Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-10-05, 08:59 PM	here's an idea (i think this should work): is it possible to have a magic weapon with the same elemental/alignment based ability multiple times a) a +1 flaming/flaming/flaming/flaming/flaming/flaming/flaming/flaming/flaming dagger that would deal 1d4 damage plus 9d6 fire damage? (this averages to 33.5 damage, assuming this is against creatures without fire resistance or fire immunity) b) a +1 flaming/flaming burst/flaming burst/flaming burst/flaming burst greataxe that would deal 1d12 damage plus 5d6 fire damage plus 8d10 fire damage on a critical hit (this averages to 23.5 damage or 80.5 damage on a critical hit, assuming this is against creatures without fire resistance or fire immunity) would this work? if so then small/tiny (and even smaller) creatures can hold thier own in combat as long as the enemy doesn't have the right resistance note: i know that most armor/shield/weapon abilites don't stack- it simply couldn't provide any benefit anyways, but this is somthing to consider note #2: feel free to check my math, i could be off
Valkrist 02-10-05, 09:19 PM	Sadly, the only thing I can find in the DMG that would negate this (granted, I only spent 2 minutes looking) is the note at the bottom of the random property generator table for weapons. Subscript 4 says "Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability..." Goofy. I'm sure the intent was not to be able to stack them like that. You COULD, however, have a +1 flaming, shocking, frosty, flaming Burst, icy burst, shocking burst weapon. It would be redundant, but you could do it. Unless I'm missing something...
Greenintern 02-10-05, 09:25 PM	Unless I'm missing something... Nope, that is a valid, if not confusing, combination.
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-10-05, 09:28 PM	technically the "Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability..." could be limited to weapon enhancemnts that don't stack like this- you could actually find a dagger as i mentioned earlier!? 2) i agree, that list of different abilities would work, except either of these aforementioned weapons would be great against white dragons... so no objections based on data from the DMG/SRD (i couldn't find any)
hat 02-10-05, 10:01 PM	Hang on, so what is the concensus? Is it possible to have a weapon that is say, +1, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming? or alternatively, +1, flaming burst, flaming burst, flaming burst, flaming burst? what about +1 flaming, frost, acid, lightning? It just doesn't seem right to me. Mind you, I can't back that up with anything :rolleyes:
SD 02-10-05, 10:44 PM	what about +1 flaming, frost, acid, lightning?That know is legal. The question's been brought up on the boards before, and the FAQ's response is something like "Imagine the weapon covered in cold electric flames". The rest of this thread is too patently ridiculous to even consider or justify with a response, which is completely independent of the fact that I don't know the answer.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-10-05, 11:04 PM	dumb question: Wouldn't flaming and cold cancel each others? You're doing heat damage at the same time as cold damage of the same intensity... Or would it be mild damage? Just a thought...
Callahan 02-10-05, 11:26 PM	I don't like the idea but: There’s nothing illogical about a flaming, frost, shock weapon (at least not within any framework that allows weapons to generate energy in the first place), and there’s no rule against such weapons (think of the weapon as having fiery, frosty, shocking flames). The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired. the FAQ made it clear that you can make multy damage type weapons. I don't know about Flaming, flaming and flaming but a mix works without question.
Sproik 02-10-05, 11:56 PM	Well, here's my attempt at using the rules to say no (as opposed to using the slightest shred of decency, which is what should be used in this situation). From the SRD: Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus. So, there you have the answer... the flaming ability allows you to sheath the weapon in fire. If you have flaming three times, you can sheath the weapon in fire three times over. Regardless of how many times you sheath it in fire, however, a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage. So a +1 dagger with flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming does 1d4+1 points of piercing damage and 1d6 points of flaming damage.
DrMorganes 02-10-05, 11:56 PM	Various bonuses from the same source don't stack, so no flaming, flaming, etc weapons.
SD 02-11-05, 12:32 AM	By the same logic, no extra damage from +1 flaming burst flaming weapons. A flaming burst already acts as a flaming weapon except that it adds coolness on a crit. +1 flaming burst is just as good as +1 flaming burst flaming except the latter costs more. It seems to be something people forget.
John Q. Mayhem 02-11-05, 12:34 AM	It's pretty obviously balanced; a +1 flaming x3 weapon is better against a white dragon (or whatever) than a +1 flaming shocking acidic weapon, but it's worse against a red (or whatever). I like the idea of "better" elemental enhancements other than burst weapons, so I allow it. It strikes me that having a flaming x2 dagger deal only 1d6 fire damage (because it's from the same source) is rather silly. If someone upgraded their +1 dagger to a +2 dagger, would you only use the original +1, as it's from the same source? If increased pluses damage and attack bonuses stack, shouldn't increased flamings stack, too?
Thorak 02-11-05, 12:47 AM	It's pretty obviously balanced; a +1 flaming x3 weapon is better against a white dragon (or whatever) than a +1 flaming shocking acidic weapon, but it's worse against a red (or whatever). I like the idea of "better" elemental enhancements other than burst weapons, so I allow it. It strikes me that having a flaming x2 dagger deal only 1d6 fire damage (because it's from the same source) is rather silly. If someone upgraded their +1 dagger to a +2 dagger, would you only use the original +1, as it's from the same source? If increased pluses damage and attack bonuses stack, shouldn't increased flamings stack, too? Nope. Because abilities don't stack, and enhancement bonuses do, up to +5 per weapon. That said, Flaming/Icy/Shocking is entirely core, and is something I use religiously when making munchkin weapons for comparisons. +3d6 damage in 3 different types is nice, when it costs the same as a +3 weapon. That said, the weapon is typically +4 or 5 to boot. Because while you could have +1 with +9 in abilities, I'd rather have the extra to-hit I can use feats to distribute to damage or AC depending on the situation. But that's my personal preference. Oh, and don't forget the aligned weapon enchantments; for a Paladin, a Holy Axiomatic weapon is nice, +2d6 damage on any enemy either chaotic or evil, +4d6 against CE. Add Flaming/Icy/Shocking, and +3, and you've got a +3 sword that can do as much as +7d6 bonus damage. And that's entirely core.
The_Grikk 02-11-05, 07:12 AM	just get fiery blast and your all set.
angryman 02-11-05, 08:27 AM	What about epic +1 flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming,flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming,flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming,flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming weapons? A hefty +20 weapon, but it's pretty flamey. And would deal +19d6 fire damage. And it's flamey. :thinks: Or epic artifacts...er, nothing.
digoraccoon 02-11-05, 08:54 AM	dumb question: Wouldn't flaming and cold cancel each others? You're doing heat damage at the same time as cold damage of the same intensity... Well then how do you explain Icy-Hot and Bengay? :D Since we're dealing with magic, we can just explain it away easily without needing any kind of real world physics to prove it. I like to make "Fire+Ice" weapons give off a cold blue flame that's chilling to the touch and burning near the same time like muscle ointment... only it's not for epidermal use. :D
Korimyr the Rat 02-11-05, 10:03 AM	If you're just looking to throw a whole mess of d6s, you can just go with the +1 keen flaming burst icy burst shocking burst psychokinetic burst weapon and call it even. You even get a d4 for variety, and d10s and d8s on your frequent criticals.
Perpetual Wizard 02-11-05, 10:20 AM	In 3.0 this was kind of touched on with the Flame Tongue longsword. It was both a flaming weapon and a flaming burst weapon at the same time. The bonuses had to stack because the market price was equivalent to a +4 weapon, i.e. 32,315 gp. (+1 base magic, +1 flaming, and another +2 flaming burst). If the abilities didn't stack the exact same weapon could have been made by just making it a +1 flaming burst sword for 18,315 gp. They changed this sword a lot for 3.5 though. Now it costs less and can make a ranged flame attack. I like this version better.
pres_man 02-11-05, 10:30 AM	I think Sproik was on the right track. A +1 flaming flaming flaming longsword is still a flaming weapon. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. It doesn't matter how many more flaming enhancements you put on, it will still be a flaming weapon and therefore will do 1d6 of fire damage. On the other hand a +1 flaming frost longsword is a flaming weapon so 1d6 fire damage, but it is also a frost weapons so it also does 1d6 of cold damage. In my game I allow players to upgrade a flaming to a flame bursting and only pay the difference in price.
Thelon Fairblade 02-11-05, 10:57 AM	As a comparison, isn't there an Epic weapon enchantment that does 2d6 fire or even 3d6 fire? I would have to rule against a flaming flaming flaming weapon. Either it's on fire, or it isn't. At best, each d6 would be individually resisted by Fire REsistance.
Giver_of_Rings 02-11-05, 11:45 AM	My God, a Holy/Holy/Holy weapon... Hell, a Holy/Holy weapon. That thing'd kill thirty orcs before it got halfway out of the sheath. Wow. I am extremely confident that the Sage would disapprove.
God of Slivers 02-11-05, 11:52 AM	Okay, how about each flaming ability makes the flames hotter? Maybe the question we should be asking is whether or not a +1 flaming,flaming,flaming weapon is balanced? If its balanced, allow it, if not, don't. I personaly would allow that to stack.
The_Grikk 02-11-05, 12:07 PM	As a comparison, isn't there an Epic weapon enchantment that does 2d6 fire or even 3d6 fire? I would have to rule against a flaming flaming flaming weapon. Either it's on fire, or it isn't. At best, each d6 would be individually resisted by Fire REsistance. yes. Its called fiery blast. its a +6 enchantment and deals 3d6 dmg and on a crit its 6d6 (x2), 9d6 (x3).
God of Slivers 02-11-05, 12:16 PM	Firey blast is a +6 bonus, flaming burst is a +2 bonus, firey blast has the same effect of 3 stackings of flaming burst. Personally I think that it should be allowed, stacking them is really no different damage-wise that just choosing a different element, unless energy resistance is involved. In fact its a lot easier to get resistance to one element than multiple, so I would say that the +1 flaming, flaming, flaming weapon would get resisted (and do less damage) a lot more often than a +1 flaming, shocking, frost weapon.
Nightwing_22 02-11-05, 12:28 PM	According to the back of King Snurre's Miniature Card he has a Flaming x3 Greatsword. It may not be core, but it would seem to be official stats for such a weapon. Perhaps houserule that you must at least have as much enhancement bonus as you have enchantments (i.e. +3 Flaming x3)
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-11-05, 12:48 PM	By the same logic, no extra damage from +1 flaming burst flaming weapons. A flaming burst already acts as a flaming weapon except that it adds coolness on a crit. +1 flaming burst is just as good as +1 flaming burst flaming except the latter costs more. It seems to be something people forget. nope. The flaming burst is an explosion of flames/heat above and beyond the flaming enchantment. think of it as a kind of focused fireball exploding inside the wound (how do you say it... Ouch?). digoraccoon : Icy-hot? Bengai? Who's that? Official npcs? but I like the idea of a +1 Tiger Balm sword :)
EvilVegan 02-11-05, 01:00 PM	My favorite is still the Neutralizer. A +1 holy, unholy, axiomatic, anarchic scimitar. :)
Ogre4Hire 02-11-05, 02:20 PM	According to the D&D Minis game, the original poster's idea is actually valid. The D&D stats for the fig King Snurre the Fire Giant from the Giants of Legend expantion include a +1 Flaming (X3) Greatsword as part of his equipment, and the damage is listed as 3D6+big number+3D6 Fire. Flame On :mage:
Ringrose 02-11-05, 02:31 PM	I would think if the spell only allowed one alignment...then you would not be able to mix up a holy, unholy etc all sword...now an intellegent double-Weapon with a multiple personality complex is another situation entirely :) Align Weapon Transmutation [see text] Level: Clr 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Weapon touched or fifty projectiles (all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting) Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) Align weapon makes a weapon good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, as you choose. A weapon that is aligned can bypass the damage reduction of certain creatures. This spell has no effect on a weapon that already has an alignment. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike. When you make a weapon good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, align weapon is a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic spell, respectively.
Jaxen723 02-11-05, 02:32 PM	I think Sproik was on the right track. A +1 flaming flaming flaming longsword is still a flaming weapon. It doesn't matter how many more flaming enhancements you put on, it will still be a flaming weapon and therefore will do 1d6 of fire damage. On the other hand a +1 flaming frost longsword is a flaming weapon so 1d6 fire damage, but it is also a frost weapons so it also does 1d6 of cold damage. In my game I allow players to upgrade a flaming to a flame bursting and only pay the difference in price. The rules are pretty clear plus the multiple enhancements have been discussed on here before. Only one enhancement can be used at a time. If you have a +1 flaming frost weapon you can only use it as a flaming until you give the command word to change to frost. One ability at a time can be active. Just clarifying so dont take anything personally :D
Ringrose 02-11-05, 02:34 PM	The rules are pretty clear plus the multiple enhancements have been discussed on here before. Only one enhancement can be used at a time. If you have a +1 flaming frost weapon you can only use it as a flaming until you give the command word to change to frost. One ability at a time can be active. Just clarifying so dont take anything personally :D Sorry...do you have a link to a specific official ruling on this... thanks....
Thorak 02-11-05, 02:48 PM	Sorry...do you have a link to a specific official ruling on this... thanks.... While I said otherwise earlier, I have to change my tune after looking into it. You want official, how's the DMG, under the Flaming ability? "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given" Icy and Shocking are worded the same way. The various alignment damages (anarchic, holy, et al), and Thundering, are not. So the process is as such; Bob draws sword. Bob says "Flame on!" Sword engulfs in flame. Bob says "Shock on!" Flames die out, lightning crackles on blade. To activate the elemental damage, you need to give the command. If you give any other command to the weapon, say to activate another elemental damage, the effect dissipates.
Jaxen723 02-11-05, 02:49 PM	It's been a few days since it was last discussed but I am pretty sure that it is in the DMG can't remember exactly. It may also be in the SRD
Jaxen723 02-11-05, 02:50 PM	While I said otherwise earlier, I have to change my tune after looking into it. You want official, how's the DMG, under the Flaming ability? "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given" Icy and Shocking are worded the same way. The various alignment damages (anarchic, holy, et al), and Thundering, are not. So the process is as such; Bob draws sword. Bob says "Flame on!" Sword engulfs in flame. Bob says "Shock on!" Flames die out, lightning crackles on blade. To activate the elemental damage, you need to give the command. If you give any other command to the weapon, say to activate another elemental damage, the effect dissipates. Well worded Thorak :thumbsup: :cheer:
BlackFiend 02-11-05, 03:12 PM	By the logic stated so far: If you can have a flaming, flaming scimitar.... You can also have: +2 Wounding, Wounding, Wounding, Wounding Scimitar that does 4 points of Con damage a strike. Of course, one should couple this weapon with a dagger. I think a +1 Wounding, Wounding, Wounding, Vicious Dagger will do. Now hand this to a Dervish with a thousand cuts and boots of haste. The 7 planes of Hell couldn't hold all of the bodies such a fellow could create. Of course, he would need to keep a cleric friend around occassionally to heal the dents...small price to pay for being a tool for genocide.
EvilVegan 02-11-05, 03:32 PM	Actually they are pretty clear that it takes a command word to turn them on and off, it doesn't say anything about having more than one on at a time. What if the command word is the same for all 4 effects? Like whispering the name of your weapon sheathes it in flame, frost, electricity, and acid.
GreyGriffin 02-11-05, 03:40 PM	By the logic stated so far: The 7 planes of Hell couldn't hold all of the bodies such a fellow could create. Of course, he would need to keep a cleric friend around occassionally to heal the dents...small price to pay for being a tool for genocide. Of course not, that's why they built those extra two.
pres_man 02-11-05, 03:40 PM	Well this is what I found from the SRD: Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed. A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word. The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells identify and analyze dweomer both reveal command words. I don't see anything about how you can only have one type of thing activated at a time. Nor in any of the surrounding text. Let's try in the magic weapon section. Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). Nope, not there either. It looks like you can have more than one type of thing activated at the same time. So yes a +1 frost flaming sword would do 1d6 fire and 1d6 cold at the same time if both were activated. In fact it is possible for the same word to activate both (1 standard action) or for two different words to be used (2 standard actions).
strenoth 02-11-05, 03:41 PM	You are twisted the intent of the wording. its "another command is given", meanign the command to turn it off. it doesn't say "until Any other command is given" In addition to which, it's been confirmed by game designers that you can have multiple stacking echantments on at the same time.
MagykDragyn 02-11-05, 03:46 PM	Good against a White Dragon..Really bad against a Red one.
EvilVegan 02-11-05, 03:59 PM	technically it isn't that much better against a white dragon, since they'd probably have energy resistance 30 to fire most of the time from one source or another.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-11-05, 04:14 PM	I would think if the spell only allowed one alignment...then you would not be able to mix up a holy, unholy etc all sword...now an intellegent double-Weapon with a multiple personality complex is another situation entirely :) you just created the first schizophrenic double weapon in existance. flee!!!!
Finarin Panjoro 02-11-05, 04:38 PM	Jaxen723, According to the FAQ you can have a flaming, shocking, frost weapon with all three properties active not only at the same time, but all activated by the same command word so that it takes only one standard action to activate all three properties. Since a flaming, flaming, flaming weapon is weaker than flaming, shocking, frost weapon (more easily resisted by creatures with a single type of resistance) I don't see any reason not to allow it. Also by the rules a flaming, flaming, flaming weapon (if allowed) would do 3d6 fire damage, not 1d6. Damage always stacks. Bonuses overlap sometimes, but damage never does. That's why a flaming burst weapon does its 1d6 fire damage, plus extra fire damage for the burst, not overlapping damage.
Moon-Lancer 02-11-05, 04:53 PM	Ok. This has been stated earlier, but how does this unbalance the game to have multiple flames on top of each other? I think this question was avoided because their can be no good answer against it. It makes you strong against one thing and weak to another. You’re just putting all your enchantments in one basket. Anyway what happens when you put one flaming log on to another flaming log? Normally they get brighter and hotter and create a bigger flame. I can understand that this is magic but I still think they would feed off each other to make something more powerful. Personally though the idea of a flaming frost lightning is very visually potent and I’m sure you have seen movies with different colored energy quailing around a hand or something. if any people her have a hard time visualizing it I’m sure I could find you a picture or draw one for you.... with lots of pretty colors. ... its magic, and it can be anything you want it to be,... as long as it follows the rules... :)
blope 02-13-05, 07:31 PM	I thought a magic weapon was activated as a standard action? Including any or all of its abilities? That would mean flaming/frost could be activated at the same time. (its magic- therefore I think fire and ice can be believable). Also as a DM I would not allow a flaming/flaming/flaming weapon -mostly because I do not believe it stacks. If you wanted d6's, try the following: +1 flaming frost acid(caustic) spark sonic holy lawful weapon. 8d6 + 1d4sonic. personally I make sonic damage 1d6 but the above is in the rules. These abilities hit every time(barring alignment) so don't worry about critical hits.
HomebrewedMonster 02-14-05, 02:49 AM	If the character wants to spend 9 rounds activating flaming qualities, I say let him. Although I would rule against constant abilities such as wounding. Also you would need 9 different command words, otherwise it would turn one of the effects off. "Flame on" sword lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up....
Callahan 02-14-05, 03:04 AM	If the character wants to spend 9 rounds activating flaming qualities, I say let him. Although I would rule against constant abilities such as wounding. Also you would need 9 different command words, otherwise it would turn one of the effects off. "Flame on" sword lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up. "Flame on" sword extinguised and lights up.... the FAQ says that you can activate all of the abilities with one command. But hey: Thunder, thunder, thunder cats...hoe!!
HomebrewedMonster 02-14-05, 03:07 AM	the FAQ says that you can activate all of the abilities with one command. But hey: Thunder, thunder, thunder cats...hoe!! *Eyes glow* Lional needs are help, snarf....snarf.
The_Dark_One 02-14-05, 03:33 AM	"Imagine the weapon covered in cold electric flames". This is a very cool visual. I would love to wield the fabled "Sword of Fire and Ice" . Also, heat and cold are not utterly incompatible, even in normal physics. Under the right conditions, boiling water can freeze. Oh, and why does the phrase Holy, Holy, Holy remind me of a song?
Josh_Kablack 02-14-05, 03:42 AM	Okay, this is silly and potentially confusing to allow, but.. Unless you're using it against a cold-subtype creature, a +1 Flaming, Flaming, Flaming weapon is just flat-out inferior to a +4 weapon of the same type. And by the time you're getting +4 to + 5 equivalent weapons more than half of the creatures you're fighting have significant elemental resistances anyway, so this really isn't unbalanced to allow.
Drachasor 02-14-05, 01:03 PM	This is a very cool visual. I would love to wield the fabled "Sword of Fire and Ice" . Also, heat and cold are not utterly incompatible, even in normal physics. Under the right conditions, boiling water can freeze. Boiling water cannot freeze, the best you can get is to reach the triple-point of water, which is about 0.01 degree C and the pressure about .006 atmospheres. At this point water exists in all 3 of its states, solid, liquid, and gas at once. Otherwise you are either in one state, or inbetween two states (liquid-gas, solid-gas, liquid-solid). In any case, what we call "cold" is still the lack of heat. Heat and Cold *are* incompatible, one involves higher amounts of kinentic energy in the molecules than the other. D&D isn't physics though, and atoms don't even necessarily exist in the game. For all we know Heat and Cold are totally seperate entities that can coexist in some sense. Heck, even if it is an otherwise normal world physically, the hot areas of the sword and cold areas don't need to overlap, they could be swirling all over the blade in vortices. Then when you hit the hot and cold effects hit different parts of the body and don't cancel out. Anyhow, it doesn't really matter given the mechanics of the game. Oh, and why does the phrase Holy, Holy, Holy remind me of a song? It is a song. -Drachasor
Thorak 02-14-05, 02:54 PM	You are twisted the intent of the wording. its "another command is given", meanign the command to turn it off. it doesn't say "until Any other command is given" In addition to which, it's been confirmed by game designers that you can have multiple stacking echantments on at the same time. I have to disagree. It says "Until another command is given". It doesn't give any qualifiers to that. It does not say "until commanded to turn off" or anything like that. Just "until another command is given." Returning to my example; Bob turns his flaming sword on. He gives another command, and turns on the Frost. Clearly, "another command has been given." So the Flaming turns off. It doesn't have to say "any other" because it says "another". Turning one on is a command. Turning a second one on is another. I have to continue to disagree, guys. The DMG wording pretty clearly limits it to one element at a time. Despite what the FAQ says. I don't see how it's possible to interpret "until another command is given" to mean a specific command to turn it off. Since it neither says a specific command, nor that it's to turn it off. It merely states that another, one other, any other command cancels it out. I agree that it would look cool, and certainly wouldn't be broken or a problem to include. I just disagree that, by the RAW, it's allowed.
