|
Many of my characters use longspears but like all hafted weapons, their composite construction plays havoc with the special materials rules.
Darkwood is great for hafts but it costs 10 gp/lb above masterwork price.
Mithril costs 500 gp/lb for weapons.
A longspear weighs 9 lbs and is 8 feet long
It seems ridiculous to use the whole weight for calculating special material costs, but there is no indication of how the weight is distributed between the metal and wood components.
A 10 foot pole weighs 8 lbs and is 10 feet long
A dagger is 1 lbs and has a blade 1 foot long (so about 17" total)
A short sword weighs 2 lbs and is about 2 feet long
Houserules can be made based on comparisons, but is there anything concrete as I'm wondering for society play.
|
|
Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a
mithral weapon, while a quarterstaff cannot.)
I read that as the weight is not meaningfully affected as only the head is metal, but it still counts as silver for overcoming damage reduction as the metal bit does the damage.
Even if you did make a spear out of both mithral and darkwood, you wouldn't get the benefits of both. You would only gain the benefits of a darkwood item.
Weapons and armor can be crafted using materials that possess innate special properties. If you make a suit of armor or weapon out of more than one special material, you get the benefit of only the most prevalent material. However, you can build a double weapon with each head made of a different special material.
|
I discovered this rules gap regarding multiple special materials when I tried to craft a bone Klar in Society. The description of a Klar states it's basically a skull with a blade sticking out of it. I wanted the Klar to be bone, and the blade to be Mithral.
But I found out I could only make the entire item out of either bone, or Mithral. No mixing.
Same problem presents itself with a Darkwood/Mithral Longspear. There's no weight breakdown of the head and the shaft, so there's no way to assign an accurate cost for the special materials.
It can get quite frustrating, but is easy to mitigate in a homegame with your GM.
Mithral klars just break immersion for me. Like going to the old west and having American Indians wear plate mail.
Why? A klar already has metal blade, so whoever is making them already knows how to mine and smith iron/steel. The description of mithral says it is worked like steel, so anyone who can make the original blade for the klar can make one from mithral should he have a chunk of it.
|
|
Even if you did make a spear out of both mithral and darkwood, you wouldn't get the benefits of both. You would only gain the benefits of a darkwood item.
Weapons and armor can be crafted using materials that possess innate special properties. If you make a suit of armor or weapon out of more than one special material, you get the benefit of only the most prevalent material. However, you can build a double weapon with each head made of a different special material.
That's an interesting question right there. What is the most prevalent material in a spear? By weight it is the wood, but the whole functionality of a spear revolves around the spearhead, which is metal.
|
|
A quote from my Shoanti Warpriest, who fights with the traditional Thunder and Fang:
"We Shoanti are often looked down upon by those that call themselves more 'civilized'. They hold their noses when we drink our kumis, or they tell us our klars would be better made of metal, but the one thing they would not ask us to change are the promises we keep. When a Shoanti gives his word, people across the seas recognize it for its value. The rare individual who breaks his word is swiftly pounded by a hundred earth breakers to show the world that we as a people uphold our word above all else. When I give you my word, you may trust that it is genuine."
That's an interesting question right there. What is the most prevalent material in a spear? By weight it is the wood, but the whole functionality of a spear revolves around the spearhead, which is metal.Even if you did make a spear out of both mithral and darkwood, you wouldn't get the benefits of both. You would only gain the benefits of a darkwood item.
Weapons and armor can be crafted using materials that possess innate special properties. If you make a suit of armor or weapon out of more than one special material, you get the benefit of only the most prevalent material. However, you can build a double weapon with each head made of a different special material.
The "pole" part which is made of wood would count as most prevelant.
In the additional rules chapter there is a distince difference between hafted weapons and metal hafted weapons for purposes of hit points which is how they are constructed.
The book does not however provide and definite examples, so I say "ask your GM", if he will allow the entire spear to be make of mithral. I would say the spear is mostly made of wood however, since I would allow for arrows to be made of a wood(such as darkwood) instead of mithral.
