Metallic Wings + Dazzling Blade?? Valid combo?

[C4M3R0N]

So I want to check if this is a valid combo, it makes sense to me...
First an aasimar takes Angelic Flesh and Metallic Wings (and all other other necessary feats).
And a sorcerer casts Mass Dazzling Blade, are the wings valid targets for the spell?

I feel like logic and common sense say yes, they're metallic due to your metallic (like?) flesh. It's in the name of the feat for the wings even. But I want to make sure this is legit...
So please let me know if you would or would not allow this and why please.

[Manly-man teapot]

Should it work? Obviosly yes.

Dazzling blade targets metal weapons. The "manufactured" is implied, but not stated. "Weapons" does not automatically exclude natural weapons. No RAW problems.

[DHAnubis]

Only thing I can see would be people getting hung up on the words "wield" and "wielding." I'd definitely allow it though.

[Calth]

Despite the fluff, Metallic Wings are not metal weapons and not a valid target of dazzling blade.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

A valid argument can be made either way. I would say that only one wing could be treated per spell cast.

[Gisher]

My first thought was that metallic might only refer to the color, rather than the substance. Angelic Flesh says that your "Your skin shines like burnished metal," and simply says that your flesh has a "metallic affinity." Silver and Steel say that they "count as" metals for DR purposes, but not that they are. That wouldn't be enough for me to count your Unarmed Strikes as metal weapons, though.

But Metallic Wings says that "Your wing feathers are made of gleaming metal." That's pretty clear language for me. They are weapons made of metal. I agree with Drahliana Moonrunner that the spell would only affect one wing.

[Calth]

Gisher wrote:

My first thought was that metallic might only refer to the color, rather than the substance. Angelic Flesh says that your "Your skin shines like burnished metal," and simply says that your flesh has a "metallic affinity." Silver and Steel say that they "count as" metals for DR purposes, but not that they are. That wouldn't be enough for me to count your Unarmed Strikes as metal weapons, though.

But Metallic Wings says that "Your wing feathers are made of gleaming metal." That's pretty clear language for me. They are weapons made of metal. I agree with Drahliana Moonrunner that the spell would only affect one wing.

Again, the wings text is pure 100% fluff and has no rules relevance.

[Avoron]

Gisher wrote:

I agree with Drahliana Moonrunner that the spell would only affect one wing.

Note that the spell being discussed is mass dazzling blade, so multiple weapons are affected.

Calth wrote:

Again, the wings text is pure 100% fluff and has no rules relevance.

Citation? I know everyone loves to reject italicized text like the plague, but the spell is based on the substance a weapon is made out of. You really have to look at the book's description of what the weapon is like, flavorful though it may be.

On the flip side, there's no reason to believe that the wings are made of anything other than metal. What non-"fluffy" location does the book describe their composition? Are they flesh? Tarp? Cottage cheese?

[C4M3R0N]

Hahaha well I definitely appreciate the opinions and comments. The spell was in fact Mass Dazzling Blade, sadly I was unable to link specifically to the mass version from d20pfsrd.
I figured they would count as metal from the fluff as you guys have said. And I double checked the Dazzling Blade description and it never said anything specific to manufactured weapons so I figured natural could be valid targets, if they're metallic.

[Calth]

Avoron wrote:

Gisher wrote:

I agree with Drahliana Moonrunner that the spell would only affect one wing.

Note that the spell being discussed is mass dazzling blade, so multiple weapons are affected.

Calth wrote:

Again, the wings text is pure 100% fluff and has no rules relevance.

Citation? I know everyone loves to reject italicized text like the plague, but the spell is based on the substance a weapon is made out of. You really have to look at the book's description of what the weapon is like, flavorful though it may be.

On the flip side, there's no reason to believe that the wings are made of anything other than metal. What non-"fluffy" location does the book describe their composition? Are they flesh? Tarp? Cottage cheese?

Manufactured weapons are defined to be made of a given material, natural weapons are not. So a natural weapon is not a metal weapon, unless an ability alters that, and neither angelic flesh or metallic wings change that. Fluff is fluff, and is not rules text, and is often contradictory to the actual rules.

