Magical Components - Material or Focus

Question

The 6th level Wizard/Sorceror spell Emblem of Greed has a requirement of using a masterwork or magical weapon as the target to be enchanted by the spell. That is already a limitation, but then it lists components as "V,S,M (a masterwork or magical melee weapon)". The detailed spell description confirms the target is the material component.

PathFinder 1e "Material" components are consumed upon casting according to the definition of Magical Components. This makes the gp cost 300gp+ for masterwork weapon target and 1000gp+ for a magical weapon target.

It is mentioned in the spell description that magic properties of the masterwork bonus are replaced by the Emblem of Greed weapon powers for the duration of the spell... "rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell" but doesn't actually go so far as to say they return to normal after the duration expires. If the weapon is indeed "annihilated" upon spell duration ending then all properties are lost.

This seems to be way out of balance with the spell's benefits.

Reductio ad absurdum: If an opponent with a +2 flaming holy longsword (50,000gp+) can be disarmed and the weapon passed to the spellcaster, they can cast Emblem of Greed on it then in 1 minute per level the weapon is "annihilated".

Should the components really be "V,S,F (a masterwork or magical melee weapon)" for Emblem of Greed?

Answer 1

The component weapon and the target weapon must be different weapons

I don't think that the emblem of greed spell's "description confirms the target is the material component." The spell's description, in part, says

You transform one melee weapon into a burning glaive. The target of your spell must be a masterwork or magical melee weapon appropriate to your size.… If this spell is cast on a magic weapon, the powers of the spell supersede any that the weapon normally has, rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell. This spell is not cumulative with greater magic weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way. This spell does not work on artifacts. A masterwork weapon’s bonus on attack rolls does not stack with an enhancement bonus to attack. (Emphasis added and irrelevant information about scaling deleted by the answer's author.)

I don't see anywhere in that description that creates an exception to the normal rules for Magic (q.v. Components). While the spell's header material does have the entry "Components V, S, M (a masterwork or magical melee weapon)," that doesn't need to be a reference to or even interact with the entry "Target 1 masterwork melee weapon touched" or with the spell's description of the spell's target. Using the same language doesn't necessarily mean using the same weapon, and I'd argue such is the case here. Read this way, the spell's playable (albeit still problematic—see below) and doesn't break any rules.

Step by step, then, when the caster casts the spell, a magical or masterwork melee weapon that the caster designates that's already in the caster's hand is annihilated as the spell's material component. Then the caster touches a different magical or masterwork melee weapon (because the first one's annihilated), and that target magical or masterwork gains the effect of the emblem of greed spell.

To be clear, "a masterwork or magical melee weapon" remains a problematic material component but not due to its cost. Many spells have expensive material components, although many of those spells seem more generally impactful than this particular spell. (The forcecage spell's 500 gp component sprang to my mind, for example.) On the other hand, being able to annihilate any masterwork or magical melee weapon you're holding is kind of a big deal. You may already realize that your example is both better and worse: Using this reading, if the disarmed warrior's intelligent +5 vorpal longsword or whatever magical melee weapon can be passed to the wizard, the wizard can cast emblem of greed to vaporize that melee weapon as a standard action. (And, by a technical reading, that aspect of the spell works even on Excalibur or Stormbringer!)

I'd argue that few wizards would be willing to spend 300+ gp to cast this spell for its conventional combat reasons, but some wizards are weird. (And maybe they follow up with a transformation spell, I guess?) However, tell a wizard there's a spell that can destroy any melee weapon, and, depending on the campaign, that may be a first-pick spell.

Answer 2

"Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible"

The rules for components say

A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

Technically, the material component "(a masterwork or magical melee weapon)" does not have a cost given, so you can obtain one that is consumed at negligible cost and do not need to bother to track it. You'd need this component in addition to the weapon that you actually enchant, but you can assume you have it in your spell component pouch already. However that would work. Its technically not the same weapon.

Of course, that is nearly assuredly not what they meant. The intent must have been that you enchant a magical or masterwork melee weapon for the duration, as explained in the spell description; this same weapon erronously was added as a material component, as it will not be consumed. So, no: the material component should not have included it. Let common sense prevail and ignore it.