PDA

View Full Version : Houserules for mithril weapons (3.5)



Harperfan7
2010-06-05, 01:04 AM
I was thinking about this recently, and here's what I came up with.

If the weapon is a finessable weapon (same size, lighter weight) the and the wielder has weapon finesse, they gain a +1 untyped (?) bonus on attacks (also goes for thrown weapons consisting mostly of metal). If its a non finessable weapon (same weight, larger size), it deals damage as a weapon one size category larger (the weapon doesn't have to be mostly metal, for instance a spear would deal more damage because the metal part of the spear is larger).

The second option is pretty expensive, because mithril weapons are 500gp per pound (I think), and a problem there is a greataxe will cost way more than a greatsword despite them being roughly equal (or whatever roughly equivalent weapons with different weights).

Things to consider: being harder to use in tight quarters? A mithril weapon obviously can't overcome any type of DR without enchantment. Mithril (and adamantine for that matter) having higher craft dcs and being harder to find than normal weapons (which comes down to DM judgement, I know, but it should still be stated).

Also, all elven court/thin/whatever blades must be mithril (and thus cost more).

What do you think of this?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-05, 02:20 AM
The trick with a weapon is, the weight is part of what makes it deadly. It may be in the counter balance of the swing or it may be in the extra mass brought into one point.

If you gave it a property such as being immune to rusting and corrosive effects. [say from a Rust Monster] that certainly be worth it on a weapon.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-05, 07:48 AM
The trick with a weapon is, the weight is part of what makes it deadly. It may be in the counter balance of the swing or it may be in the extra mass brought into one point.
In real life perhaps, but not D&D. Mithril weapons are already in Core rules. The thing being that they have no game effect other than being lighter. But they are no less deadly. So we’re already well and divorced from reality here.

J.Gellert
2010-06-05, 07:51 AM
In real life perhaps, but not D&D. Mithril weapons are already in Core rules. The thing being that they have no game effect other than being lighter. But they are no less deadly. So we’re already well and divorced from reality here.

Only that there's no reason not to change it, if someone went into the trouble of making house rules for them in the first place...

molten_dragon
2010-06-05, 07:57 AM
I houserule that mithral weapons are treated as if they were one step lower than they actually are (similar to armor). So a mithral greatsword would be treated as a one-handed weapon. A mithral longsword would be treated as a light weapon (and could have weapon finesse applied to it), etc. This only works if the weapon is primarily made of metal.

Toxic Avenger
2010-06-05, 08:11 AM
This only works if the weapon is primarily made of metal.If the non-metal component is wood, then there's always Darkwood as an option.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-05, 12:34 PM
In real life perhaps, but not D&D. Mithril weapons are already in Core rules. The thing being that they have no game effect other than being lighter. But they are no less deadly. So we’re already well and divorced from reality here.

My point was there's a reason D&D doesn't grant a bonus for making weapons out of mithril. A weapon weighing less isn't really a benefit except for say a gun or a cannon.

Which is why I suggested the immunity to rusting and corrosion.

herrhauptmann
2010-06-05, 12:54 PM
If you gave it a property such as being immune to rusting and corrosive effects. [say from a Rust Monster] that certainly be worth it on a weapon.

There's several magic effects which already do just that. And they're cheaper than mithral. Everbright/blueshine/ durable (dungeonscape I think).
Perhaps just immune to rust, with a bonus to save vs being destroyed by acidic effects (while unattended or not).

DruchiiConversion
2010-06-05, 01:22 PM
I treat them as bypassing DR/silver, on account of the original mithril being "dwarvish silver", or "truesilver".

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-05, 07:20 PM
I treat them as bypassing DR/silver, on account of the original mithril being "dwarvish silver", or "truesilver".

This is how works in Pathfinder. i have to decide if is a good thing or is not, yet. :smallconfused:

AstralFire
2010-06-05, 08:35 PM
Good thing. Makes DR slightly less of a pain.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-05, 08:42 PM
Good thing. Makes DR slightly less of a pain.

+3 weapons already bypass cold iron/silver, +4 ones adamantine and +5 alignment based. Sort of a mix with 3.0.

I was thinking that is slightly redundant (or something like: "we should find a wa to make mithral weapons have sense") but you are probably right.

tiercel
2010-06-06, 05:30 AM
You could allow certain materials to be "power components" for magical enhancements, i.e. weapons made of material X have a reduced cost of enchantment for magical properties A, B, and C.

For mithral, such properties might include keen, speed, spell storing -- whatever you feel is particularly thematic.

If you're going to give extra bonuses to mithral you may wish to consider adjusting its cost (though you're right that, as is, there's no particular reason to make weapons out of the stuff). I just like the idea of the stuff actually being kinda rare, as opposed to the default material for chain shirts for basically any character of 4th level or so and above (not to mention "look Ma no proficiency" bucklers).