| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This has probably been asked before, but I was wondering what the general consensus was.
The Spear Dancing Style feat allows a spear to become a double weapon. It that weapon was +1 Flaming, does the other end need to be enchanted separately? I would assume so, just wondering.
Normally, a double weapon requires either end to be enchanted separately. Spear Dancing Style simply grants double-weapon status, it says nothing about duplicating any existing enchantment. I would agree with you that both ends need to be enchanted separately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have a +1 flaming spear HEAD on a stick. When you hit the guy with the stick, it's still just a stick.
Closest example I can think of is Spinning Lance from the Dragoon archetype, which allows you to pommel with a spear as a light club, and doesn't require double enchantments, and o prefer it that way for simplicity's sake. Though it isn't a double weapon, most, if not all, polearms or spears are double weapons.
It does open up some interesting questions and scenarios though. Can you even enchant the handle separately legally? Let's say you're using a Nodachi... well that isn't a double weapon. You can't enchant it as such either. It's never a double weapon unless you use the style either. Do you have to wait 4 feats to enchant it as a double weapon? Say you do enchant the hilt, when does it count as active? Only when in the style? Cause that's weird for the enchantment to just disappear. Can I give my hilt allying or blocking or another supportive enchantment while weilding my Nodachi normally? To avoid this, would the hilts enchantment be disallowed? Cause that just sucks.
I'm sure there's more questions I haven't thought of, but really, it's a 4 feat investment to TWF with a polearm or spear, and while an eventually finessable Nodachi you can get Perfect Strike for seems strong enough to justify double enchanting, that's a 5 feat investment minimum. May as well just keep it simple and easy. In my opinion, of course.
While it would suck that the weapon enchantments "disappear" when they're not being used, that's the same as if you had an enchanted longsword, and an enchanted short sword. When you're not using the short sword....yeah.
Couldn't find a "Blocking" enchantment, but if you wanted Allying, couldn't you just enchant a gauntlet? I think I remember something about having a Dueling gauntlet, don't remember if it's legal.
But I think the feat tax of it all shouldn't justify overriding RAI.
To me, it does seem RAI that they should be enchanted separately.
The Dragoon archetype feels like an exception. Though I could see a case there. And in the end, I don't see it mattering a whole lot. A single Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat lets you enchant both sides for the cost of one. Or Master Craftsman, if you're not a caster.
(also, Nodachi isn't a spear or polearm, so it wouldn't qualify, but still)
I mean, I wouldn't feel bad at all if a liberal GM let me have them both enchanted, I would take advantage of the opportunity.
But...what about Spell Storing? One Spell, can be used through either end? Seems more problematic, letting them be enchanted together.
Mechanical Pear: Nodachi is listed under the polearm weapon group.
While it would suck that the weapon enchantments "disappear" when they're not being used, that's the same as if you had an enchanted longsword, and an enchanted short sword. When you're not using the short sword....yeah.
I wouldn't say that's the same. See, you definitely have two different swords in your example, but in Spear Dancing, you're using one weapon that is treated as one weapon by pretty much all known rules, including enchantment.
Couldn't find a "Blocking" enchantment, but if you wanted Allying, couldn't you just enchant a gauntlet? I think I remember something about having a Dueling gauntlet, don't remember if it's legal.
Sorry. I meant Defending. As in, if you are charging, could you whack them with the blade and defend with the hilt (Read: club).
But I think the feat tax of it all shouldn't justify overriding RAI.
To me, it does seem RAI that they should be enchanted separately.
I am genuinely curious what makes you feel that way. Not being snarky, I would just like your opinion, given the situation the enchantment bonus is in is a severe corner-case and the only similar case is the Dragoon (Polearm Master can also strike with the haft, but doesn't remark on the enchantment).
The Dragoon archetype feels like an exception. Though I could see a case there.