[Gisher]

Avoron wrote:

Gisher wrote:

I agree with Drahliana Moonrunner that the spell would only affect one wing.

Note that the spell being discussed is mass dazzling blade, so multiple weapons are affected.

So it is. And so they are. :)

[Manly-man teapot]

Calth wrote:

Manufactured weapons are defined to be made of a given material, natural weapons are not. So a natural weapon is not a metal weapon, unless an ability alters that, and neither angelic flesh or metallic wings change that. Fluff is fluff, and is not rules text, and is often contradictory to the actual rules.

Are they now? Please show me that definition. In fact, please tell me what a longsword is made of and how you know.

[Calth]

Manly-man teapot wrote:

Calth wrote:

Manufactured weapons are defined to be made of a given material, natural weapons are not. So a natural weapon is not a metal weapon, unless an ability alters that, and neither angelic flesh or metallic wings change that. Fluff is fluff, and is not rules text, and is often contradictory to the actual rules.

Are they now? Please show me that definition. In fact, please tell me what a longsword is made of and how you know.

A typical longsword has hardness of 10, so it is made of iron or steel.

This is from the materials table of the CRB.

If you want to claim the wings are made of metal, please provide hardness and hp values.

[Avoron]

Ah, that clears it up. And a projectile weapon, such as a pistol, has hardness of 5, so it is made out of wood. This is from the materials table of the CRB.

For that matter, if you want to claim the wings are made of flesh please provide hardness and hp values.

You can't, because individual body parts don't have individual hardness or hp values. They're just a part of the creature, whether the wings of an aasimar or the arm of an iron golem. If you want to attack a specific body part, you need to use the optional Called Shots mechanic, and all you have to contend with is normal DR. Otherwise, natural weapons are not discrete entities capable of possessing hardness or hp, regardless of their chemical composition.

[Calth]

Avoron wrote:

Ah, that clears it up. And a projectile weapon, such as a pistol, has hardness of 5, so it is made out of wood. This is from the materials table of the CRB.

For that matter, if you want to claim the wings are made of flesh please provide hardness and hp values.

You can't, because individual body parts don't have individual hardness or hp values. They're just a part of the creature, whether the wings of an aasimar or the arm of an iron golem. If you want to attack a specific body part, you need to use the optional Called Shots mechanic, and all you have to contend with is normal DR. Otherwise, natural weapons are not discrete entities capable of possessing hardness or hp, regardless of their chemical composition.

And thus natural weapons do not qualify as metal weapons. Despite the names a golems attacks are not considered to be made from their names material. A silver golem would not bypass dr/silver for example.

[Avoron]

Damage reduction is its own issue with its own set of rules describing when it can or cannot be overcome.

Surely you can't be denying that a silver golem will show up under Detect Metal?

[Calth]

That's a pretty horribly worded spell as no, there really isn't such a thing as a metal creature (barring animated objects which are both objects and creatures). But that's rather par for the course for a player companion spell.

[Squiggit]

Calth wrote:

Again, the wings text is pure 100% fluff and has no rules relevance.

Text is text. Picking and choosing which count and which don't leads to dangerous places.

Seriously, can you find me a source that says "Italicized text doesn't mean anything please ignore it"? I haven't been able to find one.

Calth wrote:

Manufactured weapons are defined to be made of a given material, natural weapons are not. So a natural weapon is not a metal weapon

That's not really an argument against it working though. That's just saying that natural weapons don't define a material

Metallic Wings, however, explicitly says they're made out of metal. Which at worst just makes it a case of SvG.

Calth wrote:

That's a pretty horribly worded spell as no, there really isn't such a thing as a metal creature

What would you call a creature that's explicitly made out of metal then?

[Manly-man teapot]

So, Calth, having failed to produce the rule you were challenged to point out, are you willing to concede that "what material is a weapon made of" is up to a common-sense judgment call?

[Calth]

Manly-man teapot wrote:

So, Calth, having failed to produce the rule you were challenged to point out, are you willing to concede that "what material is a weapon made of" is up to a common-sense judgment call?