Drachasor 02-14-05, 03:18 PM	I have to disagree. It says "Until another command is given". It doesn't give any qualifiers to that. It does not say "until commanded to turn off" or anything like that. Just "until another command is given." Returning to my example; Bob turns his flaming sword on. He gives another command, and turns on the Frost. Clearly, "another command has been given." So the Flaming turns off. It doesn't have to say "any other" because it says "another". Turning one on is a command. Turning a second one on is another. I have to continue to disagree, guys. The DMG wording pretty clearly limits it to one element at a time. Despite what the FAQ says. I don't see how it's possible to interpret "until another command is given" to mean a specific command to turn it off. Since it neither says a specific command, nor that it's to turn it off. It merely states that another, one other, any other command cancels it out. I agree that it would look cool, and certainly wouldn't be broken or a problem to include. I just disagree that, by the RAW, it's allowed. Great, then according to this: Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. and your interpretation I need never learn a command word for anything again. I just need to "command" it. Any sort of command will do. -Drachasor
God of Slivers 02-14-05, 04:20 PM	Boiling water cannot freeze, the best you can get is to reach the triple-point of water, which is about 0.01 degree C and the pressure about .006 atmospheres. At this point water exists in all 3 of its states, solid, liquid, and gas at once. Otherwise you are either in one state, or inbetween two states (liquid-gas, solid-gas, liquid-solid). In any case, what we call "cold" is still the lack of heat. -Drachasor Boiling water can freeze, I've done it, however it boils for a different reason. Under very low pressure water will boil at freezing temp, therefore, if you put a glass of water in a vacuum chamber you can watch it freeze while boiling. Back OT, I really don't see how this would be imbalancing, if no-one can find a way to break this then by all means allow it, its probably more for flavor reasons anyways. If I was playing a pyromaniac I know I would want hotter and hotter flames on my sword, rather than cold flames of eletric acid.
Rulebook 02-14-05, 06:20 PM	stop bringing physics into this! this is D&D where magic exists. Where Magic and Physics mix, Magic ALWAYS trumps physics! so have your have your weapon burst forth in barely moving frozen flame, or bubbling ice that steams... its okay! but yeah, like the one guy up there said... would you want a +1 wounding/wounding/wounding/wounding weapon in your game? they dont stack people. can you be hasted/hasted/hasted/hasted/hasted for +5 actions a round? identical magic effects cannot be placed on the same subject (and have thier effects stack)
Mandarbgrim 02-14-05, 06:36 PM	Looking at it from a balance perspective... Flaming gives an average of 3.5 damage +1 gives +1 damage and +1 to Attack Generally +1 to attack seems to be weighted to equal +2 damage So.. Flaming 3.5 Damage +1 = +3 Damage Since more creatures seem to have resistance to elements than elemental vulnarabilities that seems to negate the advantage of the extra .5 damage. So..if this is all the case what would be the problem of allowing someone to have double up on the elements? It only seems natural to me.
God of Slivers 02-14-05, 06:51 PM	stop bringing physics into this! this is D&D where magic exists. Where Magic and Physics mix, Magic ALWAYS trumps physics! so have your have your weapon burst forth in barely moving frozen flame, or bubbling ice that steams... its okay! but yeah, like the one guy up there said... would you want a +1 wounding/wounding/wounding/wounding weapon in your game? they dont stack people. can you be hasted/hasted/hasted/hasted/hasted for +5 actions a round? identical magic effects cannot be placed on the same subject (and have thier effects stack) But the description of flaming says that it ADDS an extra 1d6 fire damage, wounding grants the ability to do con damage not extra con damage. Besides, you could always rule that only extra damage dice stacked. In fact, a +1 viscous viscous viscous weapon could be neat...
Thorak 02-14-05, 08:31 PM	Great, then according to this: and your interpretation I need never learn a command word for anything again. I just need to "command" it. Any sort of command will do. -Drachasor If you interpret "upon command" to mean a command word, then uttering another command word to activate another ability nullifies the first one. If you interpret it as you do as just a general command; "Sword, go flamey now", then when you issue another general command; "Sword, go chilly now", it nullifies the first one. What, exactly, was your point? Either way you interpret it, my point stands, and it's certainly not necessary to assume that "upon command" would be different than a command word for any other magical item.
Drachasor 02-14-05, 08:38 PM	If you interpret "upon command" to mean a command word, then uttering another command word to activate another ability nullifies the first one. If you interpret it as you do as just a general command; "Sword, go flamey now", then when you issue another general command; "Sword, go chilly now", it nullifies the first one. What, exactly, was your point? Either way you interpret it, my point stands, and it's certainly not necessary to assume that "upon command" would be different than a command word for any other magical item. Because it is silly and frivilous to assume that one time they mean "on command" to be a specific command word, yet a few moments later when they say "on command" they mean *any* command word. That's what you are doing. -Drachasor
Drachasor 02-14-05, 08:43 PM	Boiling water can freeze, I've done it, however it boils for a different reason. Under very low pressure water will boil at freezing temp, therefore, if you put a glass of water in a vacuum chamber you can watch it freeze while boiling. Back OT, I really don't see how this would be imbalancing, if no-one can find a way to break this then by all means allow it, its probably more for flavor reasons anyways. If I was playing a pyromaniac I know I would want hotter and hotter flames on my sword, rather than cold flames of eletric acid. Well, not quite. You can go through the Triple Point of water where it is boiling/freezing/sublimating/evaporating/condensating/depositating/melting all at once, and from there you can have it go solid. That's not quite boiling though, as it's doing a lot of things in the delicate triple-point state. Anything else is not nearly as close to what you describe. You can't really have something that is "boiling" immediately freeze, since "boiling" denotes the differences between the liquid and gas states. You either have to go through the triple point (where all three states exist) or go fully gas or fully liquid and then have it go through deposition or freezing. It might take moments for the transition to occur and go through the water, but such a transition will happen. -Drachasor
Callahan 02-14-05, 08:58 PM	Because it is silly and frivilous to assume that one time they mean "on command" to be a specific command word, yet a few moments later when they say "on command" they mean *any* command word. That's what you are doing. -Drachasor Look, it's simple. When making the weapon you can specify if you want all the abilities to activate with one command or different commands for each ability, thus you can customize exactly how you activate and deactivate your item. Also, did you know that distilled water does not boil?
AdroitMonk 02-14-05, 10:04 PM	To the people having the physics discussion, don't forget about sublimation. You can go from one state to another (usually solid to gas) without going through the intermediate state (liquid). This is why ice cubes shrink in the freezer, and why frozen meat gets freezer-burn. As long as we're talking about solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter, shall we have a nice discussion about plasma? :P Personally, I agree with Thorak, that the wording of the DMG implies that only one elemental effect can be on a weapon at a time. When you buy a flaming/frost/shocking/acidic weapon, you should only get one effect at a time. You are paying the extra +1's for the versatility of what kind of elemental damage you can do (similar to a psion picking the form his energy bolt takes), not the stacking. However, the FAQ does say on page 16: The flaming, frost, and shock weapon special abilities always have been command activated; the revision just clarified that. Activating an energy power requires a standard action, but once you activate energy power, the power works until you use another action to deactivate it. You can activate or deactivate one of these powers on up to 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, provided that all the ammunition is in your possession, all the ammunition is the same kind, and all the ammunition has the same power.... But then contradicts itself with: There’s nothing illogical about a flaming, frost, shock weapon (at least not within any framework that allows weapons to generate energy in the first place), and there’s no rule against such weapons (think of the weapon as having fiery, frosty, shocking flames). The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired. I don't care for that ruling in the FAQ, since not only does the author contradict himself, but also contradicts the DMG/SRD. On a side-note, when someone posted from the SRD the part about a command word being spoken in passing conversation, it reminded me of something humorous. My DM's world gives all Wands of Wonder the same command word, and the wand need not be held to activate, nor the word spoken by the carrier. The command word is "Oh sh--." We generally don't use these wands because of that, but it was fun once when I dropped a wand of wonder into a boss room from a deep hole above and yelled "Oh sh--! Oh sh--! Oh sh--! Oh sh--!..." down the hole. :devil:
Rulebook 02-14-05, 10:16 PM	ah, your confusion comes from interpreting "one of these powers" to mean a quantity rather than pertaining to a group. "One of these powers" means the powers from this set of powers. basically it means you have to activate/deactivat that set of powers, as opposed to keen, wounding, and the like which are constant and require no activation. and jesus christ people, Command words are like light switches, one command turns them on, another turns them off. when you turn on a light in your house, then turn a second one on, does it turn off the first one? if it does, sue your electritian seriously. its the same way with powers: you can wire your house to turn on all the lights at the same time or indavidualy if you want, but unless somethings horribly wrong, they stay on until you choose to turn them off.
xanadu 02-14-05, 10:27 PM	If you interpret "upon command" to mean a command word, then uttering another command word to activate another ability nullifies the first one. If you interpret it as you do as just a general command; "Sword, go flamey now", then when you issue another general command; "Sword, go chilly now", it nullifies the first one. What, exactly, was your point? Either way you interpret it, my point stands, and it's certainly not necessary to assume that "upon command" would be different than a command word for any other magical item. I'd have to say that is the most picky stretch of rules lawyering I have ever heard of. If you DM, I'd really consider lightening up else boring your players to death.
DevilKiller 02-14-05, 10:55 PM	Since I learned about the need to spend a standard action activating the elemental power or powers of a magic weapon I've wondered why one would ever bother deactivating the weapon (at least while on an adventure). I believe the rules say that the weapon's elemental damage doesn't harm the weilder or his possessions, so I can't see why he'd have to turn it off between fights, even (perhaps especially) if the weapon was sheathed. Good reasons to turn off the power would be laregely limited to environmental dangers (taking a flaming sword into a mine full of explosive gas) or monsters which benefit from the associated energy type (shocking vs. flesh golems)
Callahan 02-14-05, 10:58 PM	ah, your confusion comes from interpreting "one of these powers" to mean a quantity rather than pertaining to a group. "One of these powers" means the powers from this set of powers. basically it means you have to activate/deactivat that set of powers, as opposed to keen, wounding, and the like which are constant and require no activation. Plus the first part is talking about ammunition and the second one about weapons.
Thorak 02-15-05, 12:20 AM	Because it is silly and frivilous to assume that one time they mean "on command" to be a specific command word, yet a few moments later when they say "on command" they mean *any* command word. That's what you are doing. -Drachasor And yet, if you read my post, you'll see that I'm not. Heck, if you read the DMG, you'll see that's not what it says. It says "on command", and then, "until another command". So yes, it means a specific command, to make it flame, whether that's by command word or just ordering it, and then when you give the weapon any other command, that's "another command". It isn't referring to a specific other command, it's an other command. Non-specific. Meaning any. Definitions of "another"; Dictionary.com; 1. One more; an additional: had another cup of coffee. 2. Distinctly different from the first: took another route to town. 3. Some other: put it off to another day. Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com); 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <the same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <do it another time> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> Note how every single one of those carries the implication that whatever is "another", it is different from the initial. I don't see any use of the word that agrees with how you claim it has to work. I'd have to say that is the most picky stretch of rules lawyering I have ever heard of. If you DM, I'd really consider lightening up else boring your players to death I don't DM at the moment, but even when I do DM, I don't run things the way I discuss the rules here. Because on the boards, we can't be arguing that someone else is wrong because of our houserule. We have to assume that the rules, as they are written, are correct and to be used, for the purposes of these discussions, unless you're specifically discussing a houserule change. But I also think that, before you start houseruling things, you need to understand what the rules actually say. And in this case, the rules say only one elemental enchantment at a time. Perhaps you missed me saying I didn't think that houseruling around it would be bad or broken. As for being boring; I'm apparently getting under your skin enough to get you to post. Perhaps it's by being aggravating, but if you were bored, you wouldn't be posting, you'd just go elsewhere.
Melpomene 02-15-05, 12:34 AM	Wow... I was sold on flaming x3 before things got really heated. I think I still am. Elemental damage is so readily shrugged off, anyway. Now, on the other hand, a Holy Longsword of Bane [evil] x3....
Chaotix42 02-15-05, 01:11 AM	Are we to ignore the FAQ, where it states the answer to the very question in debate here? Regardless of how we may feel about specific rulings, shouldn't we trust that the FAQ is accurate? It is, after all, produced so that rules and common misconceptions can be cleared up and laid out for everyone, setting aside the semantic mumbo-jumbo. There's little to interpret in the text "The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired."
Thorak 02-15-05, 07:51 AM	Are we to ignore the FAQ, where it states the answer to the very question in debate here? Regardless of how we may feel about specific rulings, shouldn't we trust that the FAQ is accurate? It is, after all, produced so that rules and common misconceptions can be cleared up and laid out for everyone, setting aside the semantic mumbo-jumbo. There's little to interpret in the text "The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired." Ahh, but the FAQ is notorious for overstepping it's authority and trying to change the core rules, when that can only be done by official Errata. Since this issue's in debate, I'll cite the comments on bastard swords, and specifically this line; "the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons." The FAQ writer clearly knows, and points out, that the core books define the two weapons as one-handed weapons. And then tries to change that by saying they're "really" two-handed weapons. Nope, can't do it. That's changing the rules. Something the Errata is very clear on. In the case of any contradiction between two sources, the primary source (the core books, in any case between them and another source like the FAQ) is correct. The only thing that can contradict the primary source and be correct in doing so is an official Errata. Which the FAQ is most certainly not. I argue that the flaming/frosty/shocking question is similarly changing the rules. To quote the important bit; "Activating an energy power requires a standard action, but once you activate energy power, the power works until you use another action to deactivate it." That last bit, specifically. As has been quoted, they work until another command is given. Not until another command to deactivate it is given. See the difference? The former, the DMG version, refers to any command, since it makes no specific reference or limitations. The latter is creating a new restriction that disagrees with the DMG. In short; the DMG says nothing about a command to deactivate it. That's a creation of the FAQ, and in contradicting the DMG it is wrong. I agree there's little to debate in the FAQ itself, but it invalidates itself and thus its inner consistency is irrelevant. Just like the bastard sword answer does without any room for debate (as I am not claiming the case is here, it is murkier than the bastard sword issue).
Drachasor 02-15-05, 08:46 AM	I argue that the flaming/frosty/shocking question is similarly changing the rules. To quote the important bit; "Activating an energy power requires a standard action, but once you activate energy power, the power works until you use another action to deactivate it." That last bit, specifically. As has been quoted, they work until another command is given. Not until another command to deactivate it is given. See the difference? The former, the DMG version, refers to any command, since it makes no specific reference or limitations. The latter is creating a new restriction that disagrees with the DMG. In short; the DMG says nothing about a command to deactivate it. That's a creation of the FAQ, and in contradicting the DMG it is wrong. I agree there's little to debate in the FAQ itself, but it invalidates itself and thus its inner consistency is irrelevant. Just like the bastard sword answer does without any room for debate (as I am not claiming the case is here, it is murkier than the bastard sword issue). Sure, but there are many places you can put a bad spin on what is written, when a much more sensible interpretation is available, such as "you give one command to turn it on, and *another* to turn it off". If you want to insist on using what even you think is a bad interpretation....then whatever. It's clearly ridiculous to have any other command turn off the flaming part of a sword, and a Flaming, Shocking, Frost Sword that can't have all parts active at once is a really overpriced weapon. At that point you might as well just have a +4 weapon, which does the same average damage, more or less, but gives you a better to-hit and you can't resist the extra +3 damage as well. To propose anything else is to read be enforcing a bad interpretation of the rules as fact. Yes, it is an *interpretation* because english isn't a language where every statement has one and only one clear meaning. Your pulling of definitions for "another" in no way invalidates the view they are referring to another, specific command. In fact there is really nothing in the text to support you somewhat bizarre position that if a sword has multiple properties, say it shoots magic missiles on command and is flaming, then activating flaming and then another property cancels out the flaming. If anything, something that strange would have required they elaborate on that oddity with a textual example. I find your insistence on your interpretation a bit strange. -Drachasor
Chaotix42 02-15-05, 11:13 AM	Ummmm... both the FAQ and Errata are stated as being "official." It would seem to me that they are considered to be of the same standing. Is there anywhere that you can cite something akin to "Errata is ironclad, but if a FAQ contradicts an original source use the original source"?
Kinghappo 02-15-05, 01:10 PM	::Lan'igiro the head wizard of thay laughs as his mage armor appears around his body, extending his hand to make the very infamous "Come get some" motion:: Your warriors are slain, your constructs are in pieces, and your elven priestiest is now my pet... Your out of tricks little tinkerer... ::Dave the articifer (aka "He who slays all things icky") looks to his handy Large inteligent pick "Mr. Nasty" and smiles, tapping the head with his fingers:: "Mister "N", be a doll and switch yourself to the "Pain" setting please." ::The Burning, shocking burst, heavenly burst, icy burst, flaming burst, keen pick begins to glow, small streams of multicolor flames begin to circle around the picks head as the articifer nods in appreciation and waits for the action to begin:: ::drools::
Thorak 02-15-05, 01:12 PM	Ummmm... both the FAQ and Errata are stated as being "official." It would seem to me that they are considered to be of the same standing. Is there anywhere that you can cite something akin to "Errata is ironclad, but if a FAQ contradicts an original source use the original source"? The Errata; "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." The FAQ being, by any definition, a secondary rules source to the core book's primary. The offiical errata doesn't say otherwise, ergo the PHB is right and the FAQ is wrong. Drachasor: Your entire problem is with your reading of the line. It says that it stays active "until another command is given." It doesn't say what that command does, or that it's a specific command. Without limiting itself, it therefore refers to any other command. The same way that, if I asked you to "bring me another orange", I can't be asking you to bring me specifically that one on the bottom of the basket. I didn't specify any specific orange, so it refers to any of them. Or if I asked you to "stand on your head until another person speaks to you, and I'll give you 50 bucks." You'd demand payment after stopping when the first person to come up and speaks to you. I'd have no way to argue that I really meant a specific person, not just any person. I don't agree that, as written, there's any other way to interpret it. To do so you either need to add something to the sentence, or ignore how "another" is used in similar sentences.
Ogre4Hire 02-15-05, 01:13 PM	This has become the most ridiculous thread I've read in a month.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-15-05, 01:37 PM	This has become the most ridiculous thread I've read in a month. I agree.
Chaotix42 02-15-05, 01:58 PM	The Errata; "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." The FAQ being, by any definition, a secondary rules source to the core book's primary. The offiical errata doesn't say otherwise, ergo the PHB is right and the FAQ is wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, Thorak. I can't look at PDFs on my computer at work at the moment, so I couldn't check for myself. Drachasor: Your entire problem is with your reading of the line. It says that it stays active "until another command is given." It doesn't say what that command does, or that it's a specific command. Without limiting itself, it therefore refers to any other command. Well, then the only solution to this is to give all the enchantments on a given weapon the same command word. That way, "another command" is not required to activate any of the other enchantments. There's nothing saying only one of these powers can be active at a time, only that they turn off when "another command" is given (according to Thorak). This way, you're only giving one command; "another command" never comes into play. Problem circumvented.
Evil Wizard 02-15-05, 01:59 PM	I'll settle this with a very simple hypothetical example. A wizard creates a +1 Flaming Shock Frost sword. He sets the command word for the Flaming aspect to "On". He also sets the Shock command word to "On". The command word for Frost is also "On". The command word to deactivate all three is "Off". There is no rule anywhere that says they can't all share the same command word. The sword wielder uses an action and gives the command word "On". All three properties kick in, because they all have the same command word. He says "Off" and they all go out. Very simple. One action, three effects, and there's no "other action" to trigger any unnecessary rules lawyering and shut the other effects off. Likewise, That same wizard can include separate command words that activate just the Fire and Frost, or the Shock and Frost, or just the Fire, etc. There is also no rule that says you can't have a bunch of command words that all activate the same thing. In fact, a wizard could include a ton of command phrases that the sword will accept, so that a wielder could just pick it up and use it with only general knowledge of what it does. "Okay sword, turn on!" Edit: Curse you Chaotix42. Beaten to the punch. Getting back to the original topic, I wonder why nobody thought of stacking up the same elemental enchantment before, ha ha? Probably one of those things that players accept as true despite there being nothing in the rules that really prevents it. As is, a Flaming x3 sword is no better than a Flaming Shock Frost sword; being less versatile, it's probably worse. Unless you're planning on spending a lot of time in the arctic, I see nothing unbalancing about it.
Keenath 02-15-05, 02:51 PM	May I point out something here? Some of you are claiming that an elemental weapon enchantment doesn't have a "shutdown" command, but rather, it shuts down when any other weapon-related command is given. Correct? If this is the case, and I make a simple +1 flaming longsword, how exactly do I shut it off? Obviously the intent is each individual elemental ability has a command to activate it, and a second command (that is, "another command") to deactivate it. If I later add a second elemental ability, then that has a command to activate and another command to deactivate. But activating the frost does not shut off the flaming, unless I happen to set the 'on' command for frost to the same word as 'off' for flaming. And this is obviously the intent, since the FAQ states that I can have multiple abilities using the same command word. If there were supposed to be a rule that I couldn't use multiple elements at the same time, this would be explicitly forbidden, rather than explicitly encouraged! Given that there are two readings of the DMG rules, and one agrees with the FAQ while the other does not, we don't need to jump to the rules for which one overrides the other! We just have to assume that the reading that agrees with the FAQ is the correct one. This isn't the same as situations where a rule is outright contradicted by the FAQ -- one reading of the rule is contradicted, but the other is perfectly in line -- therefore, THAT must be the correct way to read the rules!
Keenath 02-15-05, 02:54 PM	Getting back to the original topic, I wonder why nobody thought of stacking up the same elemental enchantment before, ha ha? Probably one of those things that players accept as true despite there being nothing in the rules that really prevents it. As is, a Flaming x3 sword is no better than a Flaming Shock Frost sword; being less versatile, it's probably worse. Unless you're planning on spending a lot of time in the arctic, I see nothing unbalancing about it. Huh? Is that a joke? This is one of the perinneal topics, along with "Can I have fire and frost on a sword at the same time?" and "Is Wounding unbalanced?"
Wharin 02-15-05, 03:00 PM	[Edit: Keenath did a better job than i on this, and pretty much said the same thing i was trying. Read his instead of mine] Too many people are too interested in the RAW, and not enough in the spirit of the Rules (... as written). I think this is just a case of the rules-writers not being linguists, and not taking into account how the wording in question works with other mechanics. Being somewhat of a linguist myself (German Teacher), after reading the description, while the prevailing interpretation of the description, does support that any one ability would/could shut off the preceding one, it wouldnt take any stretch of the imagination, to see that the intent of what was written was otherwise. I mean, who made the FAQ ruling; Skip Willams? Wasnt he one of the authors of the 3 books? I'd like to think (despite people's complaints about him) that on certain issues such as this, that *he* would know whats what. Also, weren't there specific magic weapons given somewhere (it might have been in a computer game, so i dont know), where the weapon did have both flaming and frost on the same weapon (i believe it was called something like Freezing Heat, or Blue Fire or something to that effect), i'd like to think that such a weapon can have both effects on at the same time
Chaotix42 02-15-05, 03:04 PM	So the FAQ says that multiple abilities can be keyed to the same command word? Well then, there's no problem whatsoever. Just key all of your elemental abilities to the same command word, and then that pesky matter of "another command" never has to be brought up again. Thanks, Keenath.
Thorak 02-15-05, 04:25 PM	I mean, who made the FAQ ruling; Skip Willams? Wasnt he one of the authors of the 3 books? I'd like to think (despite people's complaints about him) that on certain issues such as this, that *he* would know whats what. I've said it before, I'll say it again; Skip was indeed one of the three authors of the core books. However, this means there were almost certainly three different interpretations of the rules they were putting together. So it's little surprise, to me, that Skip's interpretation in the end differs significantly from what was actually set out; he's either changed his mind, or he was overruled, or he wasn't in charge of that section and thinks differently. However, whether it's the FAQ or his RotG articles, or whereever else, if he publishes rules which contradict the core books, they are not official rules. They, at best, are official optional houserules. I'm not deriding Skip. I'm sure he's a great and talented guy. In fact, the way things get printed, and how much his rulings differ, make me think there very much was not complete consensus as to what 3.5 should be. So it's little surprise that he's pushing his views. To make them official, though, he'd have to get them into the Errata, and I suspect that they've set it up so that, while Skip's the FAQ guy, there needs to be unanimous approval of any Errata change between the three of them. Which makes me think that the other two, whose voices we don't get to hear but who were just as much authors of the books, don't agree with Skip's rulings. As for the more general argument; the one-command-word bit seems to fix it. Though it removes the ability to have any single element going, say if you're fighting something that's healed by fire. Unless you've got two command words for each ability, one that all three share, and then individual ones.
Drachasor 02-15-05, 05:39 PM	Drachasor: Your entire problem is with your reading of the line. It says that it stays active "until another command is given." It doesn't say what that command does, or that it's a specific command. Without limiting itself, it therefore refers to any other command. The use of "another" can go either way. That is what I was saying. You can use your orange example for your way. However, I lose my car keys, then I have a problem. If I find them and go to my and it has a flat tire I can say "now I have another problem", and I am referring to something specific. This is especially true with pairs of things, such as on/off commands. You have one command and you have *another*, and the specificity is not lost. Or have two keys to a car, if one is stolen then you "have another", which refers specifically to the other key. The passage can be fairly interpreted to mean they are specifically refering to another command connected to the flaming function; the "off" command. This is an example of the ambiguity of language, especially in colloquial useage. The phrase in the DMG can be interpreted either way. I think assuming they are referring to an off command makes more sense given the context of the passage; no examples or clarification that *any* other command would turn off the flames. This interpretation also makes more sense in terms of making a sensible ruling as a DM. All that and the FAQ clearly indicate one sensible way to handle it. -Drachasor
Thorak 02-15-05, 07:30 PM	The use of "another" can go either way. That is what I was saying. You can use your orange example for your way. However, I lose my car keys, then I have a problem. If I find them and go to my and it has a flat tire I can say "now I have another problem", and I am referring to something specific. This is especially true with pairs of things, such as on/off commands. You have one command and you have *another*, and the specificity is not lost. Or have two keys to a car, if one is stolen then you "have another", which refers specifically to the other key. The passage can be fairly interpreted to mean they are specifically refering to another command connected to the flaming function; the "off" command. This is an example of the ambiguity of language, especially in colloquial useage. The phrase in the DMG can be interpreted either way. I think assuming they are referring to an off command makes more sense given the context of the passage; no examples or clarification that *any* other command would turn off the flames. This interpretation also makes more sense in terms of making a sensible ruling as a DM. All that and the FAQ clearly indicate one sensible way to handle it. -Drachasor Ahh, but the sentences you're using do not mean what you say. If you were telling a friend you'd lost your key, and that "now you have another problem", he wouldn't have a sweet clue what your "other problem" is until you tell him. Because it's not specific. That example only works if the reference to the specific problem is obvious in some other way, like you looking at the flat tire when you say it. Without that kind of specific reference in addition to the sentence, it doesn't refer to a specific problem, even though you may have one in mind. Same with the keys. If you just said you had another key, nobody would know what you were talking about. Is it to your car, your house, your locker? Could be anything. All they know is it's a key. Unless, again, we provide context in addition to the sentence, by referring to the car somehow. My point is that in the case of this clause in the DMG, there is no such context. Therefore, the only way to read the sentence is that it refers to any other command, since it does not specify any specific kind or type of command. If there were another clause added, or a sentence clarifying the context, then sure, it could mean that. But there is no such context. If what you propose is what they meant by that sentence, then their elementary school teachers should be flogged. Because, to quote; "That word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
xanadu 02-15-05, 08:27 PM	But I also think that, before you start houseruling things, you need to understand what the rules actually say. And in this case, the rules say only one elemental enchantment at a time. No, the rules do not say that. Your interpretation of the rules led your to make such a conclusion. And I'd have to say you are very confident for being the only one who agrees with such an interpretation. As for being boring; I'm apparently getting under your skin enough to get you to post. Perhaps it's by being aggravating, but if you were bored, you wouldn't be posting, you'd just go elsewhere. No, I can't say you are getting under my skin or that I am aggrevated. I found the whole discussion rather amusing and then I wondered what it must be like to play with a DM who actually enforced such a questionable interpretation whose only purpose is to remove fun (i.e. no balance or logic concerns) and all of a sudden felt sorry for such players. Thus I figured I'd offer some advice in case DMs who play this way might be wondering why some regulars don't show up as often at gaming sessions. that Skip's interpretation in the end differs significantly from what was actually set out You don't find that assertion slightly melodramatic to say nothing of incredibly presumptuous? Skip's interpretation (i.e. not yours) does not differ significantly; in fact I, as well as eveyone else in the thread, find it commensurate with both the language and spirit of the rules. In fact, I am willing to concede the the game's designer might be in a better position to interpret areas of the game which may be unclear. I find these types of threads highly amusing. I just make some popcorn, sit back, and marvel at the strength of the human ego.
Thorak 02-15-05, 11:23 PM	No, the rules do not say that. Your interpretation of the rules led your to make such a conclusion. And I'd have to say you are very confident for being the only one who agrees with such an interpretation. Then tell me how you can possibly, by the rules of English grammar, interpret "until another command is given" to mean a specific command, without adding any extra information beyond what is in that clause. Because that's what the other side is arguing, and it flies in the face of the rules of the language. You don't find that assertion slightly melodramatic to say nothing of incredibly presumptuous? Skip's interpretation (i.e. not yours) does not differ significantly; in fact I, as well as eveyone else in the thread, find it commensurate with both the language and spirit of the rules. In fact, I am willing to concede the the game's designer might be in a better position to interpret areas of the game which may be unclear. I find these types of threads highly amusing. I just make some popcorn, sit back, and marvel at the strength of the human ego. I don't find it presumptuous, because I can conclusively prove that Skip's interpretations in the FAQ are wrong on other counts. So yes, this makes me doubt the accuracy of any of his FAQ entries; since I know he is prone to adding his own houserules into it as if they were real core rules, I ensure that any entry I'm looking at does not, in fact, contradict the core rules. And in this case, it does. Because like I have said, again and again; there is only one grammatical way to read that sentence. And it precludes what other people are claiming about how you can activate a second element without the first negating. I've already conceded the single-command-word-multiple-enchantments point, so I'm no longer maintaining you can't have multiple concurrent elements, but I am saying you can't turn them on one at a time, and get them all on that way. That's not how the RAW reads, and I have yet to see anyone provide any kind of proof that I'm wrong in that regard.
NightScreamer20 02-16-05, 12:00 AM	Bonuses from the same source don't stack, that is a general ideal. Multiple flame arrow spells do not stack, much like multiple magic weapon spells. I would never allow a weapon to ever have more than one type of the same enhancement. Why? Because ehancement bonuses to not stack! Flaming is a weapon enhancement, therefore flaming, flaming do not stack. just as you can't put 2 +1 enhancement bonuses on a weapon. I don't see what the problem is... nor what the question is... [i]Flaming[i] is a weapon enhancement, and weapon enhancements do not stack. So ok sure you can pure 9 flaming enhancements on a dagger, but it would just be a waste of time and money. -Fin
AdroitMonk 02-16-05, 01:00 AM	No, the rules do not say that. Your interpretation of the rules led your to make such a conclusion. And I'd have to say you are very confident for being the only one who agrees with such an interpretation. He's not the only one. I also posted that the DMG/SRD, as written, based on the basic rules of grammar for the English language, indicates only one command-activated special ability can be working at a given time. As far as using a single command word to activate multiple effects, that seems plausible. However, if you have a shocking/flaming/frost weapon, that single command word will cause problems if coming up against a creature that is resistant, or even healed by, a particular effect within the group. Why? Because the DMG/SRD, as written, indicates that you can't have multiple command words for a single effect. It consistently refers to "the command word" when describing an enchantment. If you wanted multiple command words to either use each effect individually as well as together, then I'd say that should require a separate enchantment for each effect -- one for the group together, and another for the individual effect, and one for every combination in between. That would make a very expensive item.
Drachasor 02-16-05, 01:08 AM	Lord knows the designers and writers are all english majors and logicians who always clearly and precisely say what they mean so no errata or confusion ever results. Oh wait...they don't. Someone clarified a statement that was overly broad by narrowing down the intended subject of "another", they just did so in a FAQ. They provided the context to clearly indicate the use of "another" there meant something more specific than what some might interpret the sentence as. -Drachasor
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-16-05, 01:58 AM	I don't find it presumptuous, because I can conclusively prove that Skip's interpretations in the FAQ are wrong on other counts. So yes, this makes me doubt the accuracy of any of his FAQ entries; since I know he is prone to adding his own houserules into it as if they were real core rules, I ensure that any entry I'm looking at does not, in fact, contradict the core rules. And in this case, it does. That's not how the RAW reads, and I have yet to see anyone provide any kind of proof that I'm wrong in that regard. emphasis mine I'm gonna go with skip' interpretations because... A): He is one of the 3 lead designer of D&D 3.5. HE know what he meant when he wrote the rules. B): He's writing the FAQ, so we can assume it's because he know what he's saying (would you give the task of writing the faq to someone who's not gonna give the right answers?) C): FAQ means Frenquently Asked Questions. It's writen so that you can check it and bypass the need to email a rule query. You write your FAQ to clarify things. Now, can we assume that when you write to D&D to have a rule clarification, they're gonna send you the right answer (if they send one)? It's not a good business practice to mislead your custommers... D): He's working at Wizards. If he hesitate with a rule query, don't you think he could go and ask the other designers before answering? Just maybe... I think the grammar argument is kinda a false one. What's more important, the precise wording of what you say, or what you mean? Everybody can make grammatical errors and everybody can interpreat I slight literary technicality to support his interpretation. But they clarified it in the faq... Clarifying what you meant make any wording-based argument groundless...
Thorak 02-16-05, 07:02 AM	Lord knows the designers and writers are all english majors and logicians who always clearly and precisely say what they mean so no errata or confusion ever results. Oh wait...they don't. Someone clarified a statement that was overly broad by narrowing down the intended subject of "another", they just did so in a FAQ. They provided the context to clearly indicate the use of "another" there meant something more specific than what some might interpret the sentence as. -Drachasor If it were an error, there would be an Errata. Is there one? No? Then it's not an error, and the FAQ is wrong. I never said they had to get it perfect right off the back or that they couldn't edit it. I said they had to use the Errata to do so. Which they themselves said. emphasis mine I'm gonna go with skip' interpretations because... A): He is one of the 3 lead designer of D&D 3.5. HE know what he meant when he wrote the rules. B): He's writing the FAQ, so we can assume it's because he know what he's saying (would you give the task of writing the faq to someone who's not gonna give the right answers?) C): FAQ means Frenquently Asked Questions. It's writen so that you can check it and bypass the need to email a rule query. You write your FAQ to clarify things. Now, can we assume that when you write to D&D to have a rule clarification, they're gonna send you the right answer (if they send one)? It's not a good business practice to mislead your custommers... D): He's working at Wizards. If he hesitate with a rule query, don't you think he could go and ask the other designers before answering? Just maybe... I think the grammar argument is kinda a false one. What's more important, the precise wording of what you say, or what you mean? Everybody can make grammatical errors and everybody can interpreat I slight literary technicality to support his interpretation. But they clarified it in the faq... Clarifying what you meant make any wording-based argument groundless... A> Was he the designer of that section? Was there consensus among the three as to what it should be? What's the views of the other 2? Considering Skip's view can be shown to differ from the core rules, it seems his view isn't the same as whoever wrote it. B> Or, it's because he's one of the three main designers, and the other two either had no interest or time to do so. C> First; clarification. The FAQ cannot make or change rules. Second; WotC is notorious for giving bad answers; I find it hard to believe you've never seen a bad answer from custserv posted onto these boards. Besides, I've conclusively shown that the FAQ is wrong, at least regarding bastard swords. If it's wrong there, you can't be assuming the rest is perfect. D> Not if he knows, because of the discussions they had in designing 3.5, he knows they'll disagree. Again, I cite that his changes don't make it into Errata as evidence that there is no consensus. As for grammar versus meaning; you don't have a sweet clue what the designers meant when they wrote it. You have a belief that it should mean something. I'm pointing out that, grammatically, that sentence cannot mean what you believe. Unless you can give me proof, from all three designers, that their intent with the passage was as you suggest, kindly stop throwing around terms like meaning when you have absolutely no basis for that except personal beliefs. It's like trying to prove that God scientifically exists because you believe he does.
strenoth 02-16-05, 12:23 PM	flipping the argument: You beleive that the interpretation is ment to be that only one enchantment at a time can be activated, despite evidence to the contrary (FAQ). since the use of 'another' is ambiguous, it needs clarification. The FAQ provided that clarification (if it didn't need to be clarified, it wouldn't have been such a major arument in the first place). The burden of proof is now upon you to show us that your interpretation is what the rules designers ment DESPITE what the FAQ says.
Chaotix42 02-16-05, 01:19 PM	My god, this is so silly. We've already come to the agreement that any and all of the enchantments can be going at the same time (flaming, forst, shocking, etc.)! Just give each combination of enchantments a different command word and be done with it. That way you can activate what you want and in whatever combination you want without having to worry about this senseless semantic issue. No more problems.
DanSDS 02-16-05, 01:32 PM	Simply put, multiple abilities can have the same command word and activate simultaneously, thus providing a loophole for the 'until another command' technicality. So, 'Empower!' or something like that. Go nuts.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-16-05, 01:33 PM	A> Was he the designer of that section? there consensus among the three as to what it should be? What's the views of the other 2? Considering Skip's view can be shown to differ from the core rules, it seems his view isn't the same as whoever wrote it. You're ASSUMING skip's take on this one is different from the other designer's idea. Ok. Did any of them SAY so? If you want to cite dissension, prove said dissension. B> Or, it's because he's one of the three main designers, and the other two either had no interest or time to do so. Wich don't change the fact that he was one of the three designers. Just because the others aren't doing the faq don't mean Skip's not qualified to do it :D C> First; clarification. The FAQ cannot make or change rules. Second; WotC is notorious for giving bad answers; I find it hard to believe you've never seen a bad answer from custserv posted onto these boards. Besides, I've conclusively shown that the FAQ is wrong, at least regarding bastard swords. If it's wrong there, you can't be assuming the rest is perfect. nothing's perfect in this world. But saying it was wrong on a few instances doesn't mean all of it is wrong. If they bother to keep their faq, it's because most of it is right, no? D> Not if he knows, because of the discussions they had in designing 3.5, he knows they'll disagree. Again, I cite that his changes don't make it into Errata as evidence that there is no consensus. This is paranoid. skip know they,ll disagree, so he won't ask them if he's in doubt? conspiracy theory, man. Prove it. As for grammar versus meaning; you don't have a sweet clue what the designers meant when they wrote it. You have a belief that it should mean something. I'm pointing out that, grammatically, that sentence cannot mean what you believe. no I don't know for sure. I wasn't there. But neither were you, I think. My belief come from a clarification they posted on the faq. Don't try to use grammar to prove something when they clarified their word to state their meaning. It's semantic vs meaning... Unless you can give me proof, from all three designers, that their intent with the passage was as you suggest, kindly stop throwing around terms like meaning when you have absolutely no basis for that except personal beliefs. It's like trying to prove that God scientifically exists because you believe he does. And you have a personnal belief that the other 2 designers don't agree with Skip. how do you know this? You don't , so you assume. At least, MY .personnal beliefs" can be backed by a statement from one of the designers. As Skip's opinion is the only one we have, I feel the burden of proof rest on you to prove dissension.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-16-05, 01:37 PM	My god, this is so silly. ...without having to worry about this senseless semantic issue. No more problems. I wholeheartedly agree. Yet, a pointless semantic "debate" can be fun sometimes... :P Ultimatly, do what you want in your game. Either point of vue is not really unbalancing, so it is kinda pointless for me.
Thorak 02-16-05, 02:52 PM	flipping the argument: You beleive that the interpretation is ment to be that only one enchantment at a time can be activated, despite evidence to the contrary (FAQ). since the use of 'another' is ambiguous, it needs clarification. The FAQ provided that clarification (if it didn't need to be clarified, it wouldn't have been such a major arument in the first place). The burden of proof is now upon you to show us that your interpretation is what the rules designers ment DESPITE what the FAQ says. Look at the bolded statement in what I quoted. That has not been proven, and in fact, I believe I have shown that it is not ambiguous, and can not be read to mean what you think it does. Disagree? Prove me wrong. Use dictionaries and grammar. The burden of proof is on you, because you have yet to provide any backup for this basic assumption you're making. You're ASSUMING skip's take on this one is different from the other designer's idea. Ok. Did any of them SAY so? If you want to cite dissension, prove said dissension. The PHB says something different than what Skip says in the FAQ. Dissension proved. At the least, on Skip's part, from what's been written already. Wich don't change the fact that he was one of the three designers. Just because the others aren't doing the faq don't mean Skip's not qualified to do it Never said he wasn't. Just said that the FAQ isn't qualified to change the rules. When Skip attempts to do so, he's exceeding the FAQ's authority. nothing's perfect in this world. But saying it was wrong on a few instances doesn't mean all of it is wrong. If they bother to keep their faq, it's because most of it is right, no? Yes, and I agree with and use most of the FAQ. I consider it correct unless it contradicts the core books. Which it does do on occasion, so I keep my eye open and check on what it says if it seems odd. This is paranoid. skip know they,ll disagree, so he won't ask them if he's in doubt? conspiracy theory, man. Prove it. It was only a proposed theory. The facts of the situation are that Skip is claiming as fact rules which contradict the PHB, and thus he is wrong by the wording of the Errata. And he hasn't gotten those changes put into the Errata. Considering people on the boards are constantly pointing out the errors, and he's not changing or removing them, and they're not getting put into the Errata, I have to assume there's dissension in the upper ranks. Because, while that seems paranoid, the alternative is that they're either ignoring the feedback from the boards, or they're doing a half-assed job and don't care about inconsistencies. I prefer the minor conspiracy to those options. no I don't know for sure. I wasn't there. But neither were you, I think. My belief come from a clarification they posted on the faq. Don't try to use grammar to prove something when they clarified their word to state their meaning. It's semantic vs meaning... Uh huh. Except that if the semantics of the sentence are wrong, it needs to be errataed to fix it. A FAQ clarification can't change the wording to be correct. They didn't state "their" meaning. Skip stated his. This doesn't mean there's a consensus. And we don't even know if Skip authored that section or not. And you have a personnal belief that the other 2 designers don't agree with Skip. how do you know this? You don't , so you assume. At least, MY .personnal beliefs" can be backed by a statement from one of the designers. As Skip's opinion is the only one we have, I feel the burden of proof rest on you to prove dissension. There is dissension; Skip's FAQ entries contradict the PHB as written. Which it's not allowed to do, according to the Errata, which says only the Errata can correct a primary source. So my choices are either that Skip is in conflict on some issues with the other designers and is using the FAQ to encourage his interpretation, or that Skip is doing a very poor job and not bothering to check his material. I'd prefer to think there's a little conflict rather than claiming he's an idiot. Because while I criticise his contradicting the PHB, that doesn't mean I necessarily don't agree with his opinions on how it should work. I happen to disagree on bastard swords and such, but mostly because of how the PHB is worded and implications that invalidate the way he worded the FAQ entry. On this matter, I happen to agree as to how it should work. But I don't agree that this is how it does work. What I choose to houserule in my own games is irrelevant to the official rules. Same for Skip's official houserules. According to the official rules, turning on a second elemental enchantment negates the first, unless you've got a single word and they all activate simultaneously.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-16-05, 03:24 PM	Why not just add nine more weapon enhancements. Flaming: +1d6 Fire damage Really Flaming: +2d6 Fire damage Really Really Flaming: +3d6 Fire damage Very Flaming: +4d6 Fire damage Really Very Flaming: +5d6 Fire damage Really Really Very Flaming: +6d6 Fire damage Very Very Flaming: +7d6 Fire damage Very Very Really Flaming: +8d6 Fire damage Very Very Really Really: +9d6 Fire damage Damn thats Flaming: +10d6 Fire damage I don't see any negative impact of allowing flaming, frost, or shock to stack. Holy, unholy, anarchic, axiotmatic? Maybe, but not too much. You shouldn't be fighting only evil all day. Wounding, I still don't like the ability anyway. I prefer the 1 damage/round method. Alot more fun. Spellstoring? Can it store more than one spell? I wouldn't allow it for many of the other enhancements. But Flaming, Frost, and Shock. I think it makes more sense that a to have a Really Really Flaming Longsword than a Flaming Frosty Shocking longsword. At least its thematic. How many books do you ready where the fighters sword becomes wreathed in a cold electric flame. What the hell does a cold electric flame look like. I can't even imagine an electric flame. But a sword thats got a really hot flame, maybe its a white flame, now thats imaginable.
