Opportunity for Mithral adjustments in game.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


This is mostly an appeal for a change in the way Mithral mechanics could work in pathfinder. This of course could be house ruled in my own games, but a discussion is not only interesting but potentially beneficial to others with similar opinions. If you have a disagreement feel free to provide a persuasive argument for it.

I feel there is an opportunity for mithral weapons that has not been explored. This personal observation was inspired by the value I have for verisimilitude in games. Verisimilitude is more important for role playing games because like role playing it performs under the assumption that there are universal laws that govern how the world works. It is hard to role play unless the role players share knowledge of those universal laws such as gravity and cultural social cues (in this example it is common assumption/law of nature that cultures will develop their own social cues).

Using this line of reasoning, it is a current rule and therefore common knowledge that mithral is a significantly lighter material that is also as strong as steel. Currently the rules are such that armor, and those who wear it, are mostly benefiting from the lighter metal. Because I am not an expert, I would ask of the community in what ways weapons would benefit from a lighter material that was similar in hardness and malleability to steel. From my amateur perspective, I would guess that weapons could benefit both a mechanically and flavor-fully. An example I would give is that because of the decreased weight, weapons could be made larger and more ornate, similarly to wuxia-styled weapons or weapons carried by popular game characters. The style could vary from a Sephiroth styled Nodachi, to a Earthbreaker-styled, Warcraft 3 and beyond, Paladin hammer. While I am not a huge advocate of balance in games, preferring instead a game that adheres to verisimilitude which historically often gives an unfair advantage to one or more parties in a conflict, I understand the need for a certain amount of balance in a game. I am interested in what mechanical benefits the community would propose to such weapons that could be made in this manner.

My own thoughts would be reach weapons, that would otherwise not be reach weapons--seemingly defying gravity because of their lightness. Weapons that are made for appropriately sized creatures, but act as larger weapons, maybe not in damage, but in other attributes such as proficiency penalties, because of the decreased weight and design opportunities involved in their construction.

Considering the lack of mechanics Mithral based weapons currently have in the present state of the game, I think there is an opportunity here that the game designers could take advantage that would give many role playing and mechanical advantages to characters and players of the game--now that I think about it maybe even more so to martial characters. What do you all think? Are there opportunities or ideas that I may have missed? Do these idea's detract from what you value in the game or would you welcome the idea of additional role playing and mechanical options for mithral weapons?

TL;DR: I think weapons should have mithral mechanical benefits, and here's why. I'm not an expert though, so what do you think?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think mithral is fine the way it is.


RedDogMT wrote:
I think mithral is fine the way it is.

Great! Why don't you like the idea of additional role playing and mechanical options for mithral weapons. I would prefer you provide a persuasive argument for your opinions as I stated at the beginning of my post. The purpose of that beginning statement was to avoid opinions that do not contribute to the discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a mechanical benefit to mithral, it weighs half as much, always counts as masterwork, and counts as silver for the purposes of bypassing DR.


If you are trying to make the rules more realistic then arguably the lighter weight should mean less damage for bludgeoning and slashing weapons if not piercing ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Arguably the lighter weight should mean less damage for bludgeoning and slashing weapons if not piercing ones.

Iffy on slashing weapons, but since the rules do not differentiate between slashing and chopping weapons, your point is taken. (Draw-cuts don't exist?)

I would want to see some kind of rule that half-weight weapons can count as "Light" weapons with regards to enchants, feats and combat abilities. (They would still count as two-handed) So, Finesse is in, and Impact is out. They become very useful for two-weapon fighters.


The problem with this reasoning is that PF does a piss poor job of potraying weapons as it is. So it is almost impossible to go down path of logic how lighter(yet as strong) material would influence weapon desing, when the current rules are so abstract and flat out wrong in the potrayal of weapons.

For example, PF highly over values swords. Swords were sidearms, that would be the same as making pistols the best weapon in modern setting rpg. Polearms are highly unrated, simple quarter staff is superior weapon to any and all swords that are not some form of greatsword. Also axes are way more damaging than swords when armor steps into play(including even a simple gamberson), then again the system does not account for the fact that swords are a lot better defensive tools than most other weapons in the same size category.

If you want more realistic weapons, I suggest looking at different systems. There are ones that actually take into account the real differences of weapons. (And not all of them also make the mistake of bogging down to minutia)


SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
There is a mechanical benefit to mithral, it weighs half as much, always counts as masterwork, and counts as silver for the purposes of bypassing DR.

Good points! I am aware of the mechanical benefit to mithral weapons. My point would be that there are more opportunities for mechanical benefits, such as the mechanical benefits given to mithral armors. I don't feel like mithral weapons are reaching their full potential.

Gisher wrote:
If you are trying to make the rules more realistic then arguably the lighter weight should mean less damage for bludgeoning and slashing weapons if not piercing ones.

I would argue that would be true if the weapon stayed the same size. If the weapon was increased in size (like I suggest in the wuxia/paladin example) I would argue the mass would stay the same and therefore the force/damage would also be similar. I wouldn't want mithral weapons to give larger weapon size damage though, for balance reasons. I like that line of reasoning though.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

The problem with this reasoning is that PF does a piss poor job of potraying weapons as it is. So it is almost impossible to go down path of logic how lighter(yet as strong) material would influence weapon desing, when the current rules are so abstract and flat out wrong in the potrayal of weapons.

For example, PF highly over values swords. Swords were sidearms, that would be the same as making pistols the best weapon in modern setting rpg. Polearms are highly unrated, simple quarter staff is superior weapon to any and all swords that are not some form of greatsword. Also axes are way more damaging than swords when armor steps into play(including even a simple gamberson), then again the system does not account for the fact that swords are a lot better defensive tools than most other weapons in the same size category.

If you want more realistic weapons, I suggest looking at different systems. There are ones that actually take into account the real differences of weapons. (And not all of them also make the mistake of bogging down to minutia)

My reasoning is not that I wan't more realistic weapons, although that would be the justification behind the reasoning, but that because mithral armors get a bonus because of the traits intrinsic to mithral, weapons should too. I actually am okay with pathfinder not portraying weapons with exact minutia, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we agree that more book keeping is not what pathfinder needs. My argument would be, it is a simple process to give some advantages to mithral weapons, similarly to how advantages have been given to mithral armors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "it's really light but nonetheless strong" is a thing that would, practically speaking, be better for armor than weapons and this is reflected in the mechanics for mithral.

After all, a lighter sword or arrowhead is not better at piercing armor than a heavier one is, and the assumption for most combat in this game is that most people are going to be wearing armor.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "it's really light but nonetheless strong" is a thing that would, practically speaking, be better for armor than weapons and this is reflected in the mechanics for mithral.

After all, a lighter sword or arrowhead is not better at piercing armor than a heavier one is, and the assumption for most combat in this game is that most people are going to be wearing armor.

While I would agree to a point with your specific example, I do not agree that mithral is better for armor than for weapons. As a HEMAA member I can say from personal experience that there would be great advantages to having a lighter weapon that was just as strong. These advantages don't necessarily have represent an increase of force--see one of the advantages Daw suggested. Although they could, like the examples I have given through a weapons design. Especially with a longer weapon, where it would be easier to swing and the centripetal acceleration would cause your force to be greatly increased due to the length of the weapon.

If you are arguing that some weapons that are not mostly made of mithral would not be given an advantage, such as an arrow, I can understand that line of reasoning even if I do not necessarily agree, not that I don't agree, I just don't know because I'm not a fletcher.

An example of how a weapon could benefit from being lighter are the weapons made on the youtube series Man at Arms. Many of these weapons look great and are from very poplar shows and games. However they just wouldn't be effective because of their weight and design. If they were made out of a material such as mithral, they would be able to be used, despite unconventional designs and dimensions.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "it's really light but nonetheless strong" is a thing that would, practically speaking, be better for armor than weapons and this is reflected in the mechanics for mithral.

After all, a lighter sword or arrowhead is not better at piercing armor than a heavier one is, and the assumption for most combat in this game is that most people are going to be wearing armor.

Disagree.

A lighter weapon means more force can be applied with it, because its reduced weight makes it both less awkward and more easier to wield. A weapon too heavy that it cannot be used properly means it's just an over-the-top paperweight, and the likelihood for it to be effective in combat is very slim, since it also slows you down considerably too (and makes you an easier target).

If I was going to go this route for Mithril, I'd make it so the handedness required to wield it was reduced by one step, to a minimum of being a light weapon (if the weapon is already light, it receives no benefit in this regard, but is still wieldable as normal). This would mirror some of the benefits detailed in armor (where it cannot be reduced below Light armor).

But, the reason why I wouldn't go this route is for one simple reason: Game Balance.

The game wasn't built to allow, for one example, characters to dual-wield Mithril reach weapons. And considering there are Bloodrager builds that can get natural reach as high as 30+ feet, I think it'd be stupidly overpowered to get TWF'd to death without even getting a chance to get in their face and hit them.

Even despite that, imagine Unchained Rogues being able to dual-wield Falcatas, using Weapon Finesse with them and getting Dex to Damage, and having huge damage dice with ridiculous critical multipliers. Cool, perhaps, and makes them more competent, but the rules didn't intend for those sort of shenanigans to happen without further expenditure, and that sort of thing can be done with just about any class or weapon that can be similarly abused.

It also makes Mithril the most obvious material choice to take across all item types, making the other materials way too niche for consideration. In fact, even without those changes, I can't think of any reason players would make any armor item out of any other material besides Mithril except for the most stringent of circumstances (such as a Druid who can't wear metal, so he resorts to Dragonhide or Stoneplate), it's really that good.

Making it apply a similar effect to weapons as well just makes it way too strong, and defeats the purpose of having the other materials from a game balance standpoint aside from fulfilling an arbitrary "Character options must have a 10-to-1 bad-to-good ratio" quota.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Stuff

I agree with your points about light weapons. I also do not think that reducing the "handedness" is a good idea for game balance reasons. I'm actually not sure that's a thing. I'm sure there are ways that we could give an advantage to mithral weapons that would be balanced and would not make them the go-to material choice for all adventurers. I just cannot think of any right now. If they come I will be sure to share. And if anyone has a good idea I would love to hear it.


Maybe have it reduce the TWF or over-sized penalty associated with the weapon by 1 due to the overall reduced effort required to wield that weapon? It's a different benefit than the Armor option, less game-breaking, makes niche options more viable, and doesn't endorse it as being the automatic go-to material.

Scarab Sages

Maybe have it count as a light weapon for dex to damage/attack purposes would be better.

That said the sephiroth "katana" style has always bugged me as just because the weights the same doesn't mean its a good weapon. Bigger sword = more cumbersome.


There is also point of balance. Even if Sepiroths weapon weighted the same as normal katana, it would 'feel' heavier because of leverage.

Oh and my earlier post's point was that because the system us so abstract it is very hard to go ahead and use physics to realize how it would benefit things, when lot of the things it would effect already are not taken into account in the system.

In reality it would probably mean that swords would have maybe an extra 25% blade length(this would only apply to swords whose blade would not become so long that it would make certain techniques impossible to use) and lot more complex and protective hand guards. That doesn't sound like that much but in a real fight that sort of extra reach is a massive advantage, essentially it means that the opponent(assuming they wield a normal sword) would have to take another step to get in their measure.

Flails, wouldn't benefit at all because the chain can only be certain length to not risk damage to wielding hand. Well maybe it would help with enduracance but not something PF takes into account.

Maces, hammers and such, wouldn't really benefit because they want to have weight in them. I suppose you could get some minimal help with adtional rigidity.

Polearms wouldn't get too much benefit because the shaft isn't made of metal in the first place. Though I suppose you could make more substantial langets which would help with durablity. Though some polearm heads are big enough that the weight reduction would be considerable help.

Crossbows would actually be greatly helped by this because you could create lot stiffer arms with the same weight. (they would be harder to reload in turn though.)

Axes have the same issue as polearms, I suppose you could create a bit longer blades to help with draw/push cuts.

daggers and knives would get a pretty good deal because you mostly carry those because they are easy to do so. So with weight reduction you could carry lot more substantial sized weapon with mostly the same hassle as a smaller steel one.


I have no idea about real weapons, and I have no idea whether this is a good idea - it isn't one I feel is necessary but that said...

...from a game point of view some potential mechanical benefits to lighter weapons:
1) +1 to hit with AoOs (as it seems it should be easier to move the weapon round to take advantage of openings)
2) reduce the penalty for wielding an oversized weapon by 1.
2a) allow the use of a large (+1 size cat) 2 handed weapon at additional -2 to hit.
3)reduce the cost of some weapon mods by 25% or so (I'd think dual weighted, razor sharp and many of the tactically adapted options would be viable).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Opportunity for Mithral adjustments in game. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion