I keep seeing people on these forums saying how enchanting a shield to be both a magical shield and a magical weapon is like paying for a magical weapon and a magical shield separately, but I can find no rules to support it.
Here's my question. Say I want a shield that gives a +1 enhancement bonus to AC and a +1 enhancement bonus to attack/damage. Is that:
1*1*1000 + 1*1*2000 = 3,000 gp
OR
(1*1*1000)*1.5 + 1*1*2000 = 3,500 gp
In addition, do you add the masterwork cost of a shield (150) or the masterwork cost of a weapon (300) to that?
If you can point to the rule(s) that I may be missing, that would be helpful, too.
Here's all I could find:
An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I feel stupid. Someone just sent me this link:
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.
So it's 1*1*1000 + 1*1*2000 + 150 + <cost of shield>
ok... go about your business, nothing to see here :P
The first is right: as you are enchanting "different parts of the shield" ("weapon" and "armour"), at least as far as rules are concerned, you needn't pay the 50% extra of adding more abilities to a same magic object.
Since shields have their own prize to be made masterwork, go with that instead of the general weapon (but that I'm less sure of, please confirm with other posters that you needn't make both parts masterwork separately).
So the cost of a +1 shield would be 3.150gp+prize of shield itself. Have fun :)
There is a fair argument that you have to use the +300 masterwork cost if you want to enchant it as a weapon - no cutting costs with the +150 price as that assumes it's purely a defensive shield.
I probably wouldn't quibble over this in my game, but I could argue this either way.
There is a fair argument that you have to use the +300 masterwork cost if you want to enchant it as a weapon - no cutting costs with the +150 price as that assumes it's purely a defensive shield.
I probably wouldn't quibble over this in my game, but I could argue this either way.
I think at that point, 150gp extra isn't a big enough deal to fret over. I understand the argument pro the extra cost, and I can consider it a tip to the crafter for a job well done :D
|
I think at that point, 150gp extra isn't a big enough deal to fret over. I understand the argument pro the extra cost, and I can consider it a tip to the crafter for a job well done :DThere is a fair argument that you have to use the +300 masterwork cost if you want to enchant it as a weapon - no cutting costs with the +150 price as that assumes it's purely a defensive shield.
I probably wouldn't quibble over this in my game, but I could argue this either way.
Well - it'd actually be an extra 300gp - you'd need to pay for both defensive & offensive masterwork separately.
Of note with this conversation - you can save a lot of gold if you grab Shield Master. That's one of the best reasons to play Slayer or Ranger - they can grab it at 6 instead of waiting until 11.
Actually I believe shields are always enhanced as masterwork armor, not masterwork weapons. However, they do not get the +1 to hit that masterwork weapons do.
So the masterwork component for shields is 'always' +150 gp. It's still a masterwork shield and will qualify to be enhanced.
Shield Master is a major cost saver, and the way to make a proper Uber Shield.
An Uber Shield is going to be a +5 Bashing Shield, +5 defender Guardian. With Shield Master, this means you ALWAYS have a +5 Shield Weapon, while you can use Defender for a +5 AC bonus or Guardian for a +5 Save bonus 'while you are in melee'. Which takes away a LOT of the bite for being in melee combat (as +10-12 AC should).
Note also there's a Guardian 'defensive' enhancement, which is basically anti-Bane, +2 AC vs a specific creature type. If you are in an undead or fiend heavy campaign, a cheap way to get extra AC...and extra TH/Dmg if you are a shield master!
==Aelryinth
Its subsumed in the cost of both items if of a masterwork material.
You probably want adamantine anyways, if you aren't a spellcaster.
==Aelryinth
I think at that point, 150gp extra isn't a big enough deal to fret over. I understand the argument pro the extra cost, and I can consider it a tip to the crafter for a job well done :DThere is a fair argument that you have to use the +300 masterwork cost if you want to enchant it as a weapon - no cutting costs with the +150 price as that assumes it's purely a defensive shield.
I probably wouldn't quibble over this in my game, but I could argue this either way.
Well - it'd actually be an extra 300gp - you'd need to pay for both defensive & offensive masterwork separately.
Of note with this conversation - you can save a lot of gold if you grab Shield Master. That's one of the best reasons to play Slayer or Ranger - they can grab it at 6 instead of waiting until 11.
Unfortunately, we're playing 8th, and I'm making a Shield Champion...
Its subsumed in the cost of both items if of a masterwork material.
You probably want adamantine anyways, if you aren't a spellcaster.