Finarin Panjoro 02-16-05, 04:57 PM	Flaming: +1d6 Fire damage Really Flaming: +2d6 Fire damage Really Really Flaming: +3d6 Fire damage Very Flaming: +4d6 Fire damage Really Very Flaming: +5d6 Fire damage Really Really Very Flaming: +6d6 Fire damage Very Very Flaming: +7d6 Fire damage Very Very Really Flaming: +8d6 Fire damage Very Very Really Really: +9d6 Fire damage Damn thats Flaming: +10d6 Fire damage Bravo! :rofl:
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-16-05, 04:59 PM	so, sort of to summerize this thread, a) a flaming x3 weapon stacks (according to most people), acceptable by the RAW (according to most people), and balanced (according to most people) Therefore: it works, but has as many (or more) drawbacks as advantages, and can reasonably be houseruled out of a campaign also: a muti-flaming weapon could be specifically labeled (really really flaming), or as a flaming flaming flaming weapon or just refered to as a flaming x3 weapon-this is a matter of taste and not a requirement (though calling it a flaming flaming flaming weapon would get tiresome, if that route were chosen) b) magic and physics are not friends: in any fight magic beats up physics for the simple reason that physics seems to insist on being logical Therefore: a flaming frost weapon works (see below) c) fun with command words!!! i ain't even going to comment on this... nah, sure i will. here's an idea: why do all command words have to work the same? > there could be a shocking flaming frost longbow that has 3 different activation commands (for each effect) and a single off switch command > there could be a flaming x2 frost x2 shortsword that has 4 command words (double fire, double frost, double flame and double frost, off switch for all effects) > there could be a "cursed" flaming x3 greataxe (deals 3d6 fire damage), but each flaming effect must be activated seperately (3 standard actions), and each flaming effect has a different off switch command (3 more standard actions)- this weapon is hard to prepare for a fight and slow to deactivate for diplomacy (though an arctic dwelling barbarian would probably like it) > there could be a flaming x2 frost x2 warhammer with only 2 commands (activates frost and deactivates fire, activates fire and deactivates frost), but this would mean that one of the two effects is always active > there could be a flaming x3 sickle that has 2 command words (on switch for all effects, off switch for all effects) > the could be a shocking flaming frost heavy mace with 4 command words (on switch for all effects, one off switch per effect) Therefore: command words can be loads of fun or irritation. any DM can do whatever s/he pleases (including crashing the sun into the moon, but that is off topic) altogether, i think all comments on command words are valid, but none should be stated as the only way, or even the only way according to the RAW- as it is written and commented on, there are to many possible interpretations to limit what is right by what "meant". d) wounding shouldn't stack- i never said it should note: i know that most armor/shield/weapon abilites don't stack- it simply couldn't provide any benefit anyways, but this is somthing to consider - me (i stated this on the original post) also: i, too, prefered the bleeding wound version of the wounding weapon anything i missed? Edit: one thing that i missed (and it seems that most others did too) is the use of greater magic weapon. with that spell (or an effect that temporarily duplicates the spell) a +1 flaming x9 dagger is better than a +5 flaming x5 dagger (or a +1 flaming x3 longsword compared to a +4 longsword), even if only for the duration of the spell
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-16-05, 08:36 PM	Edit: one thing that i missed (and it seems that most others did too) is the use of greater magic weapon. with that spell (or an effect that temporarily duplicates the spell) a +1 flaming x9 dagger is better than a +5 flaming x5 dagger (or a +1 flaming x3 longsword compared to a +4 longsword), even if only for the duration of the spell Thinking about this, why aren't there spells that can give a weapon certain "enhancement" features. Like Enflame: Sheathes a weapon in flames, the weapon is treated as magical for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction, and deals +1d6 fire damage. Wiz/Sor 1 or 2. 1 round/level Charge: Charges the weapon with powerful electricity, the weapon is treated as magical for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction, and deals +1d6 shock damage. Wiz/Sor 1 or 2. 1 round/level Freeze: Turns the weapon cold as ice, the weapon is treated as magical for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction, and deals +1d6 frost damage damage. Wiz/Sor 1 or 2. 1 round/level
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-16-05, 08:52 PM	well, Treetrip Danglefoot, there is the artificer Pc clas from eberron, has 4 infusions (new spell effect, niether arcane or divine): - personal weapon augmentation - lesser weapon augmentation - weapon augmentation - greater weapon augmentation no other spellcaster can uses these "spells" though, so this doesn't help the masses very much maybe a sor/wiz spell, "energy sheath", level 2, adds 1d6 energy damage to the weapon (acid, fire, electricity, cold, NOT SONIC), 10 min/level duration, can be dismissed, can affect either a single weapon or 1 head of a double weapon or 50 units of amunition, range of touch
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-17-05, 12:31 AM	Disagree? Prove me wrong. Use dictionaries and grammar. The burden of proof is on you, because you have yet to provide any backup for this basic assumption you're making. A faq made by a lead designer of the game on the company's website DO costitute backup, you know... The PHB says something different than what Skip says in the FAQ. Dissension proved. At the least, on Skip's part, from what's been written already. Ok. He didn't say what he (or one of the others...) wrote in the PHB/DMG is wrong, he CLARIFIED his meaning. Wich is NOT the same as saying we got it wrong. Seeing there was a problem in the interpretation, he felt the need to clarify things in the faq. Never said he wasn't. Just said that the FAQ isn't qualified to change the rules. When Skip attempts to do so, he's exceeding the FAQ's authority. Sorry, but a game's designer is the ultimate authority in how to interpret a rule as it was meant to be. It was only a proposed theory. The facts of the situation are that Skip is claiming as fact rules which contradict the PHB, and thus he is wrong by the wording of the Errata. And he hasn't gotten those changes put into the Errata. Considering people on the boards are constantly pointing out the errors, and he's not changing or removing them, and they're not getting put into the Errata, I have to assume there's dissension in the upper ranks. sight. Again, wording vs meaning. Meaning is what's important. You think of a concept, then express it in words, not the reverse. If you use the wrong word, you can clarify it. Because, while that seems paranoid, the alternative is that they're either ignoring the feedback from the boards, or they're doing a half-assed job and don't care about inconsistencies. I prefer the minor conspiracy to those options. Huh, how about another alternative? He's right and the other designers are agreeing with him? Since none of the other designers bothered to contradict him, how can you imagine dissension here? Uh huh. Except that if the semantics of the sentence are wrong, it needs to be errataed to fix it. A FAQ clarification can't change the wording to be correct. So, the faq should be ignored just because you don't agree with the conclusion? I, for one, don't realy care if it's in the errata or faq or rules clarifications or culinary board. It's from the lead designer, a current employee of wizard on Wizard's site. That gives a lot of credibility to the faq... They didn't state "their" meaning. Skip stated his. This doesn't mean there's a consensus. And we don't even know if Skip authored that section or not. Huh, wasn't it a group effort? If someone design a whole section, he still gotta show it to the others to see if they agree... You're dodging the question. Skip stated "his" meaning? Should each designer provide notarized statements saying that they concur to make a faq? No. If you want a claim of dissension to have credibility, back it up. Otherwise, it's pure imagination. There is dissension; Skip's FAQ entries contradict the PHB as written. Which it's not allowed to do, according to the Errata, which says only the Errata can correct a primary source. ...Contradict the precise wording by explaining the intended meaning. But I don't agree that this is how it does work. What I choose to houserule in my own games is irrelevant to the official rules. Same for Skip's official houserules. According to the official rules, turning on a second elemental enchantment negates the first, unless you've got a single word and they all activate simultaneously. I consider a faq to be more than houserules. After all, it's made to clarify the rules, not pursue an agenda :D. Of course, he can be wrong. He's human (to get the extra feat...). But since he still got his job, I'd say he has to be right more often than he's wrong...
xanadu 02-17-05, 02:06 AM	And yet, if you read my post, you'll see that I'm not. Heck, if you read the DMG, you'll see that's not what it says. It says "on command", and then, "until another command". So yes, it means a specific command, to make it flame, whether that's by command word or just ordering it, and then when you give the weapon any other command, that's "another command". It isn't referring to a specific other command, it's an other command. Non-specific. Meaning any. Definitions of "another"; Dictionary.com; 1. One more; an additional: had another cup of coffee. 2. Distinctly different from the first: took another route to town. 3. Some other: put it off to another day. Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com); 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <the same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <do it another time> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> Note how every single one of those carries the implication that whatever is "another", it is different from the initial. I don't see any use of the word that agrees with how you claim it has to work. Ok. I give command to activate fire on my sword. I then yell, "Fido SIT!" (i.e. give another command) Your call. Let me guess, my sword deactivates :P
Andrew_980 02-17-05, 08:48 AM	If the writer of the damned book says that things work the way he says i think he is most qualified to make that statment. if it's not "official" because it is not errata than just munchkin out every miss wording in the game. or try growing up and just listen to the man that wrote the rules expecting us to have the common decency to not try to use the wording as a weapon against all who try to do what is obviously intended
Maraxus 02-17-05, 09:41 AM	"Would a flaming/flaming weapon unbalance the game?" was asked. Of cause it would. If you want a really flaming weapon it has to be flaming burst. If you allow flaming/flaming, nobody ever would buy flaming burst. Second, there are many creatures, that have some low resistences, like tiefling ect. If you have multiple enchantments, each works and reduces your damage. if you have only one, this is overcome and you still deal a lot of damage. My favorite weapon: a cold iron, holy, axiomatic, outsider(evil) bane, outsider(chaotic) bane, vicious bastardsword +3. fear 10d6 extra damage, demons.
Thorak 02-17-05, 10:14 AM	A faq made by a lead designer of the game on the company's website DO costitute backup, you know... Unless they contradict the primary sources, which is my point. Ok. He didn't say what he (or one of the others...) wrote in the PHB/DMG is wrong, he CLARIFIED his meaning. Wich is NOT the same as saying we got it wrong. Seeing there was a problem in the interpretation, he felt the need to clarify things in the faq. Ahh, but the way it's worded in the DMG doesn't need clarification; it has one possible interpretation, as written. And his FAQ entry contradicts that interpretation. Thus, it is incorrect. That's my point. If he missed a clause, like "until another command is given to deactivate it", it would be ridiculously simple to Errata it. Sorry, but a game's designer is the ultimate authority in how to interpret a rule as it was meant to be. Unless he's one of three designers, and the Errata which I assume was written by unanimous agreement says that anything contradicting the primary sources except said Errata is wrong. If it was worded incorrectly, it should be Errataed. That's what the Errata is for. As it stands, the rule has one interpretation. A different one than Skip's. If Skip said that dragons only grow to be 3 feet long, would you consider that absolutely correct too? sight. Again, wording vs meaning. Meaning is what's important. You think of a concept, then express it in words, not the reverse. If you use the wrong word, you can clarify it. No, if you use the wrong word, you can Errata it, in this case. The FAQ cannot correct the PHB. If there were two possible interpretations, the FAQ can indeed show which one is the correct one. That is not the case here. There is one interpretation, which Skip disagrees with. Huh, how about another alternative? He's right and the other designers are agreeing with him? Since none of the other designers bothered to contradict him, how can you imagine dissension here? None of the other designers have commented. So, by virtue of their lack of support and that the changes don't make it into the Errata, I assume there is no consensus. It's an assumption, but like I said, the other option is that they don't know how to write properly and refuse to correct themselves using the means they've said they would, the Errata. So, the faq should be ignored just because you don't agree with the conclusion? I, for one, don't realy care if it's in the errata or faq or rules clarifications or culinary board. It's from the lead designer, a current employee of wizard on Wizard's site. That gives a lot of credibility to the faq... I don't ignore it because I don't agree with the conclusion. I happen to agree in this case, and would houserule accordingly. I ignore it because it doesn't agree with the DMG, for the purposes of discussing the official rules. Huh, wasn't it a group effort? If someone design a whole section, he still gotta show it to the others to see if they agree... You're dodging the question. Skip stated "his" meaning? Should each designer provide notarized statements saying that they concur to make a faq? No. If you want a claim of dissension to have credibility, back it up. Otherwise, it's pure imagination. Like I said; if it's not dissension, it's bordering on negligence. ...Contradict the precise wording by explaining the intended meaning. Which the FAQ does not have the authority to do. The Errata clearly says that the only thing that can contradict the precise wording of a primary source and be correct is the Errata itself. I consider a faq to be more than houserules. After all, it's made to clarify the rules, not pursue an agenda :D. Of course, he can be wrong. He's human (to get the extra feat...). But since he still got his job, I'd say he has to be right more often than he's wrong... He is right more than he's wrong. Most of the FAQ is great. I'm disappointed by some of the glaring issues. This is a relatively minor one. The bastard sword comment I've referenced before really bothers me on whole levels, both because it's a glaring overstepping of the FAQs bounds, admits that it's a change to the PHB, and the implications are not considered. This isn't the place to debate that point, though. Besides, I consider it the job of every consumer to tell the producer when their service isn't up to par. And in this case, I think the FAQ is often needlessly sloppy and poorly written. I'm not being destructive in criticising it, I'm pointing out the flaws on the official WotC boards so that someone can find out there's an issue and hopefully do something about it. This all stems from a desire on my part to improve D&D.
Drachasor 02-17-05, 10:17 AM	Unless they contradict the primary sources, which is my point. Ahh, but the way it's worded in the DMG doesn't need clarification; it has one possible interpretation, as written. And his FAQ entry contradicts that interpretation. Thus, it is incorrect. That's my point. If he missed a clause, like "until another command is given to deactivate it", it would be ridiculously simple to Errata it. Thereby you show that in fact the statement is ambiguous in the DMG. "Another" can be something specific or not, especially if you are talking about something in particular (command words for a function), so the original statement is perfectly compatible with at least two interpretations. The FAQ just explains the proper one. As someone pointed out, you could read it to mean *any* command to *anything* (such as a pet dog), and that is clearly ridiculous. The key is finding the right level of discrimination, and the FAQ is an aid in this. -Drachasor
Finarin Panjoro 02-17-05, 10:20 AM	"Would a flaming/flaming weapon unbalance the game?" was asked. Of cause it would. If you want a really flaming weapon it has to be flaming burst. If you allow flaming/flaming, nobody ever would buy flaming burst. Second, there are many creatures, that have some low resistences, like tiefling ect. If you have multiple enchantments, each works and reduces your damage. if you have only one, this is overcome and you still deal a lot of damage. How can a flaming/flaming weapon be unbalancing in a game that allows flaming/frost weapons (see the FAQ)? To any creature with no resistance they deal the same extra damage. To any creature with fire or cold resistance it has no resistance against the other type. To any creature with vulnerability to either type it takes +50% damage. Any creature with a resist energy spell can only safeguard against one of the types per casting. None of this is true against a flaming/flaming weapon. Resist energy, a second level spell, provides resistance 10 which is going to almost totally negate 2d6 of fire damage. It can't do that against a flaming/frost weapon. Any creature with fire resistance of any kind (even 5) is better off against a flaming/flaming weapon than a flaming/frost weapon becuase the flaming/flaming weapon can still do less than 5 points on a hit, a flaming frost weapon will always do atleast 1 point of cold damage. There are fewer creatures with fire resistance 5 and cold resistance 5 than there are creatures with resistance to one or the other. Against any creature except one with fire vulnerability a flaming/flaming weapon is weaker than a flaming/frost weapon. I also disagree that flaming burst would become any more obselete than it has already been made by a flaming/frost weapon (allowed by the FAQ). If I can already make a weapon that is a flaming/frost weapon how does flaming/flaming make flaming burst any less attractive? Flaming burst will remain attractive to the same people it is already attractive too. People who are good at critical hits. A weapon with a crit multiplier of x3 (bows, axes, etc) adds 3-26 pts of fire damage on a crit. If I have a high threat range (19-20 or higher) this may be more appealing than an average +3 pts per normal hit. Personally I think flaming burst should add 2d6 fire damage rather than 1d10 (crits usually apply double damage), but that's another issue. Note: For the purpose of this post I'm assuming the FAQ to be valid. It is an official source and is a clarification of the rules intent. An ultra-strict interpretation of the rules benefits no one since it puts the priority on the written word over the impact on the game.
Keenath 02-17-05, 11:23 AM	How can we be arguing about the meaning of 'another'? 'Another' can refer to a single, specific item! If I say "I locked my key in my car, but that's okay, I have another" -- would you assume that I mean I have another key that operates my car door, or would you assume that I mean I have one other key in my pocket, possibly the one that opens the front door of my house? Logically, I'm referring to another key that operates my car! Now, in this paragraph, they are describing the operation of a single weapon enchantment. The paragraph nowhere even brings in the idea of multiple elemental enchantments -- all it says is, when you add flames to your sword, you have one command to turn them on and another command to turn them off. That doesn't even speak to the concept of a second enchantment. Since nobody has mentioned a second enchantment, there's no reason to assume that "another" means "ANY other command", any more than my comment about keys should be taken to be speaking of ANY other key, rather than a key that operates a specific, particular lock. You should read this sentance with the definition of "another" that means "distinct from the first" -- that is, "different" -- rather than the one that means "some other" -- that is, "anything other than the first". In my dictionary, the first definition comes first, meaning that's the MOST COMMON usage, while 'some other' is a secondary definition.
Aracor 02-17-05, 11:33 AM	Thorak, the listing in the SRD and the DMG is unclear, at least the intent. Otherwise, a strict reading of the rules (at least your way) creates this idiocy: I draw my staff, and speak the word of command causing it to be wreathed in flames! The opponent casts a spell, damaging me badly, so I speak the word of command causing my staff to cast a heal spell. Since I've given another command, suddenly the flames are extinguished. Come on. "Activating an energy power requires a standard action, but once you activate energy power, the power works until you use another action to deactivate it." That last bit, specifically. As has been quoted, they work until another command is given. Not until another command to deactivate it is given. See the difference? The former, the DMG version, refers to any command, since it makes no specific reference or limitations. The latter is creating a new restriction that disagrees with the DMG. It does NOT say they work until another command is given. It says you need to use another action. The way that reads, you need to specifically devote an action to actively turn off said power, in my example the flaming ability. Not as soon as you use another power or give another command, regardless of whether or not it even relates to the weapon of fire. Therefore, there is ambiguity. Why? Because we read it different ways. The FAQ does a wonderful job of clarifying that passage so that it makes sense. Here, it doesn't say what kind of action, just that it requires an action. The FAQ says it's another command. That's an action. Therefore the FAQ isn't contradicting the DMG, and therefore it works. Unless, of course, you can show me where it says it will last until another command is given. ~Aracor
Keenath 02-17-05, 11:44 AM	Unless they contradict the primary sources, which is my point. Can you agree that there is ambiguity in the way this ability is described? Can you agree that there is more than one meaning for 'another', and that the rule has two different meanings based on which one you choose? Now, one of those meanings is opposed by the faq answer, and the other is supported by the faq answer. There is no contradiction in one case, but there is in the other. There is no need to invoke the contradiction-resolution rules, because there is another interpretation of the rules that the FAQ is directly supporting. Therefore, logically, that answer MUST be correct. It is supported by the FAQ and is a legitimate way to read the rules. The only reason you want to say the FAQ doesn't count is because it disagrees with YOU -- not because it disagrees with the rulebook.
Thorak 02-17-05, 12:59 PM	Thorak, the listing in the SRD and the DMG is unclear, at least the intent. Otherwise, a strict reading of the rules (at least your way) creates this idiocy: I draw my staff, and speak the word of command causing it to be wreathed in flames! The opponent casts a spell, damaging me badly, so I speak the word of command causing my staff to cast a heal spell. Since I've given another command, suddenly the flames are extinguished. Come on. That's exactly how the DMG reads. Note that I'm not, and have never, claimed that this is the way it should work. I started this thread agreeing with you, my attitude regarding the official position changed on reading exactly how the DMG worded it. It does NOT say they work until another command is given. I'm separating this sentence out. SRD; "The effect remains until another command is given." It certainly seems like it does say that. As long as you agree that "the effect remains" is semantically equivalent to "they (the effects) work". It says you need to use another action. The way that reads, you need to specifically devote an action to actively turn off said power, in my example the flaming ability. Not as soon as you use another power or give another command, regardless of whether or not it even relates to the weapon of fire. Therefore, there is ambiguity. Why? Because we read it different ways. The FAQ does a wonderful job of clarifying that passage so that it makes sense. Here, it doesn't say what kind of action, just that it requires an action. The FAQ says it's another command. That's an action. Therefore the FAQ isn't contradicting the DMG, and therefore it works. Unless, of course, you can show me where it says it will last until another command is given. ~Aracor Again, from the SRD; "The effect remains until another command is given." It doesn't say a darn thing about using a standard action to turn it off. It merely says that, when "another command is given", the effect ceases to exist. Are we reading the same books? Can you agree that there is ambiguity in the way this ability is described? Can you agree that there is more than one meaning for 'another', and that the rule has two different meanings based on which one you choose? Nope. Because there's one meaning. The "other meaning" isn't a meaning of "another", it's context surrounding the word that allows it to refer to something more specific. Example; I say "I would like another." You don't have a sweet clue what I want. I say "I would like another drink." You know I want a drink. You don't know what kind of drink I want. I say "I would like another drink" while wiggling my Fresca can at you. The addition of the can-wiggling leads you to think that I specifically want another Fresca. I say "I would like another drink, one of the ones in the freezer so it's cold" while still wiggling the drink. Now we're really getting specific. My point being; "another" still has the exact same meaning. What it refers to is being clarified by the context and surrounding wording. And nobody here has shown that the context and surrounding wording, in this case, implies that it's referring to a specific command word. Nor do I believe there is any. Without that context, it has to be assumed it means any other command word. Now, one of those meanings is opposed by the faq answer, and the other is supported by the faq answer. There is no contradiction in one case, but there is in the other. There is no need to invoke the contradiction-resolution rules, because there is another interpretation of the rules that the FAQ is directly supporting. Therefore, logically, that answer MUST be correct. It is supported by the FAQ and is a legitimate way to read the rules. Except that the FAQ's answer isn't supported by the RAW. You have to add wording to the RAW, to create a new context for the sentence or to add clauses to the wording, to create that other interpretation. As written, there is no context suggesting it's a specific command word. And nobody has proven otherwise, you simply keep claiming it's there without showing it. The only reason you want to say the FAQ doesn't count is because it disagrees with YOU -- not because it disagrees with the rulebook. Have you been reading this since the start of the thread? I started off agreeing that they stack like you guys suggest. I changed my opinion when I read the actual wording of the ability and thought about it. If I were going to insist on something because it disagrees with me, I wouldn't have changed my opinion in the first place. So kindly drop the ad hominem attack. It's inaccurate, and doesn't prove a darn thing about my argument even if it were.
Wharin 02-17-05, 01:30 PM	Well if we are going to get that technical with the wording, then why would anyone want to wield any weapon with any sort of elemental damage bonus? A guy is charging someone with a flaming, frost, acidic, shocking, flaming, viscious, mercy long sword (We'll pretend that he used a command word to turn them all on at once). The chargee, in a desparate act to stay alive, despite the fact that he knows hes going to get hit yells "Jump!" (Talking is a free action that be done even when its not your turn). All the sudden all of the enchantments turn off. And the Chargee is saved, and the Charger is very confused. 3rd grade grammer told me that "Jump!" is a command word. Along with "Sit!" "Stand!" "Beg!" "Run!" and pretty much any verb given in the imperitve form. It doesnt say that only the wielder can turn the weapon off. In fact, its any wonder that a weapon with such a toggle enchancement stays on at all, as someone on Oerth, surely says a command word somewhere pretty much at any given time. It doesnt say according to the rules, that the sword has to be able to hear the command, only that one has to be given. Is this absolutely rediculous? Absolutely. But it hopefully makes my point with Strict interpretation vs. Spirit of what was written. Almost any rule can be interpretted oddly, if the spirit isnt taken into account. Its all about game lingo. I still maintain that the description in the DMG isn't wrongly worded, its just that its poorly worded. When i read the description, it didnt even occur to me that turning on frost would turn off flaming, until you stated your interpretation of what was written. Thats what the FAQ is for: to clear up and define the spirit of the rules, where ambiguity exists. If it was wrongly worded, then yes, errata would be needed. But I am guessing that Wizards didnt deem it "wrongly worded".