Fair enough. I mainly cite Dragoon since it's the only thing close to a ruling, and to be fair, it wouldn't be surprising if Spear Dancing fell under its exception.
And in the end, I don't see it mattering a whole lot. A single Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat lets you enchant both sides for the cost of one. Or Master Craftsman, if you're not a caster.
I've heard... a lot of bad things about the Master Craftsman feat. Besides, at that point, i'd just shill the money rather than burn two feats to save some.
(also, Nodachi isn't a spear or polearm, so it wouldn't qualify, but still)
Ninja'd, but it is, and Nodachi + Perfect Strike + Improved Crit is not too shabby.
I mean, I wouldn't feel bad at all if a liberal GM let me have them both enchanted, I would take advantage of the opportunity.
Agreed.
But...what about Spell Storing? One Spell, can be used through either end? Seems more problematic, letting them be enchanted together.
I suppose. No matter your interpretation of what to do with the weapon, it's gonna get, well, let's say clunky. I just think there's less clunk with doing them together.
You have a +1 flaming spear HEAD on a stick. When you hit the guy with the stick, it's still just a stick.
Not going to talk RAW (others will get themselves hoarse talking about RAW, no worries), but replying to the 'realism' there- the magic also affects the stick.
Cause if someone decides to try to chop my spear, they are probably chopping the stick. And enhancement bonuses apply to hardness, which works against sunder attempts. So whatever the magic does, it applies to the whole thing, to some extent.
Whether that applies to attacks is an entirely different matter, of course.
Strictly rules-wise, there's no way to enhance the "back end" of a non-double weapon.
You have a +1 flaming spear HEAD on a stick. When you hit the guy with the stick, it's still just a stick.Not going to talk RAW (others will get themselves hoarse talking about RAW, no worries), but replying to the 'realism' there- the magic also affects the stick.
Cause if someone decides to try to chop my spear, they are probably chopping the stick. And enhancement bonuses apply to hardness, which works against sunder attempts. So whatever the magic does, it applies to the whole thing, to some extent.
Whether that applies to attacks is an entirely different matter, of course.
Except, when you want to use a spear like a double-weapon, then you use the double-weapon rules. Which means each end needs its own enchantment. Enchanting the pointy spear end does not let you apply that enchantment to the bashy stick end.
You raise an interesting question about sundering a double weapon in the middle - I guess I would use the end with the highest enhancement bonus for the hardness/HP modifiers, but I really don't know if there is any RAW or FAQ answer for this.
You have a +1 flaming spear HEAD on a stick. When you hit the guy with the stick, it's still just a stick.Not going to talk RAW (others will get themselves hoarse talking about RAW, no worries), but replying to the 'realism' there- the magic also affects the stick.
Cause if someone decides to try to chop my spear, they are probably chopping the stick. And enhancement bonuses apply to hardness, which works against sunder attempts. So whatever the magic does, it applies to the whole thing, to some extent.
Whether that applies to attacks is an entirely different matter, of course.
Except, when you want to use a spear like a double-weapon, then you use the double-weapon rules. Which means each end needs its own enchantment. Enchanting the pointy spear end does not let you apply that enchantment to the bashy stick end.
You raise an interesting question about sundering a double weapon in the middle - I guess I would use the end with the highest enhancement bonus for the hardness/HP modifiers, but I really don't know if there is any RAW or FAQ answer for this.
Now we are going to have to ask ourselves- did your mastery of the spear actually weaken the spear's magical power against sundering?
Overall, this whole thing is fairly weird. The whole discussion, and the feats that brought us here.
Nodachi is listed under the polearm weapon group.
Ah, I see. Alt + F, "Nodachi" pulled up Heavy Blades. I didn't click next, forgetting that a weapon can be in multiple groups. That is a nice blade.
While it would suck that the weapon enchantments "disappear" when they're not being used, that's the same as if you had an enchanted longsword, and an enchanted short sword. When you're not using the short sword....yeah.I wouldn't say that's the same. See, you definitely have two different swords in your example, but in Spear Dancing, you're using one weapon that is treated as one weapon by pretty much all known rules, including enchantment.