==Aelryinth
I thought about adamantine, but I wasn't sure about the price. Would it be the cost for an adamantine weapon (+3,000gp)?
There's feats where your shield takes damage so you don't, and shield is one of the easy sunder targets. You want it as tough as possible, like any other weapon.
For pricing, the guideline would be mithral, so you'd price it at light armor for +5000 gp, just like a mithral shield = mithral light armor for cost.
==Aelryinth
There's feats where your shield takes damage so you don't, and shield is one of the easy sunder targets. You want it as tough as possible, like any other weapon.
For pricing, the guideline would be mithral, so you'd price it at light armor for +5000 gp, just like a mithral shield = mithral light armor for cost.
==Aelryinth
Isn't that price based on the fact that adamantine armor gives DR? Since this would make the shield stronger (but wouldn't grant DR) yet COULD be used as a weapon (getting past certain types of DR and could be used to sunder), wouldn't the price for an adamantine weapon would be more appropriate?
Well, we can only work with the existing guidelines.
I do find it amusing that as a weapon, it has a benefit, but as armor, it's only tough.
Regardless, you also have to realize a shield is a LOT more metal then most weapons. Based on volume alone, 5k is probably right on spot.
==Aelryinth
If you go by mithril, they are priced the same as a suit of light armor. Which makes more sense, based on size and amount of material, which is the key factor here.
==Aelryinth
Adamantine Shields are priced just like any other weapon.
'I sunder his axe with my shield!' 'WHAT?!'
More on point ... let's get spikes going. Are spikes even worth the trouble, or should we just stick with a flat smasher? And if so, wonder how they interact with a shield with weapon enchants.
|
If you go by mithril, they are priced the same as a suit of light armor. Which makes more sense, based on size and amount of material, which is the key factor here.
==Aelryinth
That doesn't matter if it "makes more sense" to you.
You can get a 20lb Dwarven Longhammer, or a Kerambit of negligible weight, and it costs the same for making them out of Adamantine.
All weapons made of Adamantine cost the same additional amount.
The Shield is no different.
It would be weirder to sunder an axe with a fragile weapon which, I believe, is possible.
If you go by mithril, they are priced the same as a suit of light armor. Which makes more sense, based on size and amount of material, which is the key factor here.
==Aelryinth
That doesn't matter if it "makes more sense" to you.
You can get a 20lb Dwarven Longhammer, or a Kerambit of negligible weight, and it costs the same for making them out of Adamantine.
All weapons made of Adamantine cost the same additional amount.
The Shield is no different.
It specifically refers back to the size and weight of the metal in an object when making a non-standard object of mithral.
And actually, we know that size L armor should cost at least x2 or x4 what normal armor does, so amount of metal DOES matter, it does NOT cost the same thing. It should be noted that making a warhammer or mace requires a lot less skill then a sword, too, and the haft is assumed to be of wood.
The guideline is right there from mithral...shields are priced as light armor. That's what you should use. It's fair and conservative. Pricing it as a weapon ignores the fact that it's also armor, albeit with no DR attached.
==Aelryinth
BBT, I get that it is your opinion, by why are you so adamant? It does appear as if the only special materials example prices a shield as armor.
Other than your opinion that since a shield can be used as a weapon as well, why would your claim override the example available?
|
|
A Shield, is a Shield, and not Light Armor.
It does not makes sense to price any Shield as Light Armor.
Without a listing a specific cost for a Shield as a piece of Armor, and there is a price for a Shield as a weapon, you go with the one listed.
One choice uses written rules, and the other uses house rules.
I am not sure how that can't be seen.
I find it odd that an adamantine dagger costs about the same as an adamantine great sword, despite the fact that the great sword uses several times more metal.
That doesn't matter if it "makes more sense" to you.
Couldn't resist.
Anyway, I see your point, but I don't think it is any stronger than the opposition. Usually I think your logic is pretty solid, but this time I am not so sure.
Thanks for responding.
I think it should cost 5473gp Since there's no price set for it might as well pick a random number right ;) Some people's random number is 1000, same as light armor, but it's not light. It's not medium either. there is the formula based on weight, but only if it's not listed already.
But hey, it is a weapon. And we have the price for a weapon. So it should be priced such.
Actually, since a Shield had a specific price under mithral, and does not under Adamantine, technically, it has no price and you can't buy one at all, which solves both issues. No listing, no adamantine shields, sorry.
Even Darkwood went out of the way to give a method to make a darkwood shield. Since such a method doesn't exist for adamantine, I'm afraid we simply can't buy one.
==Aelryinth
What makes sense to some, doesn't make sense to others.
So, sure, creating a houserule, makes more sense to some.
I can see that.
So, what about a Klar, or a Blocking weapon?
Are they Light Armor for Adamantine cost purposes?
Oh, do not start another Klar argument here.
but, as I just noted, since Shields aren't specifically noted as part of what you can do with the special material, you obviously can't buy adamantine shields, and the point is moot. Not listed is not listed. If they were meant to be sold as weapons, they'd be listed that way.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Some materials have listing specifically for Shields, some don't.
With something like Mithral, it matters, because it reduces ACP.
Adamantine doesn't, so it doesn't need a specific listing.
You just price it as a weapon.
You now see why some materials need a specific listing for Shields, and some don't?
What makes sense to some, doesn't make sense to others.
So, sure, creating a houserule, makes more sense to some.
I can see that.
So, what about a Klar, or a Blocking weapon?
Are they Light Armor for Adamantine cost purposes?
Oh, do not start another Klar argument here.
but, as I just noted, since Shields aren't specifically noted as part of what you can do with the special material, you obviously can't buy adamantine shields, and the point is moot. Not listed is not listed. If they were meant to be sold as weapons, they'd be listed that way.
==Aelryinth
I will agree that the discussion of Klars is about as helpful as a discussion about Caster/Martial Disparity, Paladin Alignment/Falling, Rogues Suck, etc. They don't really help anyone, and quite frankly it'd be repetitive garbage spewed all over the place.
But BBT has a point here my friend. And here's the basic rundown:
Adamantine lists costs for the 3 types of Armor, Ammunition, and Weapons. That's it. Proposing that a Shield is Armor is ludicrous. If I can use a Shield in my Armor slot, then I'll concede your point. But by the rules, I can't. So nice try. I certainly couldn't use a Shield as Ammunition, that's even more insane a suggestion than it serving as Armor. But I can certainly use a Shield as a Weapon, and it is classified as a Weapon in the Weapons table, and in the Fighter Weapon Groups. So why can't I make an Adamantine Shield as a Weapon?
Even if you want to argue that a Shield can't be considered a Weapon, there is no Gold per Pound conversion listed, so if you attempted to price it as something other than what's listed as prices in the table, it devolves into houseruling, which is as much of a Rules Answer as Rule 0. Rule 0 isn't a Rules Answer, especially in PFS. Although this helps your point some, it doesn't denounce the factor that a Shield can A. be used as a weapon, B. is listed as a Weapon in the Weapons table, C. is listed in multiple Fighter Weapon groups, and D. can be enchanted as a weapon, even though by RAW, it's not feasibly possible, because you would need to make it a Masterwork Weapon (which means 300 gold for a +1 Enhancement bonus to attack rolls), which is impossible to put on a Shield since you cannot choose to make a Shield Masterwork as an Armor, but as a Weapon, you MUST make it Masterwork "Armor".
Optimistically speaking, it makes more sense to make a Shield out of Living Steel; the benefit is much more useful, especially in the early levels, and it would be infinitely cheaper. But screw the optimizing for a minute here: The point is that the Shield is viewed in multiple ways as a weapon, the same as any other weapon that can be made of Adamantine. There are no acceptable grounds for disallowing it, outside of Rule 0.
Tsk!
A shield is a shield.
Mithral lists it as a shield.
Darkwood lists it as a shield.
Other materials list it as a shield.
What you're basically saying is 'my precedent is better then your precedent', because while my precedent has nothing to do with protective value and weight and mass like the others do, shields are weapons!
So, we're going to ignore the fact that adamantine weapons are much smaller then shields, and often made with non-adamantine parts, and I declare my precedent is better then the others down there!
To which I reply:
Um, nope.
There's no listing for independent shields, like the other materials have, so obviously you aren't intended to be able to buy fully adamantine shields.
Or
Mithral treats a shield made fully out of mithral as the same cost as light armor. Reasonably, adamantine shields should be priced the same way, as the only difference in how adamantine and mithral would be treated for armor would be value of raw materials.
To have a functing 'adamantine weapon shield' all you'd need is the RIM of the shield to be adamantine, and maybe a boss or two on it, and the body could still be wooden.
Which is obviously NOT an adamantine shield, yet satisfies all the requirements of it being an adamantine weapon (no need to be mostly adamantine).
So...choose your precedent. But 'shield as weapon' pricing ain't a precedent that works for me when I say 'adamantine shield'.
