Weapon Familiarity: Half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions and treat any weapon with the word “orc” in its name as a martial weapon.
The orc double-axe is a martial weapon to your half-orc. But Inquisitors are not proficient with martial weapons, so you cannot use it without spending a feat (as pointed out above).
As for the Bane
Bane (Su): At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of
her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift
action.
I'd have to rule that each side of the double weapon is a weapon, and therefore an Inquisitor can only imbue one side with Bane.
Okay my fault, but thanks for the answers.
Which weapon would you suggest for a Inquisitor?
A variety. I'd go Guisarm, Falchion and Kukri. Maybe a mace, too.
For melee inquisitors, I like large weapons. If your already going half orc, falchion would be my choice.
Would enchanting a double-axe cost twice as much? Could you have different types of enhancements on each end?
Weapon Familiarity: Half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions and treat any weapon with the word “orc” in its name as a martial weapon.The orc double-axe is a martial weapon to your half-orc. But Inquisitors are not proficient with martial weapons, so you cannot use it without spending a feat (as pointed out above).
As for the Bane
I'd have to rule that each side of the double weapon is a weapon, and therefore an Inquisitor can only imbue one side with Bane.Bane (Su): At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of
her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift
action.
Would enchanting a double-axe cost twice as much? Could you have different types of enhancements on each end?
Sort of, and yes.
I say sort of because it doesn't cost twice as much, it's just that each end counts as a separate weapon. You can enchant one end and not the other, or one end to +3 and the other to +1, or whatever you like (and can afford).
|
Eating a level of Fighter early on is not a bad idea for this build. I have built up a very good sword and board melee Inquisitor and from what I have seen of levels 13+ if you want to stay Melee you are going to have to go Fighter anyway.
Another option is to say that the Double Axe is the favored weapon of your deity. Done.
|
Although you only add Bane to one side you do get you Judgment on both. Just the same, though, two-weapon fighting is a fools game mechanically. Too many feats and not enough damage output, even for a flanking rogue a two hander is better.
In medium armor and with decent feats, Dex, and toys, your AC out to be ok without resorting to a shield unless you want to get all tanky. Since you're a Half-Orc, I'd say use the Falchion. Make it keen as soon as you can and watch the crits roll in. It's really quite nice.
I's also be sure to keep a composite longbow handy since its one of the few nice weapons the Inquisitor is proficient with.
Don't forget that an Inquisitor also gets the proficiency for his deity's favored weapon. So if you find multiple deities that fit your roleplay and have at least one domain you find useful, checking their favorite weapons might help you decide. For a good aligned sword+shield Inqui, Cayden Cailean (Rapier) or Sarenrae (Scimitar) seem like good choices weapon-wise. It's just a shame that Inquisitor's don't get versatile weapon.
Would enchanting a double-axe cost twice as much?
When enchanting a double weapon, you double any requirements that would be needed for a single weapon. So adding a +1 enhancement bonus to a orc double axe would cost a PC crafter 2000gp, or 4000gp should you purchase the enchantment from an NPC.
Could you have different types of enhancements on each end?
You could in 3.5, but this is no longer the case in Pathfinder. When you enchant a double weapon, you expend twice the resources and time that would be required to craft a single weapon with the same properties. The enhancement bonus and abilities then apply to both ends of the item; the crafting rules were altered in a manner that no longer treats the ends of a double weapon as separate for the purposes of applying magical abilities and enhancements.
As an aside, this would indicate that spells and abilities that enhance weapons would enhance both ends of a double weapon with a single use. It's an interesting trade-off, and not necessarily a bad one.
When enchanting a double weapon, you double any requirements that would be needed for a single weapon. So adding a +1 enhancement bonus to a orc double axe would cost a PC crafter 2000gp, or 4000gp should you purchase the enchantment from an NPC.
As an aside, this would indicate that spells and abilities that enhance weapons would enhance both ends of a double weapon with a single use. It's an interesting trade-off, and not necessarily a bad one.
I, along with apparently everyone else, never noticed this. Here's the relevant text from the PRD:
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.
And that's it. I don't see anywhere that says you'd treat the two ends of a double weapon as separate weapons, except for the specific case where you're two-weapon-fighting. Thus, I think Heaven's Agent is correct here. If one were to cast Magic Weapon on a Quarterstaff, both ends are enhanced. Can anyone cite a reference that prevents that? If not, I would assume that the Bane ability works much the same, without text that says otherwise.