Uh, no. I showed you where to find what material a weapon is made up of. If you cant read the equipment rules, that's not my fault.

[Calth]

Squiggit wrote:

Calth wrote:

Again, the wings text is pure 100% fluff and has no rules relevance.

Text is text. Picking and choosing which count and which don't leads to dangerous places.

Seriously, can you find me a source that says "Italicized text doesn't mean anything please ignore it"? I haven't been able to find one.

Calth wrote:

Manufactured weapons are defined to be made of a given material, natural weapons are not. So a natural weapon is not a metal weapon

That's not really an argument against it working though. That's just saying that natural weapons don't define a material

Metallic Wings, however, explicitly says they're made out of metal. Which at worst just makes it a case of SvG.

Calth wrote:

That's a pretty horribly worded spell as no, there really isn't such a thing as a metal creature

What would you call a creature that's explicitly made out of metal then?

If you want to completely break the game, go ahead and follow italicized text as rules, Ill wait for you to determine how to do that. And yes, natural weapons don't have a material, so they cant be metal weapons. And bringing up the metallic wings text is again, going back to using fluff as rules, which is worthless.

And again, creatures made "explicitly" of metal, besides animated objects which actually have a set material, is all fluff without an actual mechanical relationship to any rule. Strip the fluff text from a golem, and there is no way to tell its material composition. Pardon me for not relying on things determined by GM fiat as rigorous rules.

[Squiggit]

Quote:

And bringing up the metallic wings text is again, going back to using fluff as rules, which is worthless.

I wasn't being flippant about wanting that citation. Seriously it would be a big help if you can find one.

The problem I have with your position is that we're dealing with a dysfunction, at least in regards to detect metal, that doesn't exist if you use the text in the book about the creature in question.

Quote:

Pardon me for not relying on things determined by GM fiat as rigorous rules.

So what do you rely on? Because everything is fiat. It's literally called "The Most Important Rule" in the CRB.

[Calth]

Squiggit wrote:

Quote:

And bringing up the metallic wings text is again, going back to using fluff as rules, which is worthless.

I wasn't being flippant about wanting that citation. Seriously it would be a big help if you can find one.

The problem I have with your position is that we're dealing with a dysfunction, at least in regards to detect metal, that doesn't exist if you use the text in the book about the creature in question.

Quote:

Pardon me for not relying on things determined by GM fiat as rigorous rules.

So what do you rely on? Because everything is fiat. It's literally called "The Most Important Rule" in the CRB.

No, not everything is fiat. And pretending it is is disingenuous at best.

A creatures composition has no rules governing it, so anything that tries to reference it is badly done. Detecting a metal creature is a rules problem because there is no such thing per the rules, and using fluff to pretend otherwise doesn't change that.

[Avoron]

Calth wrote:

A creatures composition has no rules governing it, so anything that tries to reference it is badly done. Detecting a metal creature is a rules problem because there is no such thing per the rules, and using fluff to pretend otherwise doesn't change that.

Iron Golem Construction wrote:

An iron golem's body is sculpted from 5,000 pounds of iron, smelted with rare tinctures costing at least 10,000 gp.

[Calth]

Avoron wrote:

Calth wrote:

A creatures composition has no rules governing it, so anything that tries to reference it is badly done. Detecting a metal creature is a rules problem because there is no such thing per the rules, and using fluff to pretend otherwise doesn't change that.

Iron Golem Construction wrote:

An iron golem's body is sculpted from 5,000 pounds of iron, smelted with rare tinctures costing at least 10,000 gp.

Again, that is fluff text. You can change the iron in that paragraph to whatever you want and it has no effect on the creatures stat block. So again, GM fiat is not a good foundation for a rules argument.

[Avoron]

That is absolutely rules text. It describes the materials necessary to create the golem. If you do not have 5,000 pounds of iron, you cannot create an iron golem.

[Squiggit]

Quote:

No, not everything is fiat. And pretending it is is disingenuous at best.

The rule is "you can change anything you want to create a better experience". It's literally the first rule in the CRB. It is not disingenuous to bring it up.