==Aelryinth
Tsk!
A shield is a shield.
Mithral lists it as a shield.
Darkwood lists it as a shield.
Other materials list it as a shield.
What you're basically saying is 'my precedent is better then your precedent', because while my precedent has nothing to do with protective value and weight and mass like the others do, shields are weapons!
So, we're going to ignore the fact that adamantine weapons are much smaller then shields, and often made with non-adamantine parts, and I declare my precedent is better then the others down there!
To which I reply:
Um, nope.
There's no listing for independent shields, like the other materials have, so obviously you aren't intended to be able to buy fully adamantine shields.
Or
Mithral treats a shield made fully out of mithral as the same cost as light armor. Reasonably, adamantine shields should be priced the same way, as the only difference in how adamantine and mithral would be treated for armor would be value of raw materials.
To have a functing 'adamantine weapon shield' all you'd need is the RIM of the shield to be adamantine, and maybe a boss or two on it, and the body could still be wooden.
Which is obviously NOT an adamantine shield, yet satisfies all the requirements of it being an adamantine weapon (no need to be mostly adamantine).
So...choose your precedent. But 'shield as weapon' pricing ain't a precedent that works for me when I say 'adamantine shield'.
==Aelryinth
If it lists specific costs for Shields, then that's how much it costs for Shields. That's not being disputed. What's being disputed, is if a Shield can be crafted with special materials like a Weapon can, and to that, I don't see why not.
I didn't say my precedent was better. I simply said that your precedent has no sensible basis.
You said that Mithril Shields and Mithril Light Armor are the exact same thing. Shields aren't Armor. If I can wear a Shield in an Armor slot, and Armor in a Shield slot, then I'll concede this point. The RAW will heavily disagree with you, however.
We're saying that Shields and Weapons are the same thing, especially for the purposes of Crafting. It makes more sense, since I can enhance a Shield with Weapon properties, which are treated as a whole separate set of enhancements, I can make attacks with a Shield like any other Weapon, I can apply Weapon-specific benefits (such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Training, etc.) to attacks made with Shields, and they're listed as (and can be crafted like) Weapons in the Weapons table, which means I can use a Shield in a Weapon slot. Although I can't use a Weapon in a Shield slot, nor can I enchant Weapons as Shields, it's certainly much more paralleled than Shields as Armor.
And since I can make the parallel that all Shields are Weapons in comparison to Shields are Armor, it makes sense that I can enhance and craft a Shield as a Weapon (even though by the RAW, I can't make a Shield a Masterwork Weapon, which is needed to enhance a Shield with Weapon properties, and that's obviously not RAI).
It doesn't make sense that I can craft Shields as Armor.
I simply said that your precedent has no sensible basis.
You said that Mithril Shields and Mithril Light Armor are the exact same thing. Shields aren't Armor. If I can wear a Shield in an Armor slot, and Armor in a Shield slot, then I'll concede this point....
Not agreeing with him does not mean he doesn't make sense. You lose a lot of credibility by claiming that he has "no sensible basis". If you can't see the "sense" of it, clearly you have tunnel vision in regards to this topic.
He never said mithral shields and mithral light armor are the exact same thing. What he said was, the price of a mithral shield and light mithril armor add the same price to items.
Therefore, if the additional cost of mithral light armor is 1000 gp and the additional cost of mithral light armor is 1000 gp it is logical (not necessarily correct) that since the cost increase of adamantine light armor is 5000 gp, the additional cost of a adamantine shield would also be 5000 gp. Again, it may not be correct, but it is clearly logical.
Since you can't use a tower shield as a weapon, what would you claim it costs to make one out of adamantine?
Again, I am not claiming your position is incorrect. But to claim it is the only sensible one is ridiculous.
I simply said that your precedent has no sensible basis.
You said that Mithril Shields and Mithril Light Armor are the exact same thing. Shields aren't Armor. If I can wear a Shield in an Armor slot, and Armor in a Shield slot, then I'll concede this point....
Not agreeing with him does not mean he doesn't make sense. You lose a lot of credibility by claiming that he has "no sensible basis". If you can't see the "sense" of it, clearly you have tunnel vision in regards to this topic.
He never said mithral shields and mithral light armor are the exact same thing. What he said was, the price of a mithral shield and light mithril armor add the same price to items.
Therefore, if the additional cost of mithral light armor is 1000 gp and the additional cost of mithral light armor is 1000 gp it is logical (not necessarily correct) that since the cost increase of adamantine light armor is 5000 gp, the additional cost of a adamantine shield would also be 5000 gp. Again, it may not be correct, but it is clearly logical.