Beamup 02-17-05, 01:39 PM	I am strongly reminded of the question of what you can do when you're dead. To wit, the rules place no restriction whatsoever on what you can do when you're dead - which would, by a strict reading, imply that you can do whatever you want. Which is, of course, ludicrous and is (AFAIK) universally accepted as just something the writers didn't bother to specify because it was obvious. I will ALSO note that this never made it into any FAQ or errata. I would suggest that this is the same. After all, the strict reading (and I agree that Thorak's reading is pretty much the only grammatical way to read it) indicates that a Flaming weapon deactivates as soon as anyone in the game universe issues any command to anyone or anything. After all, there is no stipulation about who gives the command either. They don't even have to be on the same plane, or giving the command to the weapon. As soon as Joe Random Blacksmith tells his apprentice, "fetch me that hammer," the Flaming swords of every Balor in the Abyss turn off. So this, I would argue, also falls under the category of "yes, strictly speaking the rules do say that, but it couldn't possibly be any clearer that it was simply an unclear statement by the writers."
Aracor 02-17-05, 01:48 PM	Sorry. I got a quote from one of your previous posts and apparently I got the wrong one. This time I'll take it directly from the SRD. Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. It says "another command". It doesn't say "any other command." Nor does it say "another specific command." The FAQ isn't contradicting the RAW in this case, it's just clarifying exactly what kind of command is used. It's not saying "There is no command involved," it's just saying "OK, it says a command is used. Here's the type of command." That's not contradicting, that's clarifying. It's getting more specific, but it's not invalidating anything that's actually listed there, because otherwise it COULD be read in the way that I listed above, but it could also be read to say that you have to tell it to turn off directly, rather than just saying some other random word. Especially considering that the methods of activation are only 4. Spell completion, spell trigger, use activated, and command word. This item is obviously command word, which means a specific word. The way the activation system is read, it's not specific whether or not the same command word or a different one would turn something off, but it would still be considered a specific word, rather than any random command that happens to be spoken while the weapon is covered in flames. Now, let's compare it with your other favorite example: The bastard sword. It specifically says in the FAQ that the PHB states one thing, and it should be something else. THAT is a contradiction. In this case, a contradiction would be the FAQ saying something along the lines of "There's actually no activation or deactivation, the power is just always on whenever you're using the sword." That's a contradiction. What's actually listed in the FAQ for energy weapons is not. ~Aracor
meabolex 02-17-05, 02:21 PM	Hmmm. The FAQ reads that the addition of multiple energy types stack. Thus, you can have a frost, shocking, flaming weapon. However, nothing I've read or seen implies that adding a weapon modifier twice gives you double the effect. Am I missing something? Wouldn't some epic slayer of evil have a +5 holy (2x) weapon? Wouldn't someone who REALLY hates fire have a +1 frost (9x) weapon? I'd believe it if it were in some core supplement, in some write up somewhere on the WotC site involving NPCs in either character spotlights or posted adventurers on the site, or clearly presented in errata or the FAQ. However, I have no evidence at all to conclude that the designers intented this to be possible. The only thing I have is speculation. Speculation doesn't run my games -- I do. Show me evidence that WotC uses this concept in an NPC write up on the Wizards site or in some adventure and I'll reconsider. I read something about some miniatures guy having this ability, but I wouldn't quite call that core or even core supplemental. I will not allow it.
Aracor 02-17-05, 02:27 PM	Technically by the RAW, it's not actually allowed to stack on multiple enhancements like that. But on the other hand, just for elemental enchantments, I would have no problem with it and I wouldn't consider it unbalanced. ~Aracor
Keenath 02-17-05, 02:27 PM	Nope. Because there's one meaning. The "other meaning" isn't a meaning of "another", it's context surrounding the word that allows it to refer to something more specific. Example; <example clipped> I didn't WANT to have to drag out my dictionary. I HATE it when people do this. But you obviously leave me no recourse. My dictionary says that Another has three meanings, not one: 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <The same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <We'll meet another time.> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> The first meaning specifies, implicitly, that you mean a particular other, not ANYTHING that isn't the first one. The second entry refers to anything that isn't the first one -- in the example, any time that isn't currently under discussion is available for the meeting. I say the rule has the first meaning of "another", while you claim it's the second. I say the rule says you use one other, unique command word, different from the one that turns it on, while you claim it means ANY other command word that you happen to use. Coincidentally, by your interpretation, it doesn't even have to be a command word directed towards the sword. What if I have a hat of disguise that I command to activate? Does THAT shut down my sword too? My point being; "another" still has the exact same meaning. What it refers to is being clarified by the context and surrounding wording. And nobody here has shown that the context and surrounding wording, in this case, implies that it's referring to a specific command word. Nor do I believe there is any. Without that context, it has to be assumed it means any other command word. I think it's exactly the opposite. The context does INDEED show that it means a single, specific command word -- because the context doesn't ever mention another enchantment. The context is speaking of a single case, a simple case where you have a single weapon with a single enchantment that uses two command words. The fact that we're even arguing this is obvious proof that the passage IS ambiguous, and you can scream it's not as long as you like; we all speak English, and we are disagreeing on the meaning. That's what 'ambiguous' means! Why is it that nobody is arguing that the first line of the weapon power says "Upon command, the weapon is sheathed in fire", and that doesn't mean a particular command word, but ANY command word? It doesn't say "a specific command word selected at the time of creation", you know.
Wharin 02-17-05, 02:36 PM	Extra damage and Attack bonuses/skill bonuses are two different beasts. Damage always stacks (if thats the right word) unless otherwise noted. Extra damage is extra damage.
Keenath 02-17-05, 02:54 PM	The only reason you want to say the FAQ doesn't count is because it disagrees with YOU -- not because it disagrees with the rulebook. Have you been reading this since the start of the thread? I started off agreeing that they stack like you guys suggest. I changed my opinion when I read the actual wording of the ability and thought about it. If I were going to insist on something because it disagrees with me, I wouldn't have changed my opinion in the first place. So kindly drop the ad hominem attack. It's inaccurate, and doesn't prove a darn thing about my argument even if it were. Well, actually, it goes a long way towards explaining why you continue to claim that the FAQ can't be used as evidence. It's been said three or four times, so I won't go into the argument as to why. At this point, I'm simply trying to imagine what's driving the incredible insistence on making a sentence say what it doesn't say -- or rather, deny that it could possibly have any interpretation other than yours.
Thorak 02-17-05, 03:38 PM	Sorry. I got a quote from one of your previous posts and apparently I got the wrong one. This time I'll take it directly from the SRD. It says "another command". It doesn't say "any other command." Nor does it say "another specific command." Uh huh. And without context to define it more clearly, "another command" means "any other command." If I were an Admiral, and told a Captain to "take your ship to X until another command is given", to use the exact same wording, the Captain can't be thinking that the only command that could get him to move is to go to Y. He has to be ready for any command that will change where he needs to be. Because the context is not specified, beyond it being a command. Now, let's compare it with your other favorite example: The bastard sword. It specifically says in the FAQ that the PHB states one thing, and it should be something else. THAT is a contradiction. In this case, a contradiction would be the FAQ saying something along the lines of "There's actually no activation or deactivation, the power is just always on whenever you're using the sword." That's a contradiction. What's actually listed in the FAQ for energy weapons is not. ~Aracor I disagree. And you have failed to show that there's another way to read the sentence. I didn't WANT to have to drag out my dictionary. I HATE it when people do this. But you obviously leave me no recourse. My dictionary says that Another has three meanings, not one: 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <The same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <We'll meet another time.> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> The first meaning specifies, implicitly, that you mean a particular other, not ANYTHING that isn't the first one. The second entry refers to anything that isn't the first one -- in the example, any time that isn't currently under discussion is available for the meeting. Let's use your definition then. I'm not picky. The first meaning does not mean a particular anything. To use your quoted example, "another angle" could be any other angle. It's not saying it has to be the one 90 degrees off. All that's specified is that it's an angle. And in the case of the DMG clause, that it's a command. The second, like you say, is entirely open, and thus also nonspecific. The third, the same, though it even more strongly suggests my view is correct, since "the same kind" would be an activating command word, rather than any other kind. I say the rule has the first meaning of "another", while you claim it's the second. I say the rule says you use one other, unique command word, different from the one that turns it on, while you claim it means ANY other command word that you happen to use. Except you're not using the first meaning. The first meaning is that whatever is "another" is "different or distinct from the first one considered". How do you then, in all honesty, read that to mean a single, specific, unique, command word? It refers to anything different from the first. It may be referring to a single thing specifically, but you can't tell what that thing is by the use of "another", you need more context. Which the DMG doesn't provide. Coincidentally, by your interpretation, it doesn't even have to be a command word directed towards the sword. What if I have a hat of disguise that I command to activate? Does THAT shut down my sword too? Yep. Same way that, if you had a hat of disguise and a sword of flaming that both reacted to "boogaloo", saying "boogaloo" affects both at once. And again; I'm not saying this is the best way it could work. Just that the official rules aren't loose enough to allow anything else, without houseruling. Which I heartily suggest, in this case. I think it's exactly the opposite. The context does INDEED show that it means a single, specific command word -- because the context doesn't ever mention another enchantment. The context is speaking of a single case, a simple case where you have a single weapon with a single enchantment that uses two command words. Fine. The surrounding text; "Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition." The bit about fire not hurting the wielder, and everything after "until another command is given" have nothing to do with the command words. So let's cut them out for simplicity's sake, since we're looking for stuff that talks about the command words. "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The effect remains until another command is given." There. The context is very, very clear. You give the command, the weapon is sheathed in fire. The effect remains until another command is given. Any other command. There is nothing specifying anything else in this, or the surrounding sentences. The context doesn't need to mention another enchantment, because it makes very clear early on that all you need to do to activate a command word item is say the word. If the sword goes flamey when you say "fire", then if you're oiling it down, and say "I hope it dries out soon, it would be nice to have a campfire again", you're going to have an uncomfortable night. Not because the sword's flames will hurt you, but because it'll ignite the oil, which will. It reacts whenever the word is given. If you're using the same fire, hitting an ice elemental, and shout "I know fire is your doom!", your sword turns off. So why wouldn't the phrasing include any other commands given? I see no specification otherwise, and it doesn't make sense that they would say "another command is given" when "on command" works better and isn't confusing. Unless they intended it to work as I suggest. The fact that we're even arguing this is obvious proof that the passage IS ambiguous, and you can scream it's not as long as you like; we all speak English, and we are disagreeing on the meaning. That's what 'ambiguous' means! Ahh. But it's not ambiguous. What's causing confusion is people's understanding of English, not how the sentence is worded. Saying it's ambiguous is like saying advanced calculus is ambiguous, just because you don't understand it. Why is it that nobody is arguing that the first line of the weapon power says "Upon command, the weapon is sheathed in fire", and that doesn't mean a particular command word, but ANY command word? It doesn't say "a specific command word selected at the time of creation", you know. No, but that's how command words work. It doesn't have to be said there, because it's said earlier when it defines command word activation in general. Well, actually, it goes a long way towards explaining why you continue to claim that the FAQ can't be used as evidence. It's been said three or four times, so I won't go into the argument as to why. At this point, I'm simply trying to imagine what's driving the incredible insistence on making a sentence say what it doesn't say -- or rather, deny that it could possibly have any interpretation other than yours. Anyone who's participated in a long-lasting thread I've been in can tell you that, when someone proves me wrong, I will admit it quite publicly and honestly. All I ask is that you prove it. Trying to force "another" to mean something it clearly does not, even by the definition you yourself quoted, is the kind of stuff that is doing nothing to help your position. Show me an actual definition that does let "another" mean what you want it to, and I'll consider changing my position. And I only say "consider" because I would need to consider the source; I obviously won't accept some weird jargon usage from an obscure field, or some useless online source like Wikipedia which anyone could edit. But go ahead, find me a standard English dictionary definition that allows it to be used like you're trying to. That'll be the first step in proving me wrong. I'll admit it when you do. I'm more concerned with being correct than with some idiotic chest-beating about the stance I've been arguing for.
Drachasor 02-17-05, 03:45 PM	Uh huh. And without context to define it more clearly, "another command" means "any other command." If I were an Admiral, and told a Captain to "take your ship to X until another command is given", to use the exact same wording, the Captain can't be thinking that the only command that could get him to move is to go to Y. He has to be ready for any command that will change where he needs to be. Because the context is not specified, beyond it being a command. According to your reading, as soon as *any* other command is given, he can move his ship wherever he wants. If he is given a command to go get some sleep, he can then move his ship. If he is given any other sort of command that has nothing to do with moving his ship, he can then move his ship. That's how you are reading the flaming section. -Drachasor
Callahan 02-17-05, 04:20 PM	this is how Al Qaeda got started.
Aracor 02-17-05, 05:04 PM	All right. It says any command in the description of flaming. However, you failed to address my point about it being a command word activated item. A command word is a single word given at the time of creation to activate an item. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed. THE word. THE command. That implies one. I'm sorry, but at this point you're just being thickheaded. To quote my earlier thread that you ignored: The way the activation system is read, it's not specific whether or not the same command word or a different one would turn something off, but it would still be considered a specific word, rather than any random command that happens to be spoken while the weapon is covered in flames. By the rules of command word activation, an item will only respond to a specific word. The only thing unclear is whether it would be deactivated by the same word or a different one. Now, back to the flaming section. Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. It says another command. Actually, I just realized that when you combine this with the command word activation section, it becomes MUCH more clear. Another command. That means that one command word will turn the sword on. Unlike most other command word activated items, this one is different; and the different rule is described here. There is another command word that is once again by the general rule assigned at item creation, that will turn it off again. That should take care of all of the idiocy and make it work exactly like it says in the FAQ. So the FAQ is, in fact, just a clarification based upon combining two different sections of the rules. ~Aracor
Keenath 02-17-05, 05:21 PM	Except you're not using the first meaning. The first meaning is that whatever is "another" is "different or distinct from the first one considered". How do you then, in all honesty, read that to mean a single, specific, unique, command word? Because we're talking about one item with one power. It has a switch to turn it on. It has another switch that turns it off. We're only talking about that one power, not any other, not any random command word you happen to say, not anything besides the commands that control this particular power! The power description doesn't mention or imply that it's referring to *anything* other than words that control this power, so we can quite logically assume that the english phase "another command" refers to a second command that links to that particular power. Coincidentally, by your interpretation, it doesn't even have to be a command word directed towards the sword. What if I have a hat of disguise that I command to activate? Does THAT shut down my sword too? Yep. Same way that, if you had a hat of disguise and a sword of flaming that both reacted to "boogaloo", saying "boogaloo" affects both at once. Honestly, I'm floored. I was using this as the extreme example that shouldn't even be considered. Any word at all can be a command word -- how could the weapon possibly know what the command words to your OTHER items are?! This is an INSANE interpretation. If I have a hat that reacts to "boogaloo" and a sword that turns on with "flame on!", you're actually saying that I could say "Flame on!" to activate the sword, and then "boogaloo!" to shut it off?! By the way, you never did respond to one of my questions -- if your interpretation is correct, how does a fighter with only a single flaming sword turn it OFF? According to your interpretation, there's no other command word that the fighter has available, so he can't shut down the sword? "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The effect remains until another command is given." There. The context is very, very clear. You give the command, the weapon is sheathed in fire. The effect remains until another command is given. Any other command. There is nothing specifying anything else in this, or the surrounding sentences. The context I was referring to is the complete lack of any indication that this phrase even admits that any other item in the universe can HAVE a command word activation. It reacts whenever the word is given. If you're using the same fire, hitting an ice elemental, and shout "I know fire is your doom!", your sword turns off. Wait, what? The command to turn it on also turns it off? Now you're completely outside the meaning of 'another', even by your own interpretation. "Another" meaning "not the same as the first one". So why wouldn't the phrasing include any other commands given? I see no specification otherwise, and it doesn't make sense that they would say "another command is given" when "on command" works better and isn't confusing. Unless they intended it to work as I suggest. It explains that there's a first command word, which has the following effects. And then it has a second command word that has THESE effects. Why is that so strange a construction? Ahh. But it's not ambiguous. What's causing confusion is people's understanding of English, not how the sentence is worded. Saying it's ambiguous is like saying advanced calculus is ambiguous, just because you don't understand it. I disagree totally. The sentence is ambiguous, because 'another' can mean 'one other' or 'more than one other'. See the excellent ship-captain metaphor above. If the captain says, "Stay here until I give another order," he obviously means another order relating to moving the ship, not "Go have dinner" or "Launch a flare". Yes, you could literally interpret him to mean "when I give you any order, you are free to do anything you want to with the ship", but obviously that's not what he meant, and if you, the captain, used that interpretation, he'd be very unhappy! English is full of ambiguities that require some logical interpretation of what was meant, and this is exactly one of those cases.
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-17-05, 07:45 PM	hmm, ok, more people disallow multiflaming than was mentioned before. my only defense that though the RAW doesn't specifically state that multi-flaming is acceptable, it also doesn't specifically deny that it does work (though some could and do infer from that rules that this is so). cool. fine. i got what i wanted- there is reasonable doubt to use the mechanic without calling it a houserule, it's not unbalanced (how would it make flaming burst/etc worthless? i'd rather take a flaming burst x2 scimitar/great axe than a flaming x4 scimitar/great axe), and hey, you can houserule whatever the 'eck you want. it's your world, the players are just visiting.
trapspringer 02-17-05, 08:33 PM	"...Until another command is given." Think about that. By the strict wording, that is ANY other command. Farfignutan to activate and deactivate the weapon, but the moment you say, "Smitzelhuven" to activate the cold property, it shuts down the fire. I don't run it like this, but by the Raw, this is how it should work.
Aracor 02-17-05, 09:12 PM	"...Until another command is given." Think about that. By the strict wording, that is ANY other command. Farfignutan to activate and deactivate the weapon, but the moment you say, "Smitzelhuven" to activate the cold property, it shuts down the fire. I don't run it like this, but by the Raw, this is how it should work. Read post #126 above that I wrote. It explains the wording that they used when combining the description of flaming with the description of command word activated, and it ends up with something that makes a lot more sense. The jist of it is that when it says "another" it's referring to a different command word that turns it off than the one that turns it on. ~Aracor
Rulebook 02-17-05, 10:04 PM	dude, im so gonna play in your games, a fighter with like 6 axes (cuz scythes dont carry that well), a +1 fireyx9, a +1 icyx9, +1 shockingx9 and so on... so im gonna insta-kill anythign you throw at me with an elemental weakness. see what happens? like magic effects dont stack. and as for command words, i once again turn to the light switch euphamism: one command to turn on "click up" ANOTHER COMMAND turns off "click down". turning on another light dosent turn the first light off unless for some reason you set the turn on command to "turn off" otherwise, you'd need like 14 seperate commands if you have a +1 icy/firey/shocking weapon. (one of each, one of all three, three for any 2, and off commands for all of them)
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-17-05, 10:20 PM	glad to have you rulebook. it's a good idea. why? what is the cost of four +10 weapons? (acid, fire, cold, electricity- one of each +1 effect x9 weapons). 800,000 Gp. you got that cash? and if you have the money you're going to spend it all on your weapons? you'd have to epic (level 25+ when using the rule that you can't have more than 1 item that cost more than 10% of your stariting cash). go ahead. now four +1 effect x3 weapons would only cost 128,000 Gp, which you could buy at about level 17 (and have other gear that is worth while). so far i see no problem with that. have fun (white dragons die, ha ha ha)
Thorak 02-17-05, 10:50 PM	All right. It says any command in the description of flaming. However, you failed to address my point about it being a command word activated item. A command word is a single word given at the time of creation to activate an item. THE word. THE command. That implies one. I'm sorry, but at this point you're just being thickheaded. Really? If there's one command word, then another command word very clearly has to refer to a different word, doesn't it? And since there's one command word per enchantment, it absolutely must refer to another enchantment's command. Thank you for proving my point. By the rules of command word activation, an item will only respond to a specific word. The only thing unclear is whether it would be deactivated by the same word or a different one. So which is it, does it have one command word, or two? You just insisted that there's only one, and now you're saying there might be two. And you claim I'm the one being thickheaded? It says another command. Actually, I just realized that when you combine this with the command word activation section, it becomes MUCH more clear. Another command. That means that one command word will turn the sword on. Unlike most other command word activated items, this one is different; and the different rule is described here. There is another command word that is once again by the general rule assigned at item creation, that will turn it off again. That should take care of all of the idiocy and make it work exactly like it says in the FAQ. So the FAQ is, in fact, just a clarification based upon combining two different sections of the rules. ~Aracor This is entirely fabrication. You cannot prove that A> there's a second command word, B> that the context in the Flaming section implies it refers to a specific word, and C> how you justify this as an exception to the "one command word" rules you already cited, when it doesn't say it's an exception. Honestly, this is like me claiming that gravity is caused by invisible elves that push on everything. It does describe what happens, but there's absolutely no evidence to support it. Because we're talking about one item with one power. It has a switch to turn it on. It has another switch that turns it off. We're only talking about that one power, not any other, not any random command word you happen to say, not anything besides the commands that control this particular power! The power description doesn't mention or imply that it's referring to *anything* other than words that control this power, so we can quite logically assume that the english phase "another command" refers to a second command that links to that particular power. Like I said to Aracor, this is all assumption, and you cannot back it up with anything but your insistence that it must be this way. Your invisible elves may provide a possible explanation, but there's no proof that they exist. Honestly, I'm floored. I was using this as the extreme example that shouldn't even be considered. Any word at all can be a command word -- how could the weapon possibly know what the command words to your OTHER items are?! This is an INSANE interpretation. If I have a hat that reacts to "boogaloo" and a sword that turns on with "flame on!", you're actually saying that I could say "Flame on!" to activate the sword, and then "boogaloo!" to shut it off?! Yes. For the same reason that the DMG rules allow for both to turn on simultaneously, and it is therefore impossible to only activate one at a time, if both command words are "boogaloo". They're reacting to what you say. By the way, you never did respond to one of my questions -- if your interpretation is correct, how does a fighter with only a single flaming sword turn it OFF? According to your interpretation, there's no other command word that the fighter has available, so he can't shut down the sword? There's no reason why the command word that turns it on can't also turn it off. It's like a switch; it flips whether it's active or not. And yes, I'm saying that "another command" includes the same command. Because it does. But it also doesn't limit it to that; if they wanted the same command to turn it off, they would have said "until the command is given again", or "until commanded to stop", or some such thing. By tossing in "another", they open the floor to any other. I must admit I really don't understand your point. It's talking about the Flaming command word, and then it talks about another one. It doesn't make any claims that other items can't have their own command words. If anything, it implies it. [quote]Wait, what? The command to turn it on also turns it off? Now you're completely outside the meaning of 'another', even by your own interpretation. "Another" meaning "not the same as the first one". To quote your own definition; "being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind" Yes, that's a valid use of "another". Next question. It explains that there's a first command word, which has the following effects. And then it has a second command word that has THESE effects. Why is that so strange a construction? It's not a strange construction. Just a nonexistent one. It doesn't say there's a second command word. It says that upon giving another command, the effect dissipates. That might be a second command word, the same one again, or an entirely different and unrelated one. The sentence doesn't distinguish. The same way that, if I said "get me another tissue", all I want is a tissue, it could be from the box in the hall, the one on the counter, or the one in your hand. I'm not asking for a specific one, any will do. I disagree totally. The sentence is ambiguous, because 'another' can mean 'one other' or 'more than one other'. See the excellent ship-captain metaphor above. If the captain says, "Stay here until I give another order," he obviously means another order relating to moving the ship, not "Go have dinner" or "Launch a flare". Yes, you could literally interpret him to mean "when I give you any order, you are free to do anything you want to with the ship", but obviously that's not what he meant, and if you, the captain, used that interpretation, he'd be very unhappy! English is full of ambiguities that require some logical interpretation of what was meant, and this is exactly one of those cases. He doesn't obviously mean another order related to moving the ship. If the order is "engage the enemy at will", he doesn't have to move. But he can if he wants. And the order's about fighting, not moving. If the order is "continue with your duties", he can return to his regular patrol, even though the order says nothing about moving. There are many tales of military officers who followed the letter of their orders, rather than the spirit, and intentionally did something they knew they weren't supposed to, knowing that their superior couldn't claim they violated orders. In this case, however, it's even murkier, since we don't have any context to go by, whereas a ship captain would have the context of the current situation to judge what's desired of him by. Edit: I'm not saying your guy's arguments don't make logical, reasonable sense. I'm saying that, by the wording of the DMG, they don't follow. Yes, this is nitpicky and ****. If you think this is bad, you should see lawyers discuss a fine point of law. It's the same kind of issue though; we might agree that it's idiotic for marijuana to be illegal when tobacco and alcohol aren't, but that doesn't mean the law magically changes to allow it.