All known rules? All of the stats are treated differently, and you're told to treat it as a double weapon.
I am genuinely curious what makes you feel that way. Not being snarky, I would just like your opinion, given the situation the enchantment bonus is in is a severe corner-case and the only similar case is the Dragoon (Polearm Master can also strike with the haft, but doesn't remark on the enchantment).
Because double weapons have both ends enchanted separately, and you're told to treat it as a double weapon.
The Dragoon archetype feels like an exception. Though I could see a case there.Fair enough. I mainly cite Dragoon since it's the only thing close to a ruling, and to be fair, it wouldn't be surprising if Spear Dancing fell under its exception.
Right, having a weapon now act like a double weapon only has that one precedent, the dragoon. However, it my mind, that was a slightly strange ruling anyway, and just felt like an exception. Don't know why.
And in the end, I don't see it mattering a whole lot. A single Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat lets you enchant both sides for the cost of one. Or Master Craftsman, if you're not a caster.I've heard... a lot of bad things about the Master Craftsman feat. Besides, at that point, i'd just shill the money rather than burn two feats to save some.
Oh, for some reason I was thinking Master Craftsman counted AS Craft Arms/armor. Didn't read it through, and wasn't thinking.
You raise an interesting question about sundering a double weapon in the middle - I guess I would use the end with the highest enhancement bonus for the hardness/HP modifiers, but I really don't know if there is any RAW or FAQ answer for this.
GMing, I'd think using the highest enhancement bonus would be reasonable, but I'm not sure if there is anything official on it.
All known rules? All of the stats are treated differently, and you're told to treat it as a double weapon.
You treat it as a double weapon when in the style (As in, only applicable in combat), it doesn't become a double weapon, meaning, if you have to double enchant, there's now a precedent for being able to enchant the hilt/pommel/haft of weapons that aren't double weapons. (Edit:Removes non-issue point)
What I meant by in all the known rules is that there is not a rule for enchanting several parts if a single weapon (That is normally treated as just a regular, single weapon).
To further delve into this, if you have to double enchant because of the style granting the double property, would the Agile enchantment be allowed on your chosen weapon? You can finesse your super Nodachi with Spear Dancing Spiral , but the weapon as normal is not allowed the enchantment since it isn't normally finessable.
You treat it as a double weapon when in the style (As in, only applicable in combat), it doesn't become a double weapon, meaning, if you have to double enchant, there's now a precedent for being able to enchant the hilt/pommel/haft of weapons that aren't double weapons. (Edit:Removes non-issue point)
I don't believe you CAN enchant the hilt/pommel/haft because, as you say, it's only a double when you're using it in that style. I also don't believe the hilt/pommel/haft has the same enchantment as the regular business end of the weapon has when you're using it in that style, because it never says that you do. Yes, it's something of a catch-22.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if understand the arguments raised so far, there's three possible ways to run it:
1: When using Spear Dancing Style, enchantments on the weapon apply to all attacks.
2: When using Spear Dancing Style, enchantments on the weapon only apply to attacks with the primary part of the weapon. The hilt/pommel/haft must be enchanted separately.
3: When using Spear Dancing Style, enchantments on the weapon only apply to attacks with the primary part of the weapon. Because it is not a true double weapon, but only used as one with the style, the hilt/pommel/haft cannot be enchanted and only ever strikes as a basic nonmagical weapon.
As far as my personal interpretation goes, I lean a bit more towards 1 or 3 as far as RAW goes. There aren't any rules for enchanting the hilt/pommel/haft of a weapon separately from the rest of the weapon. The Dragoon gives a precedent for enchantments applying, but it's not clear if that's meant to be the norm, or just an exception that proves the rule.
