First off, I'm sure it exists, but I cannot find the section in the core rulebook that says a double weapon requires each end to be enchanted separately. If I could get a link or page number, that'd be great.
Second, does this rule (assuming it exists in PF) apply to quarterstaves? I've notices whenever a staff in the magic item section of the book has a weapon enchantment, it's always listed as a +1 or +2 quarterstaff, but never as +1/+1. Since a quarterstaff is unique among double weapons considering it is a single unified solid, I was wondering if you're required to enchant both ends separately.
Under "Creating Magic Weapons:"
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.
It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.
Under "Creating Magic Weapons:"
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.
So that means a staff listed at +2 should be considered +2/+2 correct?
I like that handling of the rules better than 3.5's. I found it odd that a double weapon could be partially or unevenly enchanted with +1/mundane or +2/+1.
So that means a staff listed at +2 should be considered +2/+2 correct?
That is the way I read it.
|
Under "Creating Magic Weapons:"
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.So that means a staff listed at +2 should be considered +2/+2 correct?
I like that handling of the rules better than 3.5's. I found it odd that a double weapon could be partially or unevenly enchanted with +1/mundane or +2/+1.
Where is it listed?
To be honest I like that you could enhance a quarterstaff with +1/ flaming on one side and +1 frost on the other.
I think I am going to disagree.
You can enchant the heads separately. If the staff says "+2 quarterstaff" then one head is +2 and the other head is masterwork.
The reasoning is that, if you look through the magical items specifically you see that double weapons are listed as +1/+1 or such. if both sides were identical it would just read +1. (specifically the Shifter's Sorrow, as an example).
It seems thin I know, but such a drastic rules change would, to my mind, need to be spelled out. This would be a pretty big change over the previous rules.
Just my opinion though.
-S
|
|
I think I am going to disagree.
You can enchant the heads separately. If the staff says "+2 quarterstaff" then one head is +2 and the other head is masterwork.
The reasoning is that, if you look through the magical items specifically you see that double weapons are listed as +1/+1 or such. if both sides were identical it would just read +1. (specifically the Shifter's Sorrow, as an example).
It seems thin I know, but such a drastic rules change would, to my mind, need to be spelled out. This would be a pretty big change over the previous rules.
Just my opinion though.
That's why I was curious to see where it was listed. I'm guessing maybe under staves?
I couldn't find any specific listing for the rule aside from the one quoted above saying that a double weapon was enchanted as two weapons separately.
The specific item I mentioned was just in the "specific weapon" section.
(think it was a two bladed sword though I may have called it a staff in my previous post.. if so, my apologies).
-S
|
|
I couldn't find any specific listing for the rule aside from the one quoted above saying that a double weapon was enchanted as two weapons separately.
The specific item I mentioned was just in the "specific weapon" section.
(think it was a two bladed sword though I may have called it a staff in my previous post.. if so, my apologies).
I guess pricing is your best guide then.
I think I am going to disagree.
You can enchant the heads separately. If the staff says "+2 quarterstaff" then one head is +2 and the other head is masterwork.
The reasoning is that, if you look through the magical items specifically you see that double weapons are listed as +1/+1 or such. if both sides were identical it would just read +1. (specifically the Shifter's Sorrow, as an example).
It seems thin I know, but such a drastic rules change would, to my mind, need to be spelled out. This would be a pretty big change over the previous rules.
Just my opinion though.
-S
But the quarterstaff has no "heads" that would be like enchanting both edges of a greatsword separately. It seems strange for a single straightened piece of wood to be able to (required to) hold 2 separate enchantment bonuses when the only other things that can involve separation in the middle.
i was always under the impression and,i think this is correct,if the pathfinder rules do not explicitly overrule a 3.5 ruling than the 3.5 ruling is still valid. since there is no pathfinder ruling on enchanting double weapons it's safe to assume (at least until errata is published)that double weapons can have each end enchanted separately. in all fairness since double weapons are treated as fighting with two weapons why should you be able to enchant two weapons separately but not an exotic "most are" double weapon.
however on the magic staff thing magic staves are NOT quarter staffs. they are similar but only have ONE head and thus not a double weapon. I know some will disagree but it even says so under "magic staves".
"A typical staff is like a walking stick, quarterstaff,
or cudgel. It has AC 7, 10 hit points, hardness 5, and a break
DC of 24."
it is LIKE a quarterstaff it is NOT a quarter staff. if it was a quarter staff that text would have been omitted.
now you could make a magical quarter staff with all the properties of a magic staff but it's cost would be higher as it would be a double weapon. You might even be able to argue you could enchant each end of a magic quarter staff into two separate magic staves but the price would be insane.
i was always under the impression and,i think this is correct,if the pathfinder rules do not explicitly overrule a 3.5 ruling than the 3.5 ruling is still valid. since there is no pathfinder ruling on enchanting double weapons it's safe to assume (at least until errata is published)that double weapons can have each end enchanted separately. in all fairness since double weapons are treated as fighting with two weapons why should you be able to enchant two weapons separately but not an exotic "most are" double weapon.
however on the magic staff thing magic staves are NOT quarter staffs. they are similar but only have ONE head and thus not a double weapon. I know some will disagree but it even says so under "magic staves".
"A typical staff is like a walking stick, quarterstaff,
or cudgel. It has AC 7, 10 hit points, hardness 5, and a break
DC of 24."it is LIKE a quarterstaff it is NOT a quarter staff. if it was a quarter staff that text would have been omitted.
now you could make a magical quarter staff with all the properties of a magic staff but it's cost would be higher as it would be a double weapon. You might even be able to argue you could enchant each end of a magic quarter staff into two separate magic staves but the price would be insane.
"The wielder of a staff of power gains a +2 luck bonus to AC and on saving throws. The staff is also a +2 quarterstaff, and its wielder may use it to smite opponents. If 1 charge is expended (as a free action), the staff causes double damage (×3 on a critical hit) for 1 round."
Emphasis mine. It is a quarterstaff. It says nothing about being LIKE one.
Under "Creating Magic Weapons:"
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.
I don't see anything in that quote that would indicate they must be identical. "Treated as creating two weapons" would mean to me that you can have one be masterwork, and one be +5, Holy, Disrupting, Undead-bane.
I don't see anything in that quote that would indicate they must be identical.Under "Creating Magic Weapons:"
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.
That is because you didn't give me a chance to correct myself.
I just logged in to post that I mistakenly remembered earlier edition(s) having it written as "must be enchanted separately," which would have meant that Pathfinder wanted it to be looked at differently.
Both versions of 3rd have it the exact same way. So my earlier ruling is wrong.
Surely, RAW, one could be +5, Holy, Disrupting and teh other could be a stick. It doesn't even have to be masterwork as you have to pay the mastercrafted cost twice anyway.It looks like you are required to keep both ends identical when enchanting double weapons in Pathfinder.I don't see anything in that quote that would indicate they must be identical. "Treated as creating two weapons" would mean to me that you can have one be masterwork, and one be +5, Holy, Disrupting, Undead-bane.
True, wouldn't have to be masterwork. And if a DM prefers one-ended magic staves, easy enough to say "sorry - you can't enchant it, it's not masterwork". Rare situation though.
Disenchanter - gotcha! Easy to misinterpret when you're looking for (think there is) a change.
|
|
In general with staves I would suggest that unless it lists it specifically as +2/+2 that only one end is enchanted. That said...
As far as I'm concerned if you buy a staff of power you can have the second +2 head for free.
I suspect the omission is simply because very few people who own staves of power will be interested in investing in the two weapon fighting feats.