Since you can't use a tower shield as a weapon, what would you claim it costs to make one out of adamantine?
Again, I am not claiming your position is incorrect. But to claim it is the only sensible one is ridiculous.
Pot, meet kettle.
I never said it was the only sensible one. You did, but I didn't. I said it made more sense than his claim.
Yes, you're correct, I stated that wrongfully, but price does not equal effective function. A Shield is not Armor, and Armor is not a Shield. If there was no Shield entry listed for the Mithril table, it would be even more ridiculous a claim. In fact, it's the only evidence he has, and there's no additional proof beyond the Mithril table, which, by the way, could have simply been combined into a "Light Armor and Shield" entry on the table. I can only imagine why Paizo decided to separate the table entries...
The relevance of the Mithril table holds zero water in regards to Adamantine, because you're assuming that Adamantine and Mithril can be crafted the same. No two materials provide the same function, nor can they (always) be crafted the same. There is no proof that he has provided that supports the claim that you can create Adamantine items the exact same way you can create Mithril items, and because the pricing tables for Adamantine are different from the pricing tables for Mithril, specifically, the entries that are actually listed, suggesting that they can be crafted on a parallel level is crazy, and it also makes no sense. Apples to Oranges, here.
As to the Tower Shield, an interesting and thought-provoking item, but it fails the key argument of my claim, and that is if the Shield can be used and crafted as a Weapon. Ironic, truly. But Shields don't receive Armor benefits if crafted from Adamantine.
Additionally, any item can be crafted from Adamantine, though it receives no mechanical function. So by rights, I can craft a tongue piercing out of Adamantine, if I really wanted to splurge and be all hip and stuff. But it serves no special purpose other than to flex my Bling Game.
Mthril and adamantine both established the precedents on pricing armor and special materials.
They handle light armor, medium armor and heavy armor the exact same way, +x gp per armor level.
Mithril, in addition, lists shields there, and the price increases is the same as light armor.
Adamantine does NOT list shields there, presumably because adamantine shields have no special abilities.
Yet the precedent and pattern is totally obvious, is based on size and weight, and makes sense.
To say instead that we're going to base it on 'weapon', is to say you're not going to make it of adamantine, you're doing to make it of 'enough adamantine' to serve as an adamantine weapon, but a good chunk of it is going to be wood to save on the weight.
Which is not an adamantine shield.
So, you've a precedent, and so do I. Mine makes more sense then yours, if I want a fully adamantine shield.
Pick your precedent. Saying 'yours is better' and 'you can't see it', is wearing willful blinders.
As for 'no special benefits', your adamantine weapons wooden parts can be carved up or broken by another adamantine weapon fairly easily.
My adamantine shield, cannot.
==Aelryinth
Mthril and adamantine both established the precedents on pricing armor and special materials.
They handle light armor, medium armor and heavy armor the exact same way, +x gp per armor level.
Mithril, in addition, lists shields there, and the price increases is the same as light armor.
Adamantine does NOT list shields there, presumably because adamantine shields have no special abilities.
Yet the precedent and pattern is totally obvious, is based on size and weight, and makes sense.
To say instead that we're going to base it on 'weapon', is to say you're not going to make it of adamantine, you're doing to make it of 'enough adamantine' to serve as an adamantine weapon, but a good chunk of it is going to be wood to save on the weight.
Which is not an adamantine shield.
So, you've a precedent, and so do I. Mine makes more sense then yours, if I want a fully adamantine shield.
Pick your precedent. Saying 'yours is better' and 'you can't see it', is wearing willful blinders.
As for 'no special benefits', your adamantine weapons wooden parts can be carved up or broken by another adamantine weapon fairly easily.
My adamantine shield, cannot.
==Aelryinth
Yes, but their precedents are different, even if they are similar in construction (as in +X gold cost). You're trying to argue that they are the same, suggesting that a Shield can be made for 5,000 Gold as Light Armor. Light Armor and Shields aren't the same, especially in that regard, and are only priced the same in Mithril.
I also highly doubt it's actually weight based, since you even said it yourself, that it's priced as +X/Y/Z gold per armor level (I believe you mean proficiency, but semantics). Logic dictates that price is based off of armor proficiency, not weight, ergo suggesting that weight is the defining factor is also a false equivalency.
Shields don't receive benefits as Armor, so I can't make it as if it were Armor, but they can receive benefits as Weapons, so I can certainly make it as if it were a Weapon.