Both the arrow and spear are just pieces of wood with a sharp end.
That's an interesting question right there. What is the most prevalent material in a spear? By weight it is the wood, but the whole functionality of a spear revolves around the spearhead, which is metal.Even if you did make a spear out of both mithral and darkwood, you wouldn't get the benefits of both. You would only gain the benefits of a darkwood item.
Weapons and armor can be crafted using materials that possess innate special properties. If you make a suit of armor or weapon out of more than one special material, you get the benefit of only the most prevalent material. However, you can build a double weapon with each head made of a different special material.
it means the most prevalent special material. there's also a section on hafted weapons i think, which basically says, use the material the head is made out of.
|
|
While Howie's suggestion would certainly cover the most expensive option available, and thus ensure you're paying for whatever the price could be, it's still not allowed in Society play.
You need something that's in print. No custom items are available. Otherwise you'd have people paying extra for things like Mithral Celestial Armor.
Howie's suggestion is still just a houserule.
|
|
It is in print. The FAQ I provided establishes that multi-material items are allowable; they are cited as an example right in the FAQ. It only really applies to Haft/Head weapons, but there you go. As far as cost, that's printed as well. The cost is 500 per lb for mithril and 10 per lb for darkwood. It's not exactly rocket surgery. Now, for specific magic items, that's a whole different story. Celestial Armor is a specific magic item so "material" is, entirely, a non-issue. But for a standard Longspear, not a specific magic item like a Dragon's Bane (+2 Bane Halberd), you just apply both price adjustments.
"I want to make this Longspear (head) out of Mithral"
[500g/lb * 9lb]
"I also want to make this Longspear (haft) out of Darkwood"
[10g/lb * 9lb]You just apply the separate rules in succession.
Your logic is flawless. Although it does sound like a weaponsmith charges to fashion a mithral longspear and a darkwood longspear, then have their heads swapped, after which he throws the former longspear away.
|
|
Kazaan, I'm not debating that items constructed of multiple special materials exist. We don't even need to look to the FAQ. There are many specific examples in both the CRB and UE.
What I'm pointing out is that there is no method for determining their cost.
Howie's method, and it sounds like yours as well, is your own construction. There is nothing in print to show that's how it's done. And, for Society play, it needs to be in print.
|
|
We're reading the same rules. You're just reading into them more than I am, and coming up with your own conclusion.
I'll repeat it again (because I know you've seen this before), Pathfinder is a permissive game. You need rules that say you can do something, not rules that say you cannot.
Rules for pricing Mithral exist. Rules for pricing Darkwood exist. On this we agree.
Where we diverge is the ability to combine those costs into one item.
I simply don't see support in the rules for that.
Too bad they don't allow pole arms as double-weapons. One side is the blade, the other a quarterstaff (pole). That would allow you to use it intelligently -- at reach using the blade and close up using the pole as a quarterstaff.
That way you could just use double-weapon rules.
We're reading the same rules. You're just reading into them more than I am, and coming up with your own conclusion.
I'll repeat it again (because I know you've seen this before), Pathfinder is a permissive game. You need rules that say you can do something, not rules that say you cannot.
Rules for pricing Mithral exist. Rules for pricing Darkwood exist. On this we agree.
Where we diverge is the ability to combine those costs into one item.
I simply don't see support in the rules for that.
Ok, so the rules say you add your Con modifier to your HP dice roll. The rules for Favored Class Bonus say that, if you choose HP as your bonus, you add +1 to your HP roll for that level. But where is the rule that allows you to combine those two bonuses? And, if there is such a rule, are you claiming that it's only because of that rule that you can add the two together; that if that rule were omitted, you'd have to read the rules as either Con modifier or FCB?
Also, riddle me this: There are rules for pricing darkwood. There rules for making a composite bow. But there are no rules that combine these costs into one item. Does that mean you cannot make a darkwood composite bow?
Well, given that composite bowstaves are made of wood, horn, sinew, laths, and glue, yes, I would say you cannot have a darkwood composite bow, since wood doesn't seem to be the most prevalent material.
|
|
Ok, so the rules say you add your Con modifier to your HP dice roll. The rules for Favored Class Bonus say that, if you choose HP as your bonus, you add +1 to your HP roll for that level. But where is the rule that allows you to combine those two bonuses? And, if there is such a rule, are you claiming that it's only because of that rule that you can add the two together; that if that rule were omitted, you'd have to read the rules as either Con modifier or FCB?I must admit, your comparative analogy escapes me. I don't see the connection. Both bonuses state that they add to your total. In addition, untyped bonuses stack. I fail to see how this relates to items constructed of multiple special materials.
Also, riddle me this: There are rules for pricing darkwood. There rules for making a composite bow. But there are no rules that combine these costs into one item. Does that mean you cannot make a darkwood composite bow?
Again, poor comparison. Are you arguing you couldn't construct a small- or large-sized Darkwood Composite Longbow? Because I assure you, you can.
If you do a quick search, the question regarding pricing of multiple special material items has been around for years, and remains unanswered.
|
|
Ah. I understand why we're looking at this differently.
You're trying to apply the logic of stacking untyped bonuses to the cost of crafting items.
That is a fallacy. The two are nothing similar, and have nothing to do with each other. One is stated in the rules; bonuses without a type always stack. The other is not stated in the rules; it is only being inferred by you.
I would also argue that it isn't common sense. Simply paying double and throwing away half an item. I cannot think of anything in the real world that is handled in that way, and even if there were something like it, it would be extremely wasteful.
Common sense would be working with your GM to determine how much weight a spearhead would be and paying for each part separately.
You can do whatever you want in your home games. I've divvied up weights for items in my campaigns before. But for Pathfinder Society, if it isn't in print, you're out of luck.
You really can't argue against that.
|
Ah. I understand why we're looking at this differently.
You're trying to apply the logic of stacking untyped bonuses to the cost of crafting items.
That is a fallacy. The two are nothing similar, and have nothing to do with each other. One is stated in the rules; bonuses without a type always stack. The other is not stated in the rules; it is only being inferred by you.
I would also argue that it isn't common sense. Simply paying double and throwing away half an item. I cannot think of anything in the real world that is handled in that way, and even if there were something like it, it would be extremely wasteful.
Common sense would be working with your GM to determine how much weight a spearhead would be and paying for each part separately.
You can do whatever you want in your home games. I've divvied up weights for items in my campaigns before. But for Pathfinder Society, if it isn't in print, you're out of luck.
You really can't argue against that.
With all respect, the issue isn't whether it's in print, the issue is how much it costs.
We have multiple aspects of the rules that describe how to determine cost in a formulaic manner. Wands, potions, scrolls, magic weapons: these are all handled formulaicly. The only difference her is the proportion of the cost. It is undefined. By paying the full value, you have covered the cost. To use your language, you can't argue with that.
I tilt ally respect the unique nature of PFS with buttoning down details to the lowest common denominator. The proprosal I provided, by it's very nature, assures that every reasonable objection to what the cost might be is covered.
Any remaining objection has no substance in terms of the game rules, when viewed in terms of whether the cost has been payed. It solely has objection in pedantic issues, such as whether it permissible to pay too much in order to negate discussion of what the cost is for something that is clearly allowed by the rules.
Nefreet, I've played in your games. I generally respect your ideas about the game in general, and PFS in particular. But your logic here is essentially: this is possible; it has a cost; the cost cannot be identified with precision, but has clearly been exceeded; there is still a reason to deny it, regardless whether this is to the benefit of the organized pmay campaign, the player, or the GMs she will interact with.
I understand the Lawful Neutral approach you are espousing. I also think it beyond the scope of what is either useful or helpful to the campaign without benefit, and in addition exaggerates the reality of the campaign in a manner that fuels that negativity with which some view the campaign.
You generally fight the good fight. You have pushed it beyond the bounds of form and purpose in this particular manner. This post is submitted with the utmost respect for you and the vast majority of your posts.