Especially when you're the one invoking it in the first plce by insisting certain text should be ignored arbitrarily.

Mind, all you need to actually prove your point is a single citation of rules anywhere that supports your claim.

Just one. Anything at all. Please? Pretty please?

Quote:

Again, that is fluff text.

That seems more like rules text on what you need to make an iron golem to me.

Quote:

You can change the iron in that paragraph to whatever you want and it has no effect on the creatures stat block.

You literally just said two posts before this that bringing up Rule 0 is disingenuous. Now you're saying that the text doesn't count because GM fiat? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[Calth]

Avoron wrote:

That is absolutely rules text. It describes the materials necessary to create the golem. If you do not have 5,000 pounds of iron, you cannot create an iron golem.

Not really, considering it is totally wrong by the actual construct rules, which require 75000 gp worth of materials to make the golem, not what is listed. And you can swap the 5000 lb of iron to 5000 lb of baking soda in the fluff to create a golem that has identical stats to the iron golem, because theres nothing in the statblock that actually says its made of iron.

[Squiggit]

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

[Calth]

Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

No, what I am saying is that fluff doesn't matter, since its not actually rules, and Rule 0 is meaningless in the discussion. Since you claim it does, how would you handle the fluff of arcane armor training: You have learned how to cast spells while wearing armor.

So, by your claims, that means the actual benefits text doesn't matter, since the fluff says you can cast spells in armor right?

And its funny you bring up house rules, since that's what actually what really zero is: if you don't like a rule, you can house rule it.

[Squiggit]

Where did I say the benefits text doesn't matter?

All I said was that if you choose to arbitrary ignore bits of text, it's a house rule. Like, say, fiating that metallic wings aren't metal anymore or that iron golems aren't made out of iron.

House rules are fine. Nothing wrong with them. Everyone uses them. So more power to you, but treating house rules as RAW is just disingenuous.

[Calth]

Squiggit wrote:

Where did I say the benefits text doesn't matter?

All I said was that if you choose to arbitrary ignore bits of text, it's a house rule. Like, say, fiating that metallic wings aren't metal anymore or that iron golems aren't made out of iron.

House rules are fine. Nothing wrong with them. Everyone uses them. So more power to you, but treating house rules as RAW is just disingenuous.

So fluff text actually matters when? I am not fiating anything. You cant claim that fluff text is rules in some cases and not in others.

How about the bludgeoner fluff: You can knock foes out cold with just about any blunt instrument.

So if you have the feat, you can knock anyone out whenever you hit them with a blunt weapon then right? That's what the fluff says.

[Squiggit]

When it says something meaningful to the rules? Like telling you what something is made out of or how something functions?

It's all pretty straight forward so I'm not sure why you're being so pedantic about it. Metallic Wings say they're made out of metal. Iron Golems say they're made out of Iron. So various effects that work on metal things work on them. Because they say they're made out of metal.

Really though, I want to believe you. I just want to see SOME sort of rules citation to back it up. Or really anything at all other than "no that doesn't count because reasons".

Trying to change the topic doesn't really make your argument any more compelling either.

Quote:

So if you have the feat, you can knock anyone out whenever you hit them with a blunt weapon then right? That's what the fluff says.

That's not what the fluff says though. The fluff says you can knock someone out with just about any blunt instrument and the rules text makes you... better at knocking people out with any blunt instrument. Seems consistent.

If the fluff was "every time you hit someone with a blunt weapon they instantly fall unconscious" you might have a point... but that's not what it says.

And again, changing subjects doesn't really do much to help your argument about iron golems and metallic wings.

Show me some source that backs up your position on fluff text. Just one. That's all you need to do.

Part of your problem here is that you're now trying to point out contradictions between italicized and non-italicized text... when that's not even the issue to begin with. Nothing in the description of Metallic Wings or the Iron Golem contradicts the benefits text, so even if you can find an example of a feat that's poorly written, all you'll be showing is that that specific feat is... badly written. It doesn't really do anything to change how Iron Golems function though.

[Calth]

Squiggit wrote:

When it says something meaningful to the rules? Like telling you what something is made out of or how something functions?

