It says that you must have both ends of the weapon be masterwork in order to apply a magic enhancement to both sides. You must pay for the magic enchancement bonus separately for both sides. I've always interpreted this as meaning only the enhancement bonuses, and not also the special weapon qualities. Case in point,
MW/ MW Quarterstaff: Cost 600 gp
+1/ MW Quarterstaff: Cost 2,600 gp
+1 flaming/ MW Quarterstaff: Cost 8,600 gp (special caveat: the flaming quality is also already paid for on the MW end, it just won't function until a +1 bonus is added (and you do have to pay for that separately))
+1 flaming/ +1 flaming Quarterstaff: Cost 10,600 gp
Of course, you don't pay as much as someone who had to pay for his two separate weapons to be enhanced, but I don't recall any double weapons that allow you to treat both ends as light weapons, or both ends as one-handed weapons (allowing you to either Weapon Finesse with both or Power Attack with both), so on the surface it seems to balance out. Furthermore, I'd never advocate paying for entirely separate special weapon qualities that add up to +5 and let them apply to both ends (i.e., a double-bladed sword with one end Vorpal and the other has all the elemental damages on it, but both ends get both Vorpal and all the elemental damage); I wouldn't go for that.
Well, regardless, that's something that might need to be clarified.
I've always seen it where you pay for both sides completely separately.
You can have a +1 flaming/+1 speed Q-staff. You pay for them separately.
If you want both to be flaming, you pay for it twice.
The only "bonus" you get from wielding a double weapon is that you can, at any time, choose to *only wield once side* and you can do so 2-handed.
(to let you take no 2-weapon penalty, and get the extra str for the hit).
For enchanting purposes though they are two separate weapons that happen to be connected in the middle.
-S
|
I've never really gotten into that "pay for each side separate thing." In my campaigns, a +1 quarterstaff is an enchanted quarterstaff on both ends. Granted, I'm not saying that you couldn't have a +1 Flaming / +1 Cold Quarterstaff, but a +1 Flaming Quarterstaff would also take care of both ends in my game.
Almost all double weapons are practically two one-handed weapons stuck together. But if you fight with them, they count as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, reducing penalties by -2. Not enchanting both ends seperately would make double weapons way better then any other weapons if you can use them. A Longsword +3 and a Short Sword +3 would cost 36,000 gp. If you have a double-sword for 18,000 gp, that would be totaly underpriced.
A Longsword +3 and a Short Sword +3 would cost 36,000 gp. If you have a double-sword for 18,000 gp, that would be totaly underpriced.
Like the +3 greatsword, for example, which also gives you double bang for the buck using Power Attack, has no minimum Dex, and burns fewer feats? The rules, unfortunately, mechanically pigeonhole weapon usage based on end result, and make it exceptionally difficult and/or costly to break this model:
1. If you want to deal damage and have a high BAB: 2-handed weapon.
2. If you want to deal damage using sneak attack: 2 weapons.
3. If you'd rather have a high AC: weapon and shield.
Double weapons are for the people who really can't do any of the above; I could easily see giving them cheaper weapons as a condolance prize. I would rather see a system wherein a barbarian could take something other than a 2-handed weapon and still not totally suck, but such a system doesn't exist at present.
My most recent character is a cleric with Strength 9, Intelligence 16, a quarterstaff and leather armor, and it does not completely suck.
Sure, it's no way as powerful at dealing damage as it could be, but that does not mean it's completely useless. And if you want to play a barbarian who deals out massive damage with his weapon, two-handed and power attack it is then of course. But it's by far not the only way to play a barbarian.
When you optimize characters for one specific thing, it's no surprise there is only one way to push it to the maximum, or more precisely, the optimum. That's the meaning of the word "optimization": Finding the single one best way to do it, with no more means to make it even better.
I don't think that's too much of a problem really. If you play for the fighting with powerful builds, then there will always be only one best way to do that. And if you design your builds around a possibly sub-optimal character concept, it's not so important to have maximum efficiency.
That's true Neithan; except when one character builds a "sub optimal character", and the next guy builds a Str/Con buffing great axe wielding barbarian.
I can't speak for you specifically- but for alot of people, that would tend to breed dissatisfaction in their character, to be constantly outdone.
(your character is a cleric however, so that won't be entirely true in this case.. )
-S
What Selgard said. If the gulf between "optimized" and "everything else" becomes so pronounced as to be uncrossable, the "optimal" ceases to be an option and becomes more or less a requirement. And that just sucks.
Imagine, for RP purposes, you make a barbarian who takes TWF and uses a hand axe and a dagger, "Indian Style." Your buddy makes a character with the same stats, but puts his 15 in Con instead of Dex and gives his character a greataxe and Power Attack. Guess what? If you stage mock duels using 3.5 rules, he'll kill you 99 out of 100 times -- and that's absurd, or should be.
The best thing Paizo did is remove a lot of the choice from Power Attack, making it a lot riskier for high-STR characters.