It doesn't matter if it's 'enough Adamantine' or if there are wooden parts in addition, that's not relevant. If the majority of the shield is made of Adamantine, then it receives the benefits (if any) of being crafted out of Adamantine if it is one of the types of items Adamantine can forge it out of.
Items without metal parts cannot be made from adamantine. An arrow could be made of adamantine, but a quarterstaff could not.
If I can make an Arrow, which is mostly wood and feathers except for the steel arrowhead, and it counts as Adamantine Ammunition, then I can make a Shield out of Adamantine with several wooden parts, and it would function as an Adamantine Weapon.
But it won't function as an adamantine SHIELD.
When it comes time to sunder it, you sunder against the weakest part, and that will be wood or steel, because you're making it as a weapon.
I'm making it as a shield. Not a weapon. It's a weapon on the side, but I want a shield that's all Hardness 20 and 40 hp/inch thick, tyvm. That's the benefit of being an adamantine shield...it can't be Sundered easily by another adamantine shield!
==Aelryinth
But it won't function as an adamantine SHIELD.
When it comes time to sunder it, you sunder against the weakest part, and that will be wood or steel, because you're making it as a weapon.
I'm making it as a shield. Not a weapon. It's a weapon on the side, but I want a shield that's all Hardness 20 and 40 hp/inch thick, tyvm. That's the benefit of being an adamantine shield...it can't be Sundered easily by another adamantine shield!
==Aelryinth
Need a citation for the bolded part. Last I checked, you don't get to choose which hardness and hit points you check your results against, if an item is made of multiple materials. Even if it was, only the most prevalent of materials apply, and the other has no mechanical effect, whatsoever.
If we had a Darkwood and Adamantine Shield, and there is more Adamantine than Darkwood, then the Darkwood does absolutely nothing. None of its Hardness, HP increase, etc. applies. Period. The reverse is also true.
Lastly, per RAW, item durability and HP is not affected by Adamantine, except by the clause which states that items which are normally made with steel receive 33% increased HP if made of Adamantine. None of this 20 Hardness and 40 Hp/Inch of Thickness garbage applies (except for Armor, that gets the green card), that only works for objects, and objects only, such as Doors and Tables and Walls.
Even if you made the Adamantine Shield as an Adamantine Shield (and not an Adamantine Weaponshield), you're still being sundered easily by an Adamantine Weaponshield, because the item's Hardness does not change. If it was an Armor, then you would have a case.
But, you can't make a Shield as an Armor per RAW, especially when the table for Adamantine doesn't allow it (even though in 3.5, it was allowed, for 2,000 Gold).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Shield is not a "weapon on the side".
It is equally a shield and a weapon, as a shield is a weapon.
Your "weakest parts" and "wooden parts" mentions, are meaningless, and make no sense.
You make a Heavy Steel Shield, made of Steel(surprisingly not made of wood), and replace all Steel, with Adamantine.
@Darksol the Painbringer: Weapons are still actually objects. You can even use spells and effects that target objects, on weapons. For instance, you could cast Light on a Longsword, Shield, or even a Breastplate. It's a common use of the spell.
Fair enough, though they have specific levels of Hardness and HP, and only Armor specifies that its Hardness is altered by the material used. Adamantine otherwise only increases its HP by 1/3, and does nothing to adjust Hardness, per RAW.
So an Adamantine Greatsword is just as easy to break and damage as any other Greatsword. It just excels at breaking objects whose hardness is less than 20.
That's it, full stop.
IF you try to sunder a warhammer, you sunder against the wooden haft, not the metal head, i.e. the weakest portion of the weapon.
If you do the same on a shield, you strike against the non-weapon parts of the shield (i.e. the center of it, instead of the striking rim), and Sunder that.
It's how Sunder has ALWAYS worked. Since when is the enemy forced to break the toughest part of a weapon?
And Shield as a Weapon would only enhance the weapon portion, not the rest of the shield. Saying it replaces ALL the steel is utterly incorrect...it replaces the part that is a weapon, and the rest is still steel.
You want a full adamantine shield, you replace everything, you pay for it. Not just for a weapon.
==Aelryinth
If you have a warhammer made from adamantine with a wooden haft then when they try to sunder it it'll have adamantine stats, not wood stats. That's the way the game works.
BBT's "it's all adamantine" interpretation is balanced with things like adamantine greatswords and easy to understand. Defining only the outer rim of the shield as a 'weapon' part seems complicated and not backed up by RAW. What's the advantage of your interpretation?