It's all pretty straight forward so I'm not sure why you're being so pedantic about it. Metallic Wings say they're made out of metal. Iron Golems say they're made out of Iron. So various effects that work on metal things work on them. Because they say they're made out of metal.

Really though, I want to believe you. I just want to see SOME sort of rules citation to back it up. Or really anything at all other than "no that doesn't count because reasons".

Trying to change the topic doesn't really make your argument any more compelling either.

What decides when fluff is meaningful to the rules? Your say so? You cant pick and choose to follow it when you feel like. It is either meaningful or it isn't. If it is meaningful, the game breaks and cant be played, or it isn't meaningful, and thus everything works fine.

[Squiggit]

Are you really complaining about picking and choosing when your entire position is that some text should just be arbitrarily ignored because reasons?

Also I'm not sure "all of these spells and effects do nothing because metal isn't really metal" isn't exactly what I'd call everything working fine either.

But this isn't going anywhere so I'll stop. I do hope you find that rules citation soon though. Seriously.

[The Guy With A Face]

How about you two just agree to disagree. You are not going to agree. Since we will probably never get an FAQ on it and it is clearly a debatable issue, it should just be left up to the GM.

[Gisher]

Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

I really want to summon a vinegar elemental to attack that baking soda golem.

In the caldera of a dormant volcano.

[Avoron]

Calth wrote:

Not really, considering it is totally wrong by the actual construct rules, which require 75000 gp worth of materials to make the golem, not what is listed.

Iron golems cost 80,000 gp to make, which includes the 5,000 lbs of iron and 10,000 gp of rare tinctures. How do I know? I read the other rules text.

Iron Golem Construction wrote:

Cost 80,000 gp

Constructing a Golem wrote:

The cost to create a golem includes the cost of the physical body and all the materials and spell components used in its creation. Each golem entry gives specific details on the materials required and the total cost for its creation.

This specifically directs you to the text I quoted to determine what materials are necessary.

Clath wrote:

And you can swap the 5000 lb of iron to 5000 lb of baking soda in the fluff to create a golem that has identical stats to the iron golem

No, you can't. In fact, that would be a wonderful example of a thing you cannot do. The rules specifically tell you that you need iron, and if you happen to be stranded on the Elemental Plane of Baking Soda without iron, then you cannot make one. It's part of the construction requirements to make a golem, and if you don't meet the requirements, you can't just change them by calling them "fluff" and making up something else.

Calth wrote:

because theres nothing in the statblock that actually says its made of iron.

The quote I just showed you, from the section listing the requirements for making an iron golem, explicitly says that it is made of iron. That quote makes a precise declarative statement about the requirements of golem creation and you're discounting it because... you think it's too "fluffy"?

Your entire argument is completely circular. There's no requirement for iron because the text saying there is doesn't matter because there's no requirement for iron. The quote doesn't say anything about the rules because it's only fluff because it doesn't say anything about the rules. Text talking about what things are made of is useless because it's only fluff because it's talking about what things are made of.

[Manly-man teapot]

Calth wrote:

Manly-man teapot wrote:

So, Calth, having failed to produce the rule you were challenged to point out, are you willing to concede that "what material is a weapon made of" is up to a common-sense judgment call?

Uh, no. I showed you where to find what material a weapon is made up of. If you cant read the equipment rules, that's not my fault.

No, you showed me the hardness and hit points. All we know about a longsword is that it's a "blade" (and how do we even know that?), and because of that, it has a hardness of 10. From there on, you extrapolate to assume that it must be made of iron or steel, because iron or steel also has a hardness of 10. Not only are you committing a basic logic fallacy, you're also using a method that tells us that muskets are made out of wood.

[M1k31]

Gisher wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

I really want to summon a vinegar elemental to attack that baking soda golem.

In the caldera of a dormant volcano.

I really want that to be the end of an adventure path called "rumble in the jungle"... possibly with an excitable alchemist who yells "For Science!" when it happens.

[Manly-man teapot]

Calth wrote:

What decides when fluff is meaningful to the rules? Your say so? You cant pick and choose to follow it when you feel like. It is either meaningful or it isn't. If it is meaningful, the game breaks and cant be played, or it isn't meaningful, and thus everything works fine.