If I were running things, I'd probably go with 1 over 3. Mostly because 3 is the most disadvantageous for the wielder way to interpret the rules, and I'd hate to leave a player who spent three feats on doing something in a bad position. However, I would probably rule that any enchantments on the primary part of the weapon that couldn't normally apply to a the pommel/hilt/haft strike (such as keen) would not apply.
Just remember, when you go with 1 over 3, it gives a pretty big advantage over everybody who uses two weapons (they have to enchant both of their weapons) or anybody who uses double weapons (they have to enchant both ends). Are you sure you want this one feat to give that much advantage over all those other styles of fighting?
To be fair, they've got to be using TWF with a non-reach polearm and a light mace to "cash in".
Just remember, when you go with 1 over 3, it gives a pretty big advantage over everybody who uses two weapons (they have to enchant both of their weapons) or anybody who uses double weapons (they have to enchant both ends). Are you sure you want this one feat to give that much advantage over all those other styles of fighting?
Well it is a pretty big feat investment. You need 6 feats to complete the style tree, or 4 to make use of the first style feat, and a few more to utilize it fully, and this is already on top of iterative TWF and all the associated feats.
Yeah, ruling 1 is greatly cost effective and pretty strong, but shouldn't (style) feats that require this level of commitment be, well, good?
Besides, ruling 3 is such an awful gimping for the PC that there's hardly even a benefit to the style if the off hand weapon is stuck with no enchantments what so ever.
Just remember, when you go with 1 over 3, it gives a pretty big advantage over everybody who uses two weapons (they have to enchant both of their weapons) or anybody who uses double weapons (they have to enchant both ends). Are you sure you want this one feat to give that much advantage over all those other styles of fighting?Well it is a pretty big feat investment. You need 6 feats to complete the style tree, or 4 to make use of the first style feat, and a few more to utilize it fully, and this is already on top of iterative TWF and all the associated feats.
Yeah, ruling 1 is greatly cost effective and pretty strong, but shouldn't (style) feats that require this level of commitment be, well, good?
Besides, ruling 3 is such an awful gimping for the PC that there's hardly even a benefit to the style if the off hand weapon is stuck with no enchantments what so ever.
Pretty much why I prefer ruling 1. 3 just makes it too painful to really be worth the feat cost.
As far as balance goes, Spear Dancer Style isn't the only way to TWF without paying full price for two weapons. A sohei monk gets to TWF with polearms too, except he doesn't need to spend any feats on TWF or Spear Dancer Style, gets to keep reach, and gets to use the polearm's weapon profile on all attacks instead of making half the strikes at an inferior statline.
So if understand the arguments raised so far, there's three possible ways to run it:
1: When using Spear Dancing Style, enchantments on the weapon apply to all attacks.
2: When using Spear Dancing Style, enchantments on the weapon only apply to attacks with the primary part of the weapon. The hilt/pommel/haft must be enchanted separately.
3: When using Spear Dancing Style, enchantments on the weapon only apply to attacks with the primary part of the weapon. Because it is not a true double weapon, but only used as one with the style, the hilt/pommel/haft cannot be enchanted and only ever strikes as a basic nonmagical weapon.
As far as my personal interpretation goes, I lean a bit more towards 1 or 3 as far as RAW goes. There aren't any rules for enchanting the hilt/pommel/haft of a weapon separately from the rest of the weapon. The Dragoon gives a precedent for enchantments applying, but it's not clear if that's meant to be the norm, or just an exception that proves the rule.
If I were running things, I'd probably go with 1 over 3. Mostly because 3 is the most disadvantageous for the wielder way to interpret the rules, and I'd hate to leave a player who spent three feats on doing something in a bad position. However, I would probably rule that any enchantments on the primary part of the weapon that couldn't normally apply to a the pommel/hilt/haft strike (such as keen) would not apply.
