find one end to be +1 and the other end to be masterwork.)
It's perfectly legal to enchant only one end of a double weapon, actually.
Correct. One end could have a total of +10 in enhancements, while the other end is still a normal (well, masterwork) weapon.
"Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, and special abilities."
"A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. You can't add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill). The masterwork quality adds 300 gp to the cost of a normal weapon (or 6 gp to the cost of a single unit of ammunition). Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal increase (+600 gp)."
"You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
You're allowed to choose to only use one end of a doubleweapon, but for purposes of making it masterwork and then enchanting it, you have spend double what it would cost to do the same to a non-doubleweapon. I agree that you SHOULD be able to enchant each end separately, but RAW doesn't allow it.
I'm actually pointing to it as a super stupid rule, and an example as to why some things should be hand-waved by the DM (like if the OP wants to pay extra for a super cool mithral/adamantine 2-headed greataxe, then he should be allowed to. I hear there's even magic in Golarion, maybe 2 metals could magically alloy in the process of creating and magicking said greataxe).
You're misreading it. It means to treat them as two separate weapons, not that they have to be identical.
"Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, and special abilities."
Its treated as two weapons for enchanting, not one weapon with double the cost. Just like you aren't forced to enchant two longswords the same, you aren't forced to enchant both ends of a two-bladed sword (or other double weapon) the same.
There is even support for that. The Staff of Dark Flame, and Spellbreaker.
Its also why most magic double weapons are listed as +x/+x (+3/+3 quarterstaff), instead of just +X. Each end has its own enchantments.
I'd allow it. Reminds me a lot of...
I'd have very much liked a blade like Backbiter from Percy Jackson. Viridium/Adamantine or some such.
^That, actually.