AdroitMonk 02-17-05, 11:59 PM	Is it not generally accepted (and mentioned in the DMG/SRD) that the method for purposely deactivating an effect on an "activatable" magic item is at will? There is no command word for deactivating, because it's not needed. It's simply done at will. You say "Fahrvergnugen" to turn it on (or some other non-sensical word, as recommended in the rules, so as to avoid accidental activation in conversation or during battlecries), and simply will it off. This is why the elemental effects have the extra qualifier in their descriptions saying the effect lasts until another command is given. The turning off at-will is understood. But because of this extra qualifier, you either deactivate the flaming effect at will, or it automatically gets deactivated if you give a frost command, shock command, etc. This is provided that the creator gave each effect different commands, of course, in order to avoid monsters which are resistant/healed by a particular effect, instead of all the same command. And since logic dictates that a single enchantment has a single command word, you need multiple +1's, +2's, or +3's to cover every combination. [Edit: +1 for each single effect (or +1x3) with a command word for each, (+1+1)x3 enchantments for the 2-effect combos, and a single +1+1+1 enchantment for all three at once. And since you must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus enchantment in order to have a special ability, we are talking about a +13 (total enhancement cost) weapon with 7 different command words in order to have a completely effective flaming/shocking/frost weapon which covers every combo, and +13 is beyond the scope of the game, other than epic. Running it this way is really the only method that fits the wording book as well as the FAQ.] I also tend to agree that multiple flaming effects should not stack for the same reason that multiple castings of a single PC buff do not stack. We are essentially talking about buffs for weapons, after all. Just as a player can't have multiple Shield spells cast upon him/her and expect them to stack, we shouldn't expect multiple Flaming enchantments to stack on a weapon. If you want the "extra flaming" you desire, it's been provided for you with Flaming Burst, and as an extra incentive you get the advantage of the burst damage being multiplied by the weapon's crit multiplier as well. If the intent of the designers was to allow multiple Flamings to be stacked on an item, why bother with bursting weapons?
Aracor 02-18-05, 01:11 AM	I'll explain it again Thorak, slowly. This time, read it in order instead of responding to things before they're actually typed and pretend that you're making sense. We'll start at the beginning. The beginning of this is command word activation. Now, I assume we can both agree that with a command-word activated item, there is a specific word that will activate that item, and that word is designated at the time of item creation. Here's the relevant info from the SRD about command word activation: Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed. A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Now, as I said earlier. This says there is a command word that needs to be spoken, and then the item activates. To give an example of a command word activated item, I'm going to choose a couple of examples from the DMG. There's the cape of the mountebank, which allows the wearer to use dimension door once per day. It has a command word that activates dimension door. There's the ring of blinking, which makes the wearer blink as per the spell; and this ring is caster level 7. That means that the duration will end on its own in 7 rounds. A ring of telekinesis is similar, a command word activated telekinesis spell. This spell once again has a duration, and will end on its own. Scrolls, wands, and staves have a different activation, so I can leave those alone. If you haven't yet figured out where I'm going with this, everything example that I randomly pulled is either an instantaneous duration, or it has a duration which can wear off on its own. I believe most of them are also dismissable by the spell description, but I'm not certain of that. Someone can feel free to check. Now that we've done a good job of defining a command word activated item, let's look at the flaming weapon again. Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. Now, here's something that differs from most other command word activated items. This doesn't have a limited or dismissable duration, so it's describing how the rules differ from the usual command word activated items. And in this case, the difference is that the effect of a flaming weapon lasts until another command is given. As I said, normally an item with a command word only has one. In this case, it takes a separate command word to turn it off because there is no duration on it. All of the general rules of a command word item apply to a flaming weapon, and then in the description of flaming it describes any rules above and beyond the normal rules. Now, I'll take the time to address some of your concerns with my last post. Really? If there's one command word, then another command word very clearly has to refer to a different word, doesn't it? And since there's one command word per enchantment, it absolutely must refer to another enchantment's command. Thank you for proving my point. At this point, I was referring to the normal rules for a command word item. I haven't even gotten to the flaming weapon description, but I wasn't proving your point. I was setting the stage for MY point, laying out a foundation to base my logic on. But yes, in the general rules for a command word item, there IS only one command word. Let's continue. By the rules of command word activation, an item will only respond to a specific word. The only thing unclear is whether it would be deactivated by the same word or a different one. So which is it, does it have one command word, or two? You just insisted that there's only one, and now you're saying there might be two. And you claim I'm the one being thickheaded? Once again, you're getting ahead of yourself. But I was a little unclear here and I should have edited it to formulate my thoughts better. There is nothing in the general rules of a command word item for a deactivation, because it's not needed. As I said above, in general a command word activated item either has a duration and will expire on its own, it has an instantaneous duration, it's a normally dismissable effect as per the spell it's based on, or a combination of the above. No matter which option you choose from that list, there's no direct deactivation needed, it will simply turn off on its own after a while. It says another command. Actually, I just realized that when you combine this with the command word activation section, it becomes MUCH more clear. Another command. That means that one command word will turn the sword on. Unlike most other command word activated items, this one is different; and the different rule is described here. There is another command word that is once again by the general rule assigned at item creation, that will turn it off again. This is entirely fabrication. You cannot prove that A> there's a second command word, B> that the context in the Flaming section implies it refers to a specific word, and C> how you justify this as an exception to the "one command word" rules you already cited, when it doesn't say it's an exception. Sorry, once again it may be obvious that I was formulating my thoughts as I was typing them. It's not a fabrication though. I can prove that there's a second command word because it cites it directly in the description of flaming when it says "The effect remains until another command is given." As I said, this is referring to an exception to the "one command word" rule that I cited, because there's no duration to expire on its own. My proof is in the text. Honestly, this is like me claiming that gravity is caused by invisible elves that push on everything. It does describe what happens, but there's absolutely no evidence to support it. What? I'm not claiming anything that doesn't have evidence. The evidence is when you actually read both passages in conjunction. Normally, there is a single command word to activate an item. Normally, an item has a duration and it will turn off on its own. The flaming enchantment is an exception to command word items from that alone, and it specifically cites that difference in the description. That's what individual descriptions are for; they'll explain how the specific enchantment differs from the general rules. In this case, it differs in duration and the fact that there's a second command word to turn it off BECAUSE it doesn't have a duration that expires on its own. Hopefully this will help explain my position more fully. If there's anything that you're still having problems with, please let me know and I'll try to elaborate more. However, when I read both parts I realized that the problem you were running into was that you were reading the entry about flaming, but you weren't taking it in context with the general rules for a command word activated item. ~Aracor
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-18-05, 01:59 AM	dude, im so gonna play in your games, a fighter with like 6 axes (cuz scythes dont carry that well), a +1 fireyx9, a +1 icyx9, +1 shockingx9 and so on... so im gonna insta-kill anythign you throw at me with an elemental weakness. see what happens? like magic effects dont stack. Sorry, but saying you can powergame an magic item combo to überdom is not an effective argument. If it was, none of the classes, prc, items, feats, etc are correct, as most of them can be powergamed to death. also, consider the cost of so many items... That said, I agree with your conclusion. flaming X3 is silly. It's best kept for special weapons, unique items, named swords. Not "generic" magical weapons. Still, this is the 136th post on this thread. Is it really unbalancing to have a single +1 flaming X 9 sword? Not really. So, let's drop this thread, ok? We're running in circles, we've exhausted every possible argument (exept alien interference) and everybody is now impervious to logic ( each side's argument get incredibly technical).
Callahan 02-18-05, 02:03 AM	Is it not generally accepted (and mentioned in the DMG/SRD) that the method for purposely deactivating an effect on an "activatable" magic item is at will? Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. Upon creating the item you decide if the command to deactivate is the same as the command to activate or a different command all together. EG: Flame On(to activate), Flame Off(to deactivate) or Flame(which can activate and deactivate the same effect).
Beamup 02-18-05, 09:37 AM	my only defense that though the RAW doesn't specifically state that multi-flaming is acceptable, it also doesn't specifically deny that it does work (though some could and do infer from that rules that this is so). cool. fine. i got what i wanted- there is reasonable doubt to use the mechanic without calling it a houserule, it's not unbalanced (how would it make flaming burst/etc worthless? i'd rather take a flaming burst x2 scimitar/great axe than a flaming x4 scimitar/great axe), and hey, you can houserule whatever the 'eck you want. it's your world, the players are just visiting. Actually, multi-flaming weapons can be generated using the DMG random item generation tables, with IMO demonstrates conclusively that either - Multi-flaming is explicitly allowed by the rules - The random item generation tables are incorrect The key that makes this possible is that the footnote on the table stating that you should reroll duplicate abilities ONLY applies to the result "Roll again twice" on the special ability table. If you roll "special ability and roll again" on the enhancement bonus table twice, and get the same special ability both times, there is no rule on the table stating you should reroll or remove the second example. e.g. If I'm making a Minor magic weapon, and I roll: - 92: special ability and roll again * 20: Flaming - 95: special ability and roll again * 21: Flaming - 50: +1 Then, by the table, I end up with a +1 Flaming Flaming weapon. Now, one could certainly argue that footnote 5 on the Melee Weapons Special Abilities table is supposed to be applied universally, but as listed, it applies ONLY if you roll "roll again twice" on that table, rather than rolling twice on that table because the enhancement bonus table directed you to.
Thorak 02-18-05, 10:18 AM	I'll explain it again Thorak, slowly. This time, read it in order instead of responding to things before they're actually typed and pretend that you're making sense. Okeedokee. I'm cutting stuff out, but just some of the explanatory stuff. I am reading it, I'm just not repeating it in the quotes. Now, as I said earlier. This says there is a command word that needs to be spoken, and then the item activates. If you haven't yet figured out where I'm going with this, everything example that I randomly pulled is either an instantaneous duration, or it has a duration which can wear off on its own. I believe most of them are also dismissable by the spell description, but I'm not certain of that. Someone can feel free to check. Now that we've done a good job of defining a command word activated item, let's look at the flaming weapon again. I agree with all of this, but at this point (since I'm responding as I read, like you suggested) I don't know where you're going with this. Now, here's something that differs from most other command word activated items. This doesn't have a limited or dismissable duration, so it's describing how the rules differ from the usual command word activated items. And in this case, the difference is that the effect of a flaming weapon lasts until another command is given. As I said, normally an item with a command word only has one. In this case, it takes a separate command word to turn it off because there is no duration on it. All of the general rules of a command word item apply to a flaming weapon, and then in the description of flaming it describes any rules above and beyond the normal rules. Sir, you are being hypocritical. You cannot have things both ways. The command word section states, as you note, that a command word effect has a single command word. You have absolutely no basis, save for your own assumption, that there needs to be a second command word in the case of Flaming-type enchantments. At the very least, there is no implication that the ability has a second command word. As you've said, it only has one, by the general rules, and it doesn't explicitly say it has a second. It says the effect is dismissed by giving it another command. This could be the same command again, or any other command. This is my point. At this point, I was referring to the normal rules for a command word item. I haven't even gotten to the flaming weapon description, but I wasn't proving your point. I was setting the stage for MY point, laying out a foundation to base my logic on. But yes, in the general rules for a command word item, there IS only one command word. Okay then. I will assume that, unless you can show there is an explicit exception to these general rules, any enchantment only has the one command word. Once again, you're getting ahead of yourself. But I was a little unclear here and I should have edited it to formulate my thoughts better. There is nothing in the general rules of a command word item for a deactivation, because it's not needed. As I said above, in general a command word activated item either has a duration and will expire on its own, it has an instantaneous duration, it's a normally dismissable effect as per the spell it's based on, or a combination of the above. No matter which option you choose from that list, there's no direct deactivation needed, it will simply turn off on its own after a while. This is all true. The problem, however, is that you have provided no evidence to support your claims of a second command word in these specific cases. You are basing your arguments on the assumption that it must exist, and thus your argument is circular. There's a second command word because there has to be a second command word. That's like saying God has to exist because he's God; it doesn't prove a darn thing. Sorry, once again it may be obvious that I was formulating my thoughts as I was typing them. It's not a fabrication though. I can prove that there's a second command word because it cites it directly in the description of flaming when it says "The effect remains until another command is given." As I said, this is referring to an exception to the "one command word" rule that I cited, because there's no duration to expire on its own. My proof is in the text. And the problem with this argument is that the text does not imply a second command word. It states that the effect remains until another command is given. At the very least, this could be another instance of the same command, but I see nothing about the sentence which either implies it refers to a specific, second, command, nor that it is not referring to any other command given. Again, your proof is your assumption. The text doesn't say a darn thing about a second command word. What? I'm not claiming anything that doesn't have evidence. The evidence is when you actually read both passages in conjunction. Normally, there is a single command word to activate an item. Normally, an item has a duration and it will turn off on its own. The flaming enchantment is an exception to command word items from that alone, and it specifically cites that difference in the description. That's what individual descriptions are for; they'll explain how the specific enchantment differs from the general rules. In this case, it differs in duration and the fact that there's a second command word to turn it off BECAUSE it doesn't have a duration that expires on its own. Right, normally there's one command word. However, there's nothing in the Command Word section which implies all command word effects have durations or are cancellable. The Flaming enchantment, then, isn't an exception to those rules at all. Because there's nothing about duration for it to be an exception to. And since it isn't an exception, there's no reason to believe that the wording implies a second command word exists. As I have said before, if that was indeed the writer's intent, there are oodles of better ways to phrase it. Off the top of my head; "until a command word is given to deactivate it", "until commanded to stop", "until the command is given again". Hopefully this will help explain my position more fully. If there's anything that you're still having problems with, please let me know and I'll try to elaborate more. However, when I read both parts I realized that the problem you were running into was that you were reading the entry about flaming, but you weren't taking it in context with the general rules for a command word activated item. ~Aracor My problems, in short; 1> Flaming isn't an exception to the Command Word rules. Your points about duration aren't in the DMG, and are thus a complete fabrication on your part. Nothing about Command Words implies they must have a duration or be cancellable. 2> You then use the fallacious assumption from 1> to assume that the clause in Flaming, which you erroneously see as an exception, to be a description of that exception. Even if it were, I don't agree that "until another command is given" implies that there is a specific, second, command. If anything, it would imply until the same command is given again, or until any other command is given. And without further specification, either is equally accurate, which is my point.
DungeonMaster 02-18-05, 10:31 AM	That is a vicious vicious vicious vicious vicious vicious vicious vicious vicious sword you got there. +18d6 to the enemy and 9d6 to yourself. Decent DR some sneak attack a helm of brillance and you're all set. 29d6 per hit. :P
BlackFiend 02-18-05, 10:51 AM	If flaming stacks with itself, then so does Vicious and Wounding.
AdroitMonk 02-18-05, 11:28 AM	If flaming stacks with itself, then so does Vicious and Wounding. That is exactly why the same weapon enhancement(s) should not stack with themselves. It is unbalancing. And remember, what's good for the player is good for the NPC's and monsters. As a player, do you really want a monster to attack YOU with a +1 Wounding Wounding Wounding Flaming Flaming Flaming weapon?? I thought not. This is why my DM does not allow certain things in his game, because he says if we use them, he'll use them against us as well, which is only fair.
Beamup 02-18-05, 11:36 AM	As a player, do you really want a monster to attack YOU with a +1 Wounding Wounding Wounding Flaming Flaming Flaming weapon?? I thought not. I wouldn't have any more problem with that than a +1 Flaming Frost Shocking Corrosive Unholy Wounding Humanbane weapon. In fact, I'd MUCH rather be attacked by the Wounding Wounding Wounding Flaming Flaming Flaming weapon. In order for stacking enhancements to be unbalanced, one of the following must be true: - The enhancement is unbalanced in the first place - The effectiveness of the enhancement increases faster than linearly with its effects. That is, doing 2 points of Con damage must somehow be more than twice as useful as doing 1 point of Con damage. Neither of which is true here, so there's not a problem!
Santrilla 02-18-05, 11:53 AM	- The effectiveness of the enhancement increases faster than linearly with its effects. That is, doing 2 points of Con damage must somehow be more than twice as useful as doing 1 point of Con damage. Neither of which is true here, so there's not a problem! Not strictly true. Doing 2 points of Con damage will _definitely_ take away 1 point of Con bonus, whereas doing 1 point might not.
Aracor 02-18-05, 11:54 AM	I thought I had done a pretty good job, but I see there's still a problem. 1> Flaming isn't an exception to the Command Word rules. Your points about duration aren't in the DMG, and are thus a complete fabrication on your part. Nothing about Command Words implies they must have a duration or be cancellable. You're right, nothing in there implies they must have a duration or be cancellable. However, if they do NOT have a duration or are not cancellable, how are they to be turned off? There's nothing in the account of command word items for how they ARE to be turned off if the duration is unlimited. My points about duration are in my examples. If you can find me an example somewhere in the DMG with a spell that does NOT have a duration, is command word activated, and doesn't explicitly say how it is turned off; you'll have something there. Otherwise, it doesn't need to be mentioned in the specific account of command words because it's specified individually for each item. Why? Because each item is different. I pulled three examples completely at random, and all of them are either instantaneous or have a duration. 2> You then use the fallacious assumption from 1> to assume that the clause in Flaming, which you erroneously see as an exception, to be a description of that exception. Even if it were, I don't agree that "until another command is given" implies that there is a specific, second, command. If anything, it would imply until the same command is given again, or until any other command is given. And without further specification, either is equally accurate, which is my point. How is it not an exception? From the definition of another: 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <The same scene viewed from another angle> In this case, another command is referring to a different, distinct command. Since it's referring to a distinct command, it must therefore be assigned at the time of item creation. But as for "until another command is given," how can that imply it's until the same command is given again. You already agreed earlier to use the definition of another given above, so it CANNOT be the same command given again, because it's "different or distinct from the one first considered." In this case, logically it simply makes more sense for it to be distinct, because otherwise you could give any command, regardless of circumstances, and the flaming ability would turn off. You're right. It COULD be read both ways. But that's actually proving my point as well. Because it can be read both ways, that means there's ambiguity. As you said, either is equally accuracte. That means that the FAQ clarifying the issue is not contradicting anything within the primary source, because the primary source can be taken more than one way. The FAQ is simply saying which way is intended, and not overstepping its bounds. Which means that the FAQ answer is correct, and you can't say "jump" and turn off every balor's flaming sword in the abyss. Hopefully I've clarified things better this time. ~Aracor
Beamup 02-18-05, 12:00 PM	Not strictly true. Doing 2 points of Con damage will _definitely_ take away 1 point of Con bonus, whereas doing 1 point might not. You should note that all you've said here is "doing 2 points of Con damage is better than doing 1." You're not addressing the degree of scaling at all, and thus have no relevant point. Until and unless it is demonstrated that doing 2 points of Con damage once is superior to doing 1 point of Con damage twice, my argument stands. And it can never BE so demonstrated, since doing 1 point of Con damage twice is functionally IDENTICAL to doing 2 points of Con damage once!
AdroitMonk 02-18-05, 12:04 PM	I wouldn't have any more problem with that than a +1 Flaming Frost Shocking Corrosive Unholy Wounding Humanbane weapon. In fact, I'd MUCH rather be attacked by the Wounding Wounding Wounding Flaming Flaming Flaming weapon. In order for stacking enhancements to be unbalanced, one of the following must be true: - The enhancement is unbalanced in the first place - The effectiveness of the enhancement increases faster than linearly with its effects. That is, doing 2 points of Con damage must somehow be more than twice as useful as doing 1 point of Con damage. Neither of which is true here, so there's not a problem! Take 3 CON points damage with every hit against you, and see how long you'd prefer it. You could have hundreds of HP, and still that CON damage will kill you fast. No matter how many HP you have, 0 CON = dead.
Santrilla 02-18-05, 12:10 PM	You should note that all you've said here is "doing 2 points of Con damage is better than doing 1." You're not addressing the degree of scaling at all, and thus have no relevant point. Until and unless it is demonstrated that doing 2 points of Con damage once is superior to doing 1 point of Con damage twice, my argument stands. And it can never BE so demonstrated, since doing 1 point of Con damage twice is functionally IDENTICAL to doing 2 points of Con damage once! Geez, keep your wig on.