1. Is not true.
Whether 2. or 3. is true depending upon your GM's stance about "sometimes weapons." Yes, the club end is a club when you're using it with the feat. But arguably, it wouldn't be when its being enchanted. Its the same gray area that improvised weapons lurk in when it comes to enhancements.
Personally, I would probably run it as 2., but 3. is undoubtably the PFS ruling.
I guess my question on this is what part of a weapon becomes enchanted? By enchanting a spear as a single weapon, where does the enchantment "stick"? Reading different enchantments, flaming in this case, the enchantment reads as sheathing the weapon in fire. Sounds like it surrounds the full weapon. Double weapons all have two heads always. Following the enchantment rules for a double weapon both heads are enchanted, however a spear isnt a double weapon. It only counts as one to a person with the spear dancing style feat chain.
Rule it as a spear and be done with it. Spears are sheathed in fire, fire is all over it, not just the head, not just the haft, the whole spear. Saying it cant be magic all over because suddenly this guy with the feats picked it up and can now just snap it over his knee is crazy. The "haft isn't magic, hes got that feat" is crazy.
No where in the rules does it say the "primary end is where its enchanted" it specifically states the weapon "is sheathed in fire"
Another view on it would be the panache feat, Pommel Strike Deed.
This feat calls out that the pommel of said weapon and apply all bonuses as normal, including feats, and effects. Flaming would be an effect an enchanted weapon, spear in this case, would have. That feat would show precedence. That is a feat that turns a weapon into two weapons.
|
The Spear Dancing Style feat reads:
Choose one weapon from the polearm or spear fighter weapon groups. While using this style, you grant the chosen weapon the double special weapon feature, using the weapon's normal statistics for its main-hand end and the statistics of a light mace for its off-hand end.
And the rules say that enchantements for double weapons apply to each end individually. If you want the haft end to be magical, you have to enchant the haft end.
Using the Pommel Strike Deed as an example of why Spear Dancing Style should work a certain way doesn't have any bearing. For it to provide any support, one would need to reference the other.
Using the opposite end of a weapon to deal damage not normally allowed seems like perfect reference to me, guess Im wrong
Bump. Has there ever been an official answer to this? I'm looking at this tree for a potential future character. And since he wouldn't be able to complete this set of feats till midway through the campaign, where DR5/magic or the like isn't too uncommon ruling 3 would make it largely detrimental to even take the TWF penalties.
I agree with Rylden.
The way it's stated would require you to look for presidence. The pummel strike dead sets that presidence. I believe it's stated the way it is to allow the use of the two-weapon fighting feats.
It's stated that you use the statistics for a light mace for dmg, crit range, and crit multiplier. If you look at pummel strike it gives it the same stats only in long hand and with two exceptions: it can't be used in conjunction with two-weapon feats, and it can't benefit from effects like improved crit or keen.
However, it still benefits from the weapon group and pretty much any other effect. So things like impact, flaming, holy, ect. Should all still apply.
The two-bladed sword only needs 4 feats to complete the tree while you need 5 just to complete the spear dancing tree and 7 to get the same number of attacks.
Note: both ends of a two-bladed sword can have impact since the off-hand side is considered light for two-weapon feats only.
More often than getting super-secret clarifications, Lone Wolf also sometimes gets things wrong when there is no official clarification, just like the rest of us do.
Just remember, when you go with 1 over 3, it gives a pretty big advantage over everybody who uses two weapons (they have to enchant both of their weapons) or anybody who uses double weapons (they have to enchant both ends). Are you sure you want this one feat to give that much advantage over all those other styles of fighting?
The Phantom Blade is not restricted in weapon selection. Double weapons are permitted and, lacking rules that state otherwise, their entire weapon bears the level-based enhancement bonuses and properties.
|
My argument regarding this would be, enchantment also adds hardness and hit points to a weapon. If enchantment only applied to the head, then you would be able to sunder a magical spear like a normal spear by chopping at the haft. Which isn't the case.
So enchantment must apply to the whole weapon.
Richard