[PFS] Magically Strengthened fragile Materials question

[Murdock Mudeater]

Okay, several special/primative materials give the option to magically strengthen at additional cost. If I magically enhance, like making the item into a +1 weapon, MUST I STRENGTHEN IT FIRST?

If wondering the plan here is the Disposable Weapon feat, which requires a Fragile weapon. If I strengthen it, it loses the Fragile weapon property, which is a problem for my purposes. Can I have a +1 Obsidian Scimitar with the Fragile Property?

Or is the intention of the Disposable Weapon feat, that it only works on non-magical weapons?

[Lucy_Valentine]

That depends on the material used. The general rule (from Ultimate Combat) is that masterwork or magic item = not fragile unless the material lists an exception. Obsidian doesn't claim to be an exception, whereas Bone has an exception where masterwork bone weapons/armour are still fragile.

So I suppose it's possible that there's a material that claims magic is still fragile? But it seems unlikely, and I haven't checked all of them so I don't know of one.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

That depends on the material used. The general rule (from Ultimate Combat) is that masterwork or magic item = not fragile unless the material lists an exception. Obsidian doesn't claim to be an exception, whereas Bone has an exception where masterwork bone weapons/armour are still fragile.

I'm not seeing that "general rule" that you mention, not in UC or UE. I don't think it is written as clearly as you say.

What I'm seeing in UE is that if you magically strengthen Obsidian at the cost of 100gp per lb, you can remove the fragile condition.

What I'm unclear on is if a obsidian weapon can be magically enhanced without magically strengthening it. Trying to figure out if the magically strengthening is just a fee, like cold iron, that must be applied before magically enhancing, or if you can ignore the magical strengthening and have a Fragile Magical Weapon.

[VRMH]

Special Weapon Features wrote:

Fragile: Weapons and armor with the fragile quality cannot take the beating that sturdier weapons can. A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon. If a fragile weapon is already broken, the roll of a natural 1 destroys it instead. Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material description.

Going by this, masterwork items are still "fragile", but just lack the drawbacks thereof. Exactly how that is supposed to work, I've no idea. Logic suggests they're simply not fragile anymore though.

[Jeff Morse]

To grey area. You would have a lot of GMs stopping the game to look over the rules for this. I am trying to think how should work but to tired and lazy to look all up.there is probably an easy way to get it to work though.

[Murdock Mudeater]

VRMH wrote:

Special Weapon Features wrote:

Fragile: Weapons and armor with the fragile quality cannot take the beating that sturdier weapons can. A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon. If a fragile weapon is already broken, the roll of a natural 1 destroys it instead. Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material description.

Going by this, masterwork items are still "fragile", but just lack the drawbacks thereof. Exactly how that is supposed to work, I've no idea. Logic suggests they're simply not fragile anymore though.

Catch 22, though, because if the are not Magical Fragile Weapons, then this bit doesn't refer to them....

Or is the idea that a Magical Fragile weapon retains the fragile rule, but that it is fragile in name only? If that's the case, then the Disposable Weapon feat works just fine, as written.

[James Risner]

Ask your GM at the start of each game, accepted one of these:

• A +1 fragile weapon isn't fragile.
  
• A +1 fragile weapon isn't valid for disposable.
  
• Opposite of either above.

[K-kun the Insane]

I always saw it like this:

A dogslicer is fragile because of how it is made.

An obsidian battleaxe is fragile because of what it is made from.

Therefore, a masterwork dogslicer is not fragile because of better methods of creation, whereas a masterwork obsidian battleaxe would require magically strengthened materials AND a better creation method. Sure it is more expensive in the long run, but that's the price you pay for using inferior (but cooler) materials.

My PFS Gunslinger/Cavalier paid the extra gold for his MW Obsidian Battleaxe just to live up to one of his many names (The Chocolate Axe). My PFS Paladin willbe saving up ridiculous platinum in order to have Mithral Fullplate with MW Solid Gold Armor Spikes. Hella expensive, yes, but the rule of cool trumps all!

[Murdock Mudeater]

K-kun the Insane wrote:

My PFS Gunslinger/Cavalier paid the extra gold for his MW Obsidian Battleaxe just to live up to one of his many names (The Chocolate Axe). My PFS Paladin willbe saving up ridiculous platinum in order to have Mithral Fullplate with MW Solid Gold Armor Spikes. Hella expensive, yes, but the rule of cool trumps all!

Lol. Solid Gold Armor Spikes.

James Risner wrote:

Ask your GM at the start of each game, accepted one of these:

• A +1 fragile weapon isn't fragile.
  
• A +1 fragile weapon isn't valid for disposable.
  
• Opposite of either above.

Then you agree that there is no real answer, so we should defer to the GM? That's disappointing, but I'm no worse off than when I asked, and it's nice to agree with you.

As an aside, would a temporary magical enhancement create the same issues? Like casting Magic Weapon, or the Divine Bond?