Finarin Panjoro 02-18-05, 12:16 PM	Okay, maybe I'm just being dense, but what is the problem with any of these enchantments stacking? They have a built in control mechanism. Cost. The most you could have is a +1 wounding x4 sword which deals 4 pts of con damage on a hit. But you're talking about a 162,000 gp item here. A +1 vicious x9 weapon costs 200,000 gp and does 9d6 damage to the wielder on every hit (which DR and resistance is useless against since its untyped "energy" damage). A 20th level barbarian with such a weapon could deal 36d6 damage to themselves in one round. Brilliant. Further these +1 mega-death weapons are the equivalent of masterwork weapons with regards to to-hit bonuses. Many CR 20 monsters have armor classes that will make this a major drawback (A CR 20 black dragon has an AC of 39 without any enhancements such as shield, mage armor, cat's grace, rings of protection, bracers of armor, dodge, combat expertise, etc). Even a level 20 fighter is going to have trouble hitting with all four of his attacks with this weapon. Furthermore the weapon becomes a major target for enemy sunders, dysjunctions, disintigrations, etc. since its such an obvious threat. Bye-bye 200,000 gp. Besides is it a greater threat than a meteor storm spell (12-24d6 damage in 40 foot radius)? Or just about any other high level spell? Or a keen vorpal sword which has a 20% chance of killing you on every strike (and only costs 128,000 gp)?
Beamup 02-18-05, 12:19 PM	Take 3 CON points damage with every hit against you, and see how long you'd prefer it. You could have hundreds of HP, and still that CON damage will kill you fast. No matter how many HP you have, 0 CON = dead. And that much HP damage will kill me fast too. Sure, it's a powerful option. But any +10 weapon is very powerful. The relevant question is not whether +1 Wounding Wounding is superior to +1 Wounding, which is the approach you and most people arguing against it are taking AFAICT. It's whether +1 Wounding Wounding is superior to any other +5 equivalent weapon. (Or, more precisely, whether +1 Wounding Wounding is more than twice as superior to any other +5 equivalent as +1 Wounding is to any other +3 equivalent.) NOBODY in the entire discussion has presented ANY reason for ANYONE to believe two Wounding enhancements are more than twice as effective as one. Saying "stacking Wounding enhancements will kill you fast" has precisely no significance whatsoever to the question of whether allowing them to stack is unbalanced. Geez, keep your wig on. :confused:
Santrilla 02-18-05, 12:20 PM	Okay, maybe I'm just being dense, but what is the problem with any of these enchantments stacking? They have a built in control mechanism. Cost. The most you could have is a +1 wounding x4 sword which deals 4 pts of con damage on a hit. But you're talking about a 162,000 gp item here. A +1 vicious x9 weapon costs 200,000 gp and does 9d6 damage to the wielder on every hit (which DR and resistance is useless against since its untyped "energy" damage). A 20th level barbarian with such a weapon could deal 36d6 damage to themselves in one round. Brilliant. Further these +1 mega-death weapons are the equivalent of masterwork weapons with regards to to-hit bonuses. Many CR 20 monsters have armor classes that will make this a major drawback (A CR 20 black dragon has an AC of 39 without any enhancements such as shield, mage armor, cat's grace, rings of protection, bracers of armor, dodge, combat expertise, etc). Even a level 20 fighter is going to have trouble hitting with all four of his attacks with this weapon. Furthermore the weapon becomes a major target for enemy sunders, dysjunctions, disintigrations, etc. since its such an obvious threat. Bye-bye 200,000 gp. Besides is it a greater threat than a meteor storm spell (12-24d6 damage in 40 foot radius)? Or just about any other high level spell? Or a keen vorpal sword which has a 20% chance of killing you on every strike (and only costs 128,000 gp)? IMHO, stacking enchantments isn't actually unbalanced. It just feels like it should be.
Thorak 02-18-05, 02:06 PM	I thought I had done a pretty good job, but I see there's still a problem. You're right, nothing in there implies they must have a duration or be cancellable. However, if they do NOT have a duration or are not cancellable, how are they to be turned off? There's nothing in the account of command word items for how they ARE to be turned off if the duration is unlimited. My points about duration are in my examples. If you can find me an example somewhere in the DMG with a spell that does NOT have a duration, is command word activated, and doesn't explicitly say how it is turned off; you'll have something there. Otherwise, it doesn't need to be mentioned in the specific account of command words because it's specified individually for each item. Why? Because each item is different. I pulled three examples completely at random, and all of them are either instantaneous or have a duration. Decanter of Endless Water. It's literally endless; if left alone, you could drown a world with it. It's also command-word-activated. To stop it; "The command word must be spoken to stop it." The command word. As opposed to another command word. See the difference? Also the Gem of Brightness, it's first ability doesn't have a duration nor use any charges. And doesn't have a listed way to be stopped. And Daern's Instant Fortress. Which lasts forever, unless changed back; "The fortress is deactivated by speaking a command word (different from the one used to activate it). It cannot be deactivated unless it is empty." So there we go, three examples that prove my point. The Decanter, which uses the same command word to stop as to start. The Gem, which doesn't have a listed way to be stopped. And the Fortress, which has a second command word and is specifically listed as such. I think it's clear that the Flaming ability isn't listed as having a second command word. Nor is the wording specific enough, like the Decanter's, to imply that only it's command word affects it. "The command" versus "another command", one's specific, the other is not. How is it not an exception? From the definition of another: In this case, another command is referring to a different, distinct command. Since it's referring to a distinct command, it must therefore be assigned at the time of item creation. Except that you already proved that, unless they're an explicit exception, the items only have one command word. This is circular logic; the clause can only be interpreted as an exception if you're assuming there's a second command word. Which you can only assume if that clause is an exception. Circular, each needs the other to work. But as for "until another command is given," how can that imply it's until the same command is given again. You already agreed earlier to use the definition of another given above, so it CANNOT be the same command given again, because it's "different or distinct from the one first considered." In this case, logically it simply makes more sense for it to be distinct, because otherwise you could give any command, regardless of circumstances, and the flaming ability would turn off. You know, you're right. It can't be the same command, because it's an other command. I was incorrect in asserting otherwise. Which means, of course, that it has to be a different command, for another enchantment, that turns it off. Because I've already shown you can't argue that the clause is an exception without resorting to circular logic, and therefore the enchantment only has the one command word. For those who were claiming I'd hold on to my argument in the face of everything, take note; I just said I was wrong. I do that when I'm wrong. In this case, it doesn't invalidate my greater argument, but if it had I would have admitted error just as readily and changed my tune. You're right. It COULD be read both ways. But that's actually proving my point as well. Because it can be read both ways, that means there's ambiguity. As you said, either is equally accuracte. That means that the FAQ clarifying the issue is not contradicting anything within the primary source, because the primary source can be taken more than one way. The FAQ is simply saying which way is intended, and not overstepping its bounds. Which means that the FAQ answer is correct, and you can't say "jump" and turn off every balor's flaming sword in the abyss. Hopefully I've clarified things better this time. ~Aracor Well, considering I've backed off of admitting it can be taken two ways, I guess I'm no longer proving your point any more. As for the Balor sword bit; the wording of Command Words implies that the holder has to say the word. Otherwise, when the BBEG says "Boogaloo!" and his sword is wreathed in icy shocking flames, the PCs could just yell back "Boogaloo!" and watch it turn off. Which doesn't seem all that smart.
Wharin 02-18-05, 02:38 PM	Not to be a :censored: , but implication and what it says are two different things. If we are going to go the "RAW" defence, we might as go the whole 9 yards. That said, i do realise what you do in your campaign and what you were arguing are two different things, so at least i can see that you are reasonable. I think the "FAQ" defence is that implications, and ambiguity, and the clarification thereof are not contradictions. Therefore, despite the fact that FAQ is a secondary source, in this particular case, i don't believe that it flies in the face of the Rules...er as written, it just defines what was meant by "another", which after a few pages of arguing over the meaning, is by definition, ambiguous.
Aracor 02-18-05, 03:24 PM	Decanter of Endless Water. It's literally endless; if left alone, you could drown a world with it. It's also command-word-activated. To stop it; "The command word must be spoken to stop it." The command word. As opposed to another command word. See the difference? Look, it explicitly lists how to stop it, because by default there isn't one. Also the Gem of Brightness, it's first ability doesn't have a duration nor use any charges. And doesn't have a listed way to be stopped. You're right. On the other hand, a hooded lantern has a listed duration before it runs out of fuel. This says "as a hooded lantern", and so the rules of a hooded lantern have a listed duration. Also, a hooded lantern can simply be extinguished by the rules without any magical aid. And Daern's Instant Fortress. Which lasts forever, unless changed back; "The fortress is deactivated by speaking a command word (different from the one used to activate it). It cannot be deactivated unless it is empty." Once again, this example explicitly says how to deactivate it, because the general rules don't allow for that. So there we go, three examples that prove my point. The Decanter, which uses the same command word to stop as to start. The Gem, which doesn't have a listed way to be stopped. And the Fortress, which has a second command word and is specifically listed as such. The decanter specifically says how to turn it off, as I said. The gem uses the rules for a hooded lantern, and can therefore be shut off the same way as a hooded lantern can. The fortress, once again, specifically says how to turn it off. I think it's clear that the Flaming ability isn't listed as having a second command word. Nor is the wording specific enough, like the Decanter's, to imply that only it's command word affects it. "The command" versus "another command", one's specific, the other is not. As I said, it depends on how you define another. "I use a command word to turn my sword on. I use another command to turn it off." The context that those two statements are listed in imply that there is another specific command to turn it off. No, it doesn't state it explicitly. To state it explicitly, it would need to say "I use another command word to turn it off." However, because of the ambiguous definition of of 'another,' it could still be taken either way. The FAQ is simply clarifying the definition of another. Except that you already proved that, unless they're an explicit exception, the items only have one command word. This is circular logic; the clause can only be interpreted as an exception if you're assuming there's a second command word. Which you can only assume if that clause is an exception. Circular, each needs the other to work. I'm not using circular logic. My sentence examples above explain that, but let's look at this logically. Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. Assuming nothing here, let's see what we can get. A command word will sheath the flame in fire. Another command will turn it off. What kind of other command? It doesn't specify. It could be a specific command, because the definition of another allows for 'another' to refer to a distinct instance. It ALSO allows for another to be synonymous with 'any other.' Does the wording specify which? No. Therefore ambiguity has been proven, which the FAQ clarifies. Which means, of course, that it has to be a different command, for another enchantment, that turns it off. Because I've already shown you can't argue that the clause is an exception without resorting to circular logic, and therefore the enchantment only has the one command word. Well, I hope the poor person who has this version of the sword has some other command word activated item. Otherwise he has no way to turn this sword off, which means as soon as he turns it on it's unsafe to sheath any more. Do you really consider it that great an assumption that the "another command" being referred to by flaming sword is simply another command word that allows the flames to be turned off? Hopefully I've at least made a dent in the ramparts of your disbelief there. Incidentally, if this doesn't do it, I'd really like to see your reading of the flaming assuming nothing, especially if the wielder of this sword has no other magic available. How WOULD he go about turning it off? ~Aracor
xanadu 02-18-05, 05:24 PM	Hmm, I never got a response...wonder why :D Let's try it again. And yet, if you read my post, you'll see that I'm not. Heck, if you read the DMG, you'll see that's not what it says. It says "on command", and then, "until another command". So yes, it means a specific command, to make it flame, whether that's by command word or just ordering it, and then when you give the weapon any other command, that's "another command". It isn't referring to a specific other command, it's an other command. Non-specific. Meaning any. Definitions of "another"; Dictionary.com; 1. One more; an additional: had another cup of coffee. 2. Distinctly different from the first: took another route to town. 3. Some other: put it off to another day. Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com); 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <the same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <do it another time> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> Note how every single one of those carries the implication that whatever is "another", it is different from the initial. I don't see any use of the word that agrees with how you claim it has to work. Ok. I give command to activate fire on my sword. I then yell, "Fido SIT!" (i.e. give another command) Your call as to what happens next. Let me guess, my sword deactivates :P
Santrilla 02-18-05, 05:28 PM	Do you guys even know what you're arguing about anymore? Or are you just +4 flaming flaming flaming flaming each other? :P
shadow mage 02-18-05, 08:18 PM	I'm...almost afraid to step in with my input, but I have an honest question (may or may not have been brought up before). Why is it that you can, apparently, have a +1 acid flaming icy shocking screaming weapon and for the price of a +6 weapon deal +5d6 of various elements, but then there's the elemental aura ability (+3 enhancement) that lets you choose the element and deals only 1d6...am I the only one who sees a problem there? :confused:
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-18-05, 10:43 PM	I'm...almost afraid to step in with my input, but I have an honest question (may or may not have been brought up before). Why is it that you can, apparently, have a +1 acid flaming icy shocking screaming weapon and for the price of a +6 weapon deal +5d6 of various elements, but then there's the elemental aura ability (+3 enhancement) that lets you choose the element and deals only 1d6...am I the only one who sees a problem there? :confused: I'd congratulate you on raising a very pertinent issue relating to this thread (the first in at least 4 pages), but at the same time, I feel like killing you for risking to start this pointless discussion again... Hum, what to do...
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-18-05, 11:39 PM	two notes shadowe mage: 1) energy aura is a +3 ability because of the variability- an energy aura weapon allows someone to deal any energy damage 2) energy aura is a 3.0 ability (unless it is in one of the "complete" books?) and when updated the ability either wouldn't include sonic damage, or would only deal 1d4 sonic energy damage
Thorak 02-19-05, 12:05 AM	Look, it explicitly lists how to stop it, because by default there isn't one. Uh huh. Note how it refers to what's need to stop it. "The command word." Not "another command". It's different. You're right. On the other hand, a hooded lantern has a listed duration before it runs out of fuel. This says "as a hooded lantern", and so the rules of a hooded lantern have a listed duration. Also, a hooded lantern can simply be extinguished by the rules without any magical aid. You're really stretching here. It sheds light as a hooded lantern. It in no other way is treated like one. Including fuel and turning off. Once again, this example explicitly says how to deactivate it, because the general rules don't allow for that. And note that it specifically lists a second command word for that function, explicitly. In a way that the Flaming enchantment most certainly does not. The decanter specifically says how to turn it off, as I said. The gem uses the rules for a hooded lantern, and can therefore be shut off the same way as a hooded lantern can. The fortress, once again, specifically says how to turn it off. You're ignoring the point. It's not whether or not they can be turned off. It's how that turning off is worded. In the case of the decanter and the fortress, they either work clearly within the command word rules, with the decanter using the same command word explicitly to turn it off, or they provide a clearly written exception to the rules, as with the fortress and it's statement that it has a second command word for that function, again explicitly. The gem, I don't agree at all that your point has any relevance. It sheds light as a hooded lantern. That's it. Next you'll tell me it requires you need to pour lamp oil in and it's made of iron. The only way the gem is like a hooded lantern is the way it specifically says so; how it sheds light. Nothing else. As I said, it depends on how you define another. I use a dictionary. Works well. "I use a command word to turn my sword on. I use another command to turn it off." The context that those two statements are listed in imply that there is another specific command to turn it off. No, it doesn't state it explicitly. To state it explicitly, it would need to say "I use another command word to turn it off." However, because of the ambiguous definition of of 'another,' it could still be taken either way. The FAQ is simply clarifying the definition of another.[quote] The two sentences you use are ambiguous. However, they're not the wording in the DMG. The second sentence is "the effect lasts until another command is given". It does not say that the command is "to turn it off". That is exactly what I meant when I said you are having to manufacture context that doesn't exist to make your interpretation work. [quote]I'm not using circular logic. My sentence examples above explain that, but let's look at this logically. You mean the above sentences where you're adding context that doesn't exist in the DMG? The context you claim has to exist because of how the sentence is to be interpreted? Circular logic. You wouldn't be manufacturing context if you didn't need it for your interpretation. And you can't have your interpretation unless you manufacture the context for it. Assuming nothing here, let's see what we can get. A command word will sheath the flame in fire. Another command will turn it off. What kind of other command? It doesn't specify. It could be a specific command, because the definition of another allows for 'another' to refer to a distinct instance. It ALSO allows for another to be synonymous with 'any other.' Does the wording specify which? No. Therefore ambiguity has been proven, which the FAQ clarifies. Ambiguity has not been proven. The context of the sentence avoids any implication that there's a specific command word it's talking about. Therefore, we cannot assume that's how the word is meant. According to the DMG, there's one command word per enchantment. Flaming doesn't include an exception to this, as the Daern's Instant Fortress does. It merely references "another" command. Since it's not the initial command word, it cannot be the one command the enchantment has. And without listing itself as an exception, it cannot have another, as that would be a contradiction with the primary source, and would invalidate itself that way. The context doesn't allow for ambiguity. It clearly implies that the enchantment has one command word. Therefore, "another" must refer to a command for something else. Well, I hope the poor person who has this version of the sword has some other command word activated item. Otherwise he has no way to turn this sword off, which means as soon as he turns it on it's unsafe to sheath any more. I never claimed this way made the most, or even good, sense. I only claimed this is the way it is written. I agree that it's silly and we should houserule around it. Do you really consider it that great an assumption that the "another command" being referred to by flaming sword is simply another command word that allows the flames to be turned off? Hopefully I've at least made a dent in the ramparts of your disbelief there. Incidentally, if this doesn't do it, I'd really like to see your reading of the flaming assuming nothing, especially if the wielder of this sword has no other magic available. How WOULD he go about turning it off? ~Aracor I never claimed he could turn it off. There are parts of the core books that are patently ridiculous. This is one of them. Yes, we should houserule around it. I'm not debating how we should houserule, just what the DMG actually does say. As another example; monks are not, according to the PHB, proficient with unarmed strikes. It's not on their list of weapons, nor are creatures innately proficient with it. The same way they're not innately proficient with natural weapons; if you look at the Types in the MM, certain types list that the creature is proficient with it's natural weapons. Those that don't, aren't, if they have any. Which leads me to my second example; lizardfolk aren't proficient with their natural weapons. I'm not claiming these things are how they should be. They're patently silly in many ways. And pretty much everyone houserules around them somehow. That doesn't mean, however, that a given houserule is therefore right.
AdroitMonk 02-19-05, 12:21 AM	Hmm, I never got a response...wonder why :D Let's try it again. Ok. I give command to activate fire on my sword. I then yell, "Fido SIT!" (i.e. give another command) Your call as to what happens next. Let me guess, my sword deactivates :P Yes, if "Fido SIT!" is a command word for one of the effects it has been enchanted with. It is quite clear, IMO, that the description in the DMG/SRD is referring to commands which are understood by the weapon. This is further demonstrated by the section on command words, which says such words used in the enchantments are generally obscure or non-sensical, so as to avoid speaking them accidentally. Now, since one of my own previous posts went unanswered, I'll quote myself (with some minor editing): There is no command-word for deactivation. Is it not generally accepted (and mentioned in the DMG/SRD) that the method for purposely deactivating an effect on an "activatable" magic item is at will, unless otherwise specified? There is no command word for deactivating, because it's not needed. It's simply done at will. You say "Fahrvergnugen" to turn it on (or some other non-sensical word, as recommended in the rules, so as to avoid accidental activation in conversation or during battlecries), and simply will it off. This is why the elemental effects have the extra qualifier in their descriptions saying the effect lasts until another command is given. The turning off at-will is understood. But because of this extra qualifier, you either deactivate the flaming effect at will, or it automatically gets deactivated if you give a frost command, shock command, etc, to the same weapon. This is provided that the creator gave each effect different commands, of course, in order to avoid monsters which are resistant/healed by a particular effect, instead of all the same command. And since logic dictates that a single enchantment has a single command word, you need multiple +1's, +2's, or +3's to cover every combination. So, you'd have +1 for each single effect (or +1x3) with a command word for each, (+1+1)x3 command words for the 2-effect combos, and a single +1+1+1 enchantment and command for all three at once. And since you must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus enchantment in order to have a special ability, we are talking about a +13 (total enhancement cost) weapon with 7 different command words in order to have a completely effective flaming/shocking/frost weapon which covers every combo, and +13 is beyond the scope of the game, other than epic. Willing the weapon off affects the last command given to it, or you can simply speak a command word associated with a different combo to switch it to a different mode. Running it this way is really the only method that fits the wording of both the DMG/SRD as well as the FAQ. I also tend to agree that multiple flaming effects should not stack for the same reason that multiple castings of a single PC buff do not stack. We are essentially talking about buffs for weapons, after all. Just as a player can't have multiple Shield spells cast upon him/her and expect them to stack, we shouldn't expect multiple Flaming enchantments to stack on a weapon. If you want the "extra flaming" you desire, it's been provided for you with Flaming Burst, and as an extra incentive you get the advantage of the burst damage being multiplied by the weapon's crit multiplier as well. If the intent of the designers was to allow multiple Flamings to be stacked on an item, why bother adding bursting effects? Anyone care to address this? I know it's difficult to tear yourselves away from Thorak. ;) What I'm describing actually supports both sides of the argument, however, based on the rules as written. It's just a matter of how much you have to pay in order to get it to do what you want. Oh, and as far as "+1 Flaming(x3)" and similar effects others here have mentioned from the Miniatures Handbook (what we call the "munchkin handbook" in my group), that book is not core. It is every bit as optional as Unearthed Arcana, which is nothing more than a collection of house rules. It is marketed as having additional classes which are 3.5 compatible, but the rest of the Miniatures Handbook (at least IMO) is practically a different game entirely.
xanadu 02-19-05, 01:03 PM	Anyone care to address this? I know it's difficult to tear yourselves away from Thorak. Sure It is quite clear, IMO, that the description in the DMG/SRD is referring to commands which are understood by the weapon. So you are saying that is your opinion and not RAW. The turning off at-will is understood. But because of this extra qualifier, you either deactivate the flaming effect at will, or it automatically gets deactivated if you give a frost command, shock command, etc, to the same weapon. Your are adding qualifiers and language not in the SRD/DMG and thus, again, is your opinion. RAW say another command as Thorak so clearly pointed out. This is provided that the creator gave each effect different commands, of course, in order to avoid monsters which are resistant/healed by a particular effect, instead of all the same command. Why must the creator be a moron? If I have a Flaming/Frost/Electric sword why can't I deactivate just the one I dont want without making it a +13 weapon :confused: ? Running it this way is really the only method that fits the wording of both the DMG/SRD as well as the FAQ. It really isn't because you are counching your opinions in the RAW If the intent of the designers was to allow multiple Flamings to be stacked on an item, why bother adding bursting effects? The better question is why getting crummy burst effects to begin with :) That being said, all the flamings in the world dont help with a crit so the motivation to get a burst is not removed with a flaming flaming flaming sword.
