3.5 and its successor Pathfinder introduced the concept of purchasing different weapons based on their origin material. This was mostly utilized to bypass creature-specific damage reduction. Because of inconvenience, Pathfinder preferred to add a system of enhancement bonuses bypassing material-based damage reduction. I myself am not a fan of depending entirely on magical items to 'get things done', and with my efforts to allow for players to both mine and craft specific ores (in tiers of material quality), I found that most weapons (regardless of enhancement) were simply made of the default material; iron or steel.
A proposition:
Instead of depending on Craft Magical Arms and Armor to create weapons with enhancement bonuses (and with heavy price tags leading to a questionable economy), why not allow weapons based on rare materials 'free' enhancement bonuses? This way, not only are weapons made of specific materials more prized, but they are generally more useful (rather than being utilized for a very limited use such as bypassing DR, and ignoring hardness).
For example:
A silver longsword would be equal to a +1 longsword; not only is it masterwork (thus +1 to attack rolls), but an enhancement bonus is granted to its damage. The 'Bane' quality could be assigned to silver weapons, and it could target creatures it could previously (only) manage to bypass in DR.
A cold iron longsword would be equal to a +2 longsword; with +1 Bane to Fey and Dispelling (in line with the power of iron against fey and witchcraft, respectively).
With Mithral being +3, Adamantine being +4, the elusive +5 and +6 enhancements are still in the realm of magical item creation. Material-based enhancements do not stack with creation enhancements.
TL;DR: Weapons made of specific materials gain free (+1)s that can be allotted. These do not stack with any adjustments made by Magic Weapon or feats like Craft Magical Arms and Armor.
List of Weapon-Specific Enhancements
Alchemical Silver: +1: Bane (Lycanthrope); -1 to damage; 10 hp/inch; 8 hardness
Cold Iron: +2: Bane (Fey/Demon); 30 hp/inch; 10 hardness
Mithral: +3*: As Silver (+1); 30 hp/inch; 15 hardness, weight 1/2 normal, armor 1 category lighter for ACP; -10% ASF, Dex bonus +2, -3 ACP.
Adamantine: +4: DR (1 per armor category, ignore 1 ACP) Ignores <20 hardness. 40 hp/inch; 20
As you may have noticed, bonuses follow no particular rhyme or reason. After Cold Iron, the suggested system breaks down somewhat, as many materials do little to warrant their increased cost.
Pathfinder's intent of addressing (and somewhat watering down) the importance of weapons made of specific materials may have made the entire concept obsolete. It should not be, as the crafting system, economy, and even the lore assigns great worth to above-mentioned materials. In the actual game, their bonuses are so small they are nearly negligible. In the lore, silver hurts lycanthropes, and does not merely prevent them from taking less damage.
It is appropriate to propose new enhancements to accommodate the 'Free Plusses' system. That would justify a +1 to gain the additional hardness, and bonuses Mithral weapons gain. It would also justify Adamantine's ability to penetrate hardness under this system.
This way, Paizo can add new materials that follow a specific pattern set by precedent (that does not immediately render new or existing materials obsolete or leave them ill-used).
The issue with the golf-bag of weaponry is easily addressed; it is a campaign information issue, not a game system issue.
If the campaign world (through sufficient knowledge checks and GM hints) follows a specific pattern in introducing enemies, it becomes rational for characters to anticipate such challenges with new special weaponry.
Of course, this mechanic of pre-setting materials must correspond to costs, which should justify the mechanic as a whole. It may call for a gp-to-+1 table.
And, needless to say, that any +1 to weapons based on specific materials are also given to armors. Under this system, Adamantine armor would (instead of granting DR) grant Fortification (Medium).
Of course, until a system is established, this remains in the realm of suggestions. It is a worthwhile effort, however, as any effort to standardize special materials has precedent when it comes to cost (refer to any gp-specific enhancements such as Benevolent, Shadow, or Glamered.
Any input on this topic?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I decided to not water down the special materials restrictions by allowing magic items of certain bonuses to act like special materials.
Instead i decided to allow other non metallic special materials to function like silver, cold iron, and adamantine. So bone acts like Cold Iron, a special wood acts like Silver, and a type of crystal acts like adamantine.
That way druids and other characters that dont use metal weapons arent penalised.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dazzlerdal wrote: I decided to not water down the special materials restrictions by allowing magic items of certain bonuses to act like special materials.
Instead i decided to allow other non metallic special materials to function like silver, cold iron, and adamantine. So bone acts like Cold Iron, a special wood acts like Silver, and a type of crystal acts like adamantine.
That way druids and other characters that dont use metal weapons arent penalised.
Why do people keep making this mistake? The only bar on druids is metal ARMOR. not weapons. That's why they can use daggers, scimitars, sickles,and scythes. If you are an elven druid, or take the proficiency feats, you can use longswords, rapiers, and bows to your heart's content.
1) I'm not entirely what your goal with this is. The reason Pathfinder weapons bypass DR based on enhancement bonus is because the game punishes you for investing in more than one weapon.
2) Giving free enhancement bonuses for special materials sounds like a bad idea to me. Most players would simply use it to get stronger weapons cheaply.
3) I could see this as interesting if weapons were still priced according to their enhancement bonus. In other words, if a cold iron longsword had the same price as a +2 fey bane longsword. It would be like games like Skyrim and Terraria where the power level of your weapon depended on its materials.
4) The problem I see with this system is that it's basically impossible to upgrade your weapon. You can hire an artificer to upgrade your weapon or get Craft Magic Arms and Armor to do it yourself. With a special materials weapon, you'd just have to sell it and get another one.
5) By definition, a weapon is magical if it has a +1 enhancement bonus that applies to damage and attack rolls. Changing it so that some special materials make the weapon have a +1 enhancement bonus but still not be magical sounds like a complete mess.
Cyrad wrote: 1) I'm not entirely what your goal with this is. The reason Pathfinder weapons bypass DR based on enhancement bonus is because the game punishes you for investing in more than one weapon.
2) Giving free enhancement bonuses for special materials sounds like a bad idea to me. Most players would simply use it to get stronger weapons cheaply.
3) I could see this as interesting if weapons were still priced according to their enhancement bonus. In other words, if a cold iron longsword had the same price as a +2 fey bane longsword. It would be like games like Skyrim and Terraria where the power level of your weapon depended on its materials.
4) The problem I see with this system is that it's basically impossible to upgrade your weapon. You can hire an artificer to upgrade your weapon or get Craft Magic Arms and Armor to do it yourself. With a special materials weapon, you'd just have to sell it and get another one.
5) By definition, a weapon is magical if it has a +1 enhancement bonus that applies to damage and attack rolls. Changing it so that some special materials make the weapon have a +1 enhancement bonus but still not be magical sounds like a complete mess.
1: At least 3.5 did. Pathfinder 'fixed' this, and by extension, served a blow to material-based DR.
2: I agree--if the free plusses were 'floating' plusses a player could customize. If they are pre-chosen, it may not be such a bad idea.
3: There is precedent for specific enhancements costing a flat gp cost instead of the standard enhancement bonus (which scales terrifyingly), like Glamered, which cost a flat +4,000 gp instead of Shock, which costs a +1 bonus. This can allow the situation you mentioned to be in play. We run into an issue here, detailed below.
4: In the aforementioned example; a +2 Fey Bane longsword costs 9,000 gp (effectively +3). It can be upgraded to a +2 Fey Bane Keen Longsword for a total cost of 16,000 gp (effectively +4). It is not difficult to hand-waive that the existing material acts as if it has the enhancement for the purposes of enchantment. The Cold Iron Longsword will cost 9,000 (effectively +3), and will be upgraded accordingly. This is effectively 450% more than the base cost of 2,000 gp, but a GM may half the cost because the enhancement is not purchased. It is still effectively +3, and the cost of adding an enchantment of +1 bumps it to +4 (16,000), etc.
5: It is also quite a mess to circumvent previous material-based DR for the purposes of convenience. It does not also make it less convenient.
But I hear you. My answer is this:
The material is magical. It is considered a magical weapon from its material, and thus it remains with all the enhancements in a dead-magic zone, anti-magic field, and any effect that disrupts magic. They are thus more dependable in specific tasks, and thus more valuable than before.
Issue with Prices: We have several factors to consider when we tie all these disjointed concepts (material enhancement cost, material base cost, enhancement cost, and weapon/armor differences).
Our first consideration is to choose what establishes the base price for a material's cost: Is it the Core Rulebook's statement of 1 pound of Mithral costs x? Should we tally the enhancements from Mithral and then slap the total cost onto a pound of the material (which is astronomically more expensive)?
What should be the first to go when we standardize a system that has been carried over so many times it operates by different rules in different situations, and in most of said situations, is quite obsolete?
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