Excluded middle fallacy.

Here's a third possible, but not exclusive, position: "Fluff doesn't contradict rules, but informs judgment calls in corner cases, and can create details that fall below the resolution of the rules text."

[Snowlilly]

Calth wrote:

Again, the wings text is pure 100% fluff and has no rules relevance.

You cannot simply disregard RAW by dismissing what is written as fluff. (Technically, you can disregard anything you want, but that does not make your assertion correct.)

[Snowlilly]

Gisher wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

I really want to summon a vinegar elemental to attack that baking soda golem.

In the caldera of a dormant volcano.

You might have more luck summoning titanium or chlorine elementals.

Vinegar is not going to happen. Not an element.

[C4M3R0N]

Snowlilly wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

I really want to summon a vinegar elemental to attack that baking soda golem.

In the caldera of a dormant volcano.

You might have more luck summoning titanium or chlorine elementals.

Vinegar is not going to happen. Not an element.

Fire is not an element if we're going with the periodic table of elements.

Neither is water. H2O is water, that's no more an element than vinegar.
Electricity isn't in the table, nor air or earth really.
So definitely no chlorine elementals or titanium if there can't be a vinegar elemental.

But back to the topic at hand, it seems to be a consensus that the wings would be valid targets unless your GM is the biggest rule laywer and utilizes fallicies to make his claims.

So I thank you guys for the help here.
Please continue debating though haha. It makes me laugh

[swoosh]

Food for thought regarding the validity of fluff text:

Special Material rules in Pathfinder repeatedly call out that wooden items can't be replicated with most special metals and vice versa. What weapons and armor are made out of are described in the fluff text. Which means there's a direct mechanical repercussion of what's written in that text.

[Claxon]

The question boils down to whether or not the wings count as metal.

Ask your GM.

[Snowlilly]

C4M3R0N wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

I really want to summon a vinegar elemental to attack that baking soda golem.

In the caldera of a dormant volcano.

You might have more luck summoning titanium or chlorine elementals.

Vinegar is not going to happen. Not an element.

Fire is not an element if we're going with the periodic table of elements.

Neither is water. H2O is water, that's no more an element than vinegar.
Electricity isn't in the table, nor air or earth really.
So definitely no chlorine elementals or titanium if there can't be a vinegar elemental.

But back to the topic at hand, it seems to be a consensus that the wings would be valid targets unless your GM is the biggest rule laywer and utilizes fallicies to make his claims.

So I thank you guys for the help here.
Please continue debating though haha. It makes me laugh

Reference

[C4M3R0N]

Snowlilly wrote:

Reference

Ahhh... Now I see. I feel dumb for not being aware of that...

[Cevah]

C4M3R0N wrote:

So I want to check if this is a valid combo, it makes sense to me...

First an aasimar takes Angelic Flesh and Metallic Wings (and all other other necessary feats).
And a sorcerer casts Mass Dazzling Blade, are the wings valid targets for the spell?

I feel like logic and common sense say yes, they're metallic due to your metallic (like?) flesh. It's in the name of the feat for the wings even. But I want to make sure this is legit...
So please let me know if you would or would not allow this and why please.

Corrected the mass dazzling blades link.

Look for a key-value pair "id=..." in an html tag near the text. The "..." becomes a "#..." after the base page.

Per the PRD:

Feat Descriptions wrote:

Feat Name: The feat's name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.

The "fluff" is a basic description of the feat. A basic description is not specific mechanics, but does give RAI.

Per the PRD:

Special Materials wrote:

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.

A long sword is made of iron, wood, leather, and perhaps some other stuff. Iron is the most prevalent material, so its hardness is that of iron even though it has other materials in it.

/cevah

[Avoron]

Cevah wrote:

A long sword is made of iron, wood, leather, and perhaps some other stuff. Iron is the most prevalent material, so its hardness is that of iron even though it has other materials in it.

Just like a pistol has the hardness of wood, because wood is its most prevalent... oh, wait.