Darien_CR 02-19-05, 01:26 PM	I have two things to say: The DMG says: "A flaming weapon deals +1d6 damage" Is a flaming/flaming/flaming weapon a flaming weapon? Yes, so it deals +1d6 damage. Also, you don't see it unbalanced because you're seeing a flaming weapon, strong against some monsters, and weak against some others. But this same thing can be done with...say a SONIC weapon, so possibly only one monster will be resistant to that.
shadow mage 02-19-05, 01:36 PM	I have two things to say: The DMG says: "A flaming weapon deals +1d6 damage" Is a flaming/flaming/flaming weapon a flaming weapon? Yes, so it deals +1d6 damage. Also, you don't see it unbalanced because you're seeing a flaming weapon, strong against some monsters, and weak against some others. But this same thing can be done with...say a SONIC weapon, so possibly only one monster will be resistant to that. In all honesty I don't buy this. If a weapon is, as you said, a flaming/flaming/flaming weapon, then no it's not a flaming weapon. It's a flaming/flaming/flaming one. The (un)balance about stackable elemental enhancements isn't quite as bad as you would think. By the levels in which characters would have access to "potentially-broken" screaming (sonic +1d6) x4 weapons (+5 enhancement at least), enemies are very likely resistant to many energies and immune to a couple, and/or have the ability to increase their resistances/immunities to other elements. Let's be serious, if someone is going to be attacking an appropriately powered white dragon with that flaming x5 or more weapon, that dragon better damn well know its own weaknesses by then and is probably more than ready to compensate by knowing spells to make it either immune or resistant to fire. Now you're attacking a big mean dragon with a dagger. Nice one. I see very little "unbalance" about permitting such a rule, but unless I miss my mark the argument here isn't about balance or not, it's about whether this is part of the RAW or not. The problem is this isn't stated explicitly in the core rules, but there's a funny thing about core rules. They're bendable. They're breakable. DMs are encouraged to change what they want to better enhance their campaign. Who knows, in some worlds lots of elemental monsters are running around and shocking x3 weapons are extremely effective against water-type creatures. Or maybe in other worlds elemental weapons are meaningless because in that sort of world where mages can make element x5 weapons their is also widespread resistance/immunity to such elements. It really does all come down to the individual DM and his/her world. MY opinion? It's fine. I would allow it and as a DM make sure that they can't abuse it. That's actually a pretty easy thing to do.
Thorak 02-19-05, 01:54 PM	Adroitmonk; Like xanadu said, you're discussing your own assumptions rather than the RAW. Kindly quote me from said RAW where it says all items can be deactivated at will. Until you do so, your comments are opinion and nothing more. Not that opinion is bad. It's just that we're discussing what the RAW actually says. And until I see proof otherwise, Flaming turns off when any other command is given. Yes, I think this is silly. Yes, I would houserule around this. I do the same with monks and their not being innately proficient with unarmed strikes. The RAW borders on unworkable, and it's assumed that DMs will affect things on their own; I don't know anyone who actually enforces non-proficiency penalties on non-monks. But we should, at least, be able to agree on what the RAW does say. If it were ambiguous, I would say so. I have done so on other topics in the past. I have yet to see any proof that it is in this case, though, it certainly seems to me that it isn't, and I have yet to see an argument that proves othewise without manufacturing context or exceeding definitions.
shadow mage 02-19-05, 02:29 PM	As an added note on the weapon deactivation (already delved in deep enough in my last post not to comment on this either), then yes RAW says "until another command is given." Using rules completely as written and taking that sentance out of context, yes I would agree that any other single command would deactivate the weapon. Hell, beating it onto a table saying "work dammit" would turn it off. However, you can't simply take a phrase like that, with apparently annoying/crucial sideaffects such as turning off continuously in the middle of a fight. Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. Stating the third sentance as it is assumes the reader will use context clues to understand that the weapon is activated upon command and deactivated upon command. If what is said is true, that any command will deactivate the weapon, than the same is true for activation. "You, go here, whoa crap my sheath is on fire, somebody get water! Wait, never mind..." You see, it's just silly taking those for their explicit, out-of-concext meaning. However, by combining the two sentances (minus the nonharmful fire sentance between them) creates a continuous affect that essentially says "When commanded, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire...the effect remains until a second comman is given [to deactivate it]." Is this a personal interpretation? Yes. However, the writer and english student in me can't possibly see how this phrase can so blatantly be taken out of context to literally mean every single command. Heck, to make this a more rediculous notion, whenever ANY command is given by ANYone, anywhere it seems, all flaming/shocking/etc. weapons everywhere will activate or deactivate, which could cause a fair amount of problems for poor unwary adventurers. Especially since there are always wars (Blood War, anyone?) and commands are always being given... Does RAW take things out of context to mean exactly, literally, explicitly what they say? No. It does assume a level of understanding and intelligence though, as is indicated by RAW's treatments of spell descriptions and rules of combat. This said, if one interprets RAW to mean exactly what it says without room for negotiation, then yes any command given by anyone anywhere is going to annoy the hell out of people who own elementally-enhanced (ooo, new word!) weapons. If one interprets RAW instead as RAI (rules as intended) then the said weapons are activated by a specific command from their wielders and deactivated by a specific command from their wielders. RAW vs RAI, yet again.
Thorak 02-20-05, 12:56 AM	Stating the third sentance as it is assumes the reader will use context clues to understand that the weapon is activated upon command and deactivated upon command. If what is said is true, that any command will deactivate the weapon, than the same is true for activation. "You, go here, whoa crap my sheath is on fire, somebody get water! Wait, never mind..." You see, it's just silly taking those for their explicit, out-of-concext meaning. However, by combining the two sentances (minus the nonharmful fire sentance between them) creates a continuous affect that essentially says "When commanded, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire...the effect remains until a second comman is given [to deactivate it]." Is this a personal interpretation? Yes. However, the writer and english student in me can't possibly see how this phrase can so blatantly be taken out of context to literally mean every single command. The problem is that it cites another command, meaning it is different from the first. And the Command Words section is clear that enchantments only have the one. Therefore, there are three possible situations; 1> The weapon has one activating command word, and one to turn it off. This is only possible if the item is specifically listed as having a second, to make it an exception to the general rule, much like the Daerns Instant Fortress does. Flaming doesn't explicitly list itself as having a second command word as an exception, therefore it cannot be this, and any possible implication it is this must be wrong, because it contradicts the primary source on command words unless it is described as an exception to them. Can't be this. 2> The weapon activates and deactivates from the same word. The Decanter of Endless Water works this way. But, as I said, the Flaming enchantment references another command, not the same one. It can't be this. Or 3> There is one activating command word, and that's it. In items like the Gem of Brightness, there's no stated or implied way to turn it off. With Flaming, they state that the "effect remains until another command is given". It's not talking about turning it off, it's saying it lasts until X. X being "another command is given". Heck, to make this a more rediculous notion, whenever ANY command is given by ANYone, anywhere it seems, all flaming/shocking/etc. weapons everywhere will activate or deactivate, which could cause a fair amount of problems for poor unwary adventurers. Especially since there are always wars (Blood War, anyone?) and commands are always being given... Like I've already stated, the implication is that the holder of the item is the one who must say the word. Otherwise, to repeat my example, when the BBEG says "Boogaloo!" and his sword wreathes in icy flames, the PCs could just shout back "Boogaloo!" as a free action and it would turn off. The generic Command Word section references the holder of the item to prevent this. It is silly, yes, but it's also not allowed by the RAW. Does RAW take things out of context to mean exactly, literally, explicitly what they say? No. It does assume a level of understanding and intelligence though, as is indicated by RAW's treatments of spell descriptions and rules of combat. This said, if one interprets RAW to mean exactly what it says without room for negotiation, then yes any command given by anyone anywhere is going to annoy the hell out of people who own elementally-enhanced (ooo, new word!) weapons. If one interprets RAW instead as RAI (rules as intended) then the said weapons are activated by a specific command from their wielders and deactivated by a specific command from their wielders. RAW vs RAI, yet again. We can't use RAI. Because we cannot possibly know the intent. Even if the three designers were to say what their intent was, it will have changed from what it was when they wrote it. Therefore, if we're discussing the official rules, we have to use the RAW. Considering your biggest issue quoted here violates the RAW to make it's point, it's a null issue. On another tack, look at Invisibility. As I mentioned above, Flaming never once says there's a way to turn it off. It mentions the effect remains until conditions cause it to cease. Turning off is active, Flaming's description is passive. It's very similar to Invisibility in this way, where the "spell ends when the subject attacks any creature." In both cases, the effect is ending due to a completely unrelated action. So for those of you citing precedent; there's one right there. There are effects which remain until unrelated actions occur. Flaming is one of them, and Invisibility is another.
Beware of Kobold 02-20-05, 02:19 AM	holy crap is this retarded argument still going on? ITS FREAKING MAGIC!!!!! YOU CAN DECIDE IF IT USES DIFFERENT COMMAND WORDS TO TURN ON AND OFF WHEN YOU CREATE THE ITEM
Gilean 02-20-05, 03:01 AM	holy crap is this retarded argument still going on? ITS FREAKING MAGIC!!!!! YOU CAN DECIDE IF IT USES DIFFERENT COMMAND WORDS TO TURN ON AND OFF WHEN YOU CREATE THE ITEMWIZARDS USE FREAKING MAGIC!!! THEY CAN DO ANYTHING!!! Invalid argument.
Thorak 02-20-05, 09:56 AM	holy crap is this retarded argument still going on? ITS FREAKING MAGIC!!!!! YOU CAN DECIDE IF IT USES DIFFERENT COMMAND WORDS TO TURN ON AND OFF WHEN YOU CREATE THE ITEM Welcome to Rational Debate. Unfortunately, we see that you don't really want to be here, so we suggest you go through this door marked Screaming Irrationally And Ignoring The Point.
Beware of Kobold 02-20-05, 12:19 PM	rational? sorry but this thread left the realm of rationality and entered the land of "I am right despite all logic" after your second post :rolleyes:
Beware of Kobold 02-20-05, 12:35 PM	despite the fact that several other people in this thread have already pointed out a myriad of problems with your argument, and since your smug tone of "I am absolutely right" annoys me so much, I will point out another glaring problem with your theory. 1. Do you agree that the creator of the magic item sets the command word spoken to activate the weapon when he creates it? If yes, go to 2. 2. Do you agree with the definition of command word from the DMG? "A command word can be a real word, such as "vibrant" "square" or "horse" but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity." if yes, go to 3. 3. Do you believe that speaking "another" command word (defined by you as any other command word which for some insane reason can not be chosen by the creator of the item when he creates it) turns off the magical effect? if yes, go to 4. 4. Since you made it this far you apparently beleive that speaking any word (since any spoken word can be a command word) aloud will turn off the magic effect. Good job!
Thorak 02-20-05, 01:49 PM	despite the fact that several other people in this thread have already pointed out a myriad of problems with your argument, and since your smug tone of "I am absolutely right" annoys me so much, I will point out another glaring problem with your theory. 1. Do you agree that the creator of the magic item sets the command word spoken to activate the weapon when he creates it? If yes, go to 2. Yes. DMG says so. 2. Do you agree with the definition of command word from the DMG? "A command word can be a real word, such as "vibrant" "square" or "horse" but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity." if yes, go to 3. Obviously yes, it's quoted from the DMG. 3. Do you believe that speaking "another" command word (defined by you as any other command word which for some insane reason can not be chosen by the creator of the item when he creates it) turns off the magical effect? if yes, go to 4. Yes. And it's not insane. Reason 1: the command words description in the DMG, part of which you quoted above, constantly refers to "the command word". Meaning there's one, single, command word. Reason 2; Flaming says the effect remains until another command word is given. Can't be the first one, since it's "another", and it isn't specified that we're looking for a specific command word to turn it off, just "another" one. Note the difference between Daern's Instant Fortress, or the Decanter of Endless Water, and Flaming. There's a clear difference in wording between all three. 4. Since you made it this far you apparently beleive that speaking any word (since any spoken word can be a command word) aloud will turn off the magic effect. Good job! Except that "any spoken word" isn't a command word. So no, I don't believe your ridiculous conclusion, because you're making stuff up. To turn it around; the DMG quite clearly says, as you quoted; "A command word can be a real word, such as "vibrant" "square" or "horse" but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation." Now, if this is true, and you've got 3 items that all activate when you say "hungry", and you say "Gee, I'm hungry...", all three items activate. They react to what you say, that's it. So why is it difficult to grasp that, if one command word can activate multiple items, it can turn one off as it turns another on? Picture it like a light switch; on or off. If you wire it right, for two lights, then flipping the switch turns them both on. If you don't, then flipping it one way turns one on and the other off, and then the reverse when you flip it the other way. Now, picture a Flaming Shocking sword. The command word for both is "on". You say it, flip the "switch" to "on", and they both turn on. Now, picture that the command word for Flaming is "on", the command word for Shocking is "off". You say "on", and Shocking turns off, while Flaming turns on. You say "off", and shocking turns on while flaming turns off. Exactly like the light switch in both wirings. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.
Santrilla 02-20-05, 02:48 PM	You say 'any command word' and I say 'specific command word#, You say to-may-to, and I say to-mah-to, Any, specific, To-may-to, to-mah-to... Let's house-rule the whole thing off! *takes bow*
Aracor 02-20-05, 03:04 PM	Thorak: Assuming nothing here, let's see what we can get. A command word will sheath the flame in fire. Another command will turn it off. What kind of other command? It doesn't specify. It could be a specific command, because the definition of another allows for 'another' to refer to a distinct instance. It ALSO allows for another to be synonymous with 'any other.' Does the wording specify which? No. Therefore ambiguity has been proven, which the FAQ clarifies. Ambiguity has not been proven. The context of the sentence avoids any implication that there's a specific command word it's talking about. Therefore, we cannot assume that's how the word is meant. How has ambiguity not been proven? Because of the definition of another, and the fact that that definition includes two possible interpretations and doesn't clarify which one should be used, there is ambiguity. As we both agreed upon: As I said, it depends on how you define another. I use a dictionary. Works well. And here we have your dictionary findings: Definitions of "another"; Dictionary.com; 1. One more; an additional: had another cup of coffee. 2. Distinctly different from the first: took another route to town. 3. Some other: put it off to another day. Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com); 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <the same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <do it another time> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> Note how every single one of those carries the implication that whatever is "another", it is different from the initial. I don't see any use of the word that agrees with how you claim it has to work. I agree that whatever is 'another' it's different from the initial. I believe that was being pointed out from another post, but I'm just pointing out that I agree. But I would once again point out the word 'distinct'. If I have two distinct versions of a text, then yes, one is different from another. But both of them can be identified separately and specifically. To slightly rephrase the example from the Merriam-Webster Online, <This picture is of that same scene from another angle>. At this point, because the picture doesn't change, it's referring to a specific angle. Yes, it's different from the original picture or view, but that doesn't mean that it's referring to all other possible angles. Since that's a possible definition of another, and the text doesn't specify which definition to use, then there IS ambiguity. In which case the FAQ clarifying which definition to use is not a contradiction. In which case no errata to add the word 'word' after 'another command' is needed. And that's all it would take it if it was needed. ~Aracor
Thorak 02-20-05, 04:36 PM	I agree that whatever is 'another' it's different from the initial. I believe that was being pointed out from another post, but I'm just pointing out that I agree. But I would once again point out the word 'distinct'. If I have two distinct versions of a text, then yes, one is different from another. But both of them can be identified separately and specifically. To slightly rephrase the example from the Merriam-Webster Online, <This picture is of that same scene from another angle>. At this point, because the picture doesn't change, it's referring to a specific angle. Yes, it's different from the original picture or view, but that doesn't mean that it's referring to all other possible angles. My problem with this line of reasoning is that "This picture is of that same scene from another angle" doesn't give us any information about the angle. Sure, it will be a specific one in any actual occurrence. But from the statement alone we cannot tell what angle it would be. Without the context of the actual scene, we cannot be stating the specific angle it's at. Just like, with the Flaming clause, the "another command" will at any specific instance only be a single, specific, command. But by the statement, we can't tell a darn thing about the command. It could be anything, and we can't specify any further without any more context. Just like we can't tell what kind of new angle the picture's at without more context. You tell me how you can tell that the new picture is from an angle 90 degrees to the right of the first, from that one sentence and nothing else, and I'll admit that the Flaming clause can apply to a specific command set at creation for turning it off.
Beware of Kobold 02-20-05, 10:37 PM	Yes. And it's not insane. Reason 1: the command words description in the DMG, part of which you quoted above, constantly refers to "the command word". Meaning there's one, single, command word. Reason 2; Flaming says the effect remains until another command word is given. Can't be the first one, since it's "another", and it isn't specified that we're looking for a specific command word to turn it off, just "another" one. Note the difference between Daern's Instant Fortress, or the Decanter of Endless Water, and Flaming. There's a clear difference in wording between all three. Except that "any spoken word" isn't a command word. So no, I don't believe your ridiculous conclusion, because you're making stuff up. To turn it around; the DMG quite clearly says, as you quoted; "A command word can be a real word, such as "vibrant" "square" or "horse" but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation." Now, if this is true, and you've got 3 items that all activate when you say "hungry", and you say "Gee, I'm hungry...", all three items activate. They react to what you say, that's it. So why is it difficult to grasp that, if one command word can activate multiple items, it can turn one off as it turns another on? Picture it like a light switch; on or off. If you wire it right, for two lights, then flipping the switch turns them both on. If you don't, then flipping it one way turns one on and the other off, and then the reverse when you flip it the other way. Now, picture a Flaming Shocking sword. The command word for both is "on". You say it, flip the "switch" to "on", and they both turn on. Now, picture that the command word for Flaming is "on", the command word for Shocking is "off". You say "on", and Shocking turns off, while Flaming turns on. You say "off", and shocking turns on while flaming turns off. Exactly like the light switch in both wirings. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept. gee so a flaming sword that only has one command word associated with it cannot ever be turned off because in order for that to happen "another" (a different command word from the first) must be spoken. What a truly brilliant theory your attempt to further explain your insane theory with the massive quantity of flawed logic displayed here has brought me to my own conclusion. You not only have decided that you will maintain your "rightness" at all costs in order to have the last word, but you also are deriving a great deal of pleasure of continuing the argument, which I find sort of disturbing. Note to everyone else: stop responding to him, and let him think he's right :rolleyes:
shadow mage 02-21-05, 12:01 AM	gee so a flaming sword that only has one command word associated with it cannot ever be turned off because in order for that to happen "another" (a different command word from the first) must be spoken. What a truly brilliant theory your attempt to further explain your insane theory with the massive quantity of flawed logic displayed here has brought me to my own conclusion. You not only have decided that you will maintain your "rightness" at all costs in order to have the last word, but you also are deriving a great deal of pleasure of continuing the argument, which I find sort of disturbing. Note to everyone else: stop responding to him, and let him think he's right :rolleyes: Personal flames aren't any help to the topic of this thread, nor do they make people any more inclined to listen to you over someone else. I highly recommend you think about what you're posting before you do, namely posting things without proven support ("flawed logic" comments come to mind). My view? House-rule it. If the RAW is so greatly flawed in something as simple a concept as magic on-off weapons, then it's up to the DM to say how they work. I like to think the DMG assumes not everyone's an idiot and actually implies something, but since implications mean nothing apparently I'd say house-rule it.
Yak of Darkness 02-21-05, 12:47 AM	I like to think the DMG assumes not everyone's an idiot That really needs to be fixed in an errata. :D
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-21-05, 01:49 AM	Note to everyone else: stop responding to him, and let him think he's right :rolleyes: You know, you can put him in your ignore list if you want. But don't ell us to ignore someone, least of all in insulting words. Being civilised is easy. Give it a try, it's rewarding.
Aracor 02-21-05, 10:42 AM	You tell me how you can tell that the new picture is from an angle 90 degrees to the right of the first, from that one sentence and nothing else, and I'll admit that the Flaming clause can apply to a specific command set at creation for turning it off. Thorak, you're completely missing the point. From the fact that you're talking about another picture, it's a specific angle. WHICH angle is meaningless. Since it could refer to a specific word rather than 'any other' word, there's ambiguity in the description, because it doesn't say whether it's any word or a specific word. As I said earlier: "I use a command word to turn my sword on. I use another command to turn it off." How do you comprehend that if someone said it normally? Just because it doesn't say 'another command word' doesn't mean that it's therefore any command that they happen to give, does it? Like I said, in a normal conversation, how would you interpret that? ~Aracor
Thorak 02-21-05, 01:26 PM	Thorak, you're completely missing the point. From the fact that you're talking about another picture, it's a specific angle. WHICH angle is meaningless. Since it could refer to a specific word rather than 'any other' word, there's ambiguity in the description, because it doesn't say whether it's any word or a specific word. As I said earlier: "I use a command word to turn my sword on. I use another command to turn it off." How do you comprehend that if someone said it normally? Just because it doesn't say 'another command word' doesn't mean that it's therefore any command that they happen to give, does it? Like I said, in a normal conversation, how would you interpret that? ~Aracor The problem with your example, here, is that the Flaming ability never says "word". You command it to flame, until another command is given. I think we have to assume that "command" is short for "command word", because otherwise it gets ridiculous. As for the picture example, you're missing my point. Say there's 50 paintings, all of the same scene from different angles. Your mother buys one of them. She shows it to you, and says "I would like one from another angle, too, I think the artist made some". Does she mean a specific one of the 49 others? Probably not. But she might, since she may have seen three of the 50, liked all three, but might not like the other 47 on seeing them. But from what she's said, we can't tell. That's my point.
Drachasor 02-21-05, 01:32 PM	As for the picture example, you're missing my point. Say there's 50 paintings, all of the same scene from different angles. Your mother buys one of them. She shows it to you, and says "I would like one from another angle, too, I think the artist made some". Does she mean a specific one of the 49 others? Probably not. But she might, since she may have seen three of the 50, liked all three, but might not like the other 47 on seeing them. But from what she's said, we can't tell. That's my point. Then your mother makes a FAQ, and has clarification for what she said in it. She doesn't elaborate on the point in her errata though. The FAQ is good enough, imho. -Drachasor
Aracor 02-21-05, 02:33 PM	As for the picture example, you're missing my point. Say there's 50 paintings, all of the same scene from different angles. Your mother buys one of them. She shows it to you, and says "I would like one from another angle, too, I think the artist made some". Does she mean a specific one of the 49 others? Probably not. But she might, since she may have seen three of the 50, liked all three, but might not like the other 47 on seeing them. But from what she's said, we can't tell. That's my point. And that's also MY point. We can't tell for sure. It has a couple of possible interpretations, and the FAQ is just saying which one is correct. Isn't that what the FAQ is for? That's what I've been trying to say for pages. ~Aracor
Thorak 02-21-05, 03:14 PM	Aaargh. My chest. That be a good cut. I'm admitting defeat. I think we've finally hammered out any possible issues anyone could have with it by now. Yes, you guys have valid points, and yes, I was arguing the other side and not giving up. But IMHO