Interestingly, note that the Paladin's Divine Bond specifically states it only affects one end of a double weapon.
That seems like an extremely narrow and unnecessary interpretation of that sentence.
If you treat it as creating two weapons then you can do anything with it you can do with two weapons. i.e. different enchantments, etc.
To interpret it strictly your way, it would have to say "Enchanting a double-weapon costs twice as much as a normal weapon" or some other such.
-S
Interestingly, note that the Paladin's Divine Bond specifically states it only affects one end of a double weapon.
That is very interesting. It supports the idea that the two ends of a double weapon are supposed to be enchanted together, but also that a similar limitation might have been intended for the inquisitor, but was either neglected or forgotten. Or, perhaps, that the inquisitor was designed to allow more feasibility for the use of double weapons. The good domain ability holy lance does not specify it only functions for one end of a double weapon, after all.
If the latter is the case, an inquisitor can really pump up the abilities of a double weapon by utilizing his bane ability, combined with both greater magic weapon and flames of the faithful. Additionally, some domains grant the ability to bestow even more qualities to a weapon; an inquisitor with the Good domain, for example, could add the holy property to his weapon, in addition to everything else.
That seems like an extremely narrow and unnecessary interpretation of that sentence.
If you treat it as creating two weapons then you can do anything with it you can do with two weapons. i.e. different enchantments, etc.
To interpret it strictly your way, it would have to say "Enchanting a double-weapon costs twice as much as a normal weapon" or some other such.
I disagree. If you were to determine that the text allows a player to enchant the two ends of a double weapon separately, as written the rules would still require one to have to pay twice the cost for each end. Therefore, the two situations generate the following discrepancy:
The two double axes function identically, but as written, if one were required to enchant the ends of a double weapon separately, the rules would dictate an overall increase of four times the materials and time invested.
The rules as written support the first situation, that the ends of a double weapon are enchanted together. This limits the ability to game the system, as it were, and reinforces the concept that a double weapon is in fact a single item. Additionally, the fact that this is a change from 3.5 lends support to the idea that this was done intentionally.
|
That seems like an extremely narrow and unnecessary interpretation of that sentence.
If you treat it as creating two weapons then you can do anything with it you can do with two weapons. i.e. different enchantments, etc.
To interpret it strictly your way, it would have to say "Enchanting a double-weapon costs twice as much as a normal weapon" or some other such.
I disagree. If you were to determine that the text allows a player to enchant the two ends of a double weapon separately, as written the rules would still require one to have to pay twice the cost for each end. Therefore, the two situations generate the following discrepancy:
If the ends of a double weapon are enchanted together, as written the value of the enchantment on a +2 orc double axe would be 16000gp. This cost is equivalent to enchanting two single weapons with a +2 enhancement bonus.
If the ends of a double weapon are enchanted separately, as written the value of the enchantment on a +2/+2 orc double axe would be 32000gp. This cost is equivalent to enchanting four single weapons with a +2 enhancement bonus. The two double axes function identically, but as written, if one were required to enchant the ends of a double weapon separately, the rules would dictate an overall increase of four times the materials and time invested.
The rules as written support the first situation, that the ends of a double weapon are enchanted together. This limits the ability to game the system, as it were, and reinforces the concept that a double weapon is in fact a single item. Additionally, the fact that this is a change from 3.5 lends support to the idea that this was done intentionally.
The rules do not say you double the cost, they say that it is like enchanting two separate weapons. That can just as easily be interpreted as saying that you enchant each head separately as with your interpretation. RAW is not unambiguous in this case. So I've faqed it.
The rules do not say you double the cost, they say that it is like enchanting two separate weapons. That can just as easily be interpreted as saying that you enchant each head separately as with your interpretation. RAW is not unambiguous in this case. So I've faqed it.
The text does not say two separate weapons, just two weapons. No where is it indicated you can enchant the two ends of a double weapon separately. That perspective is a holdover from 3.5, and has absolutely no basis in the Pathfinder rules.
It may have been intended to be included, but as written Pathfinder does not allow one to enchant the ends of a double written separately. That said, I'll be adding my name to those asking for clarification as well.
Assuming you are talking about paragraph on PF phb page 551.
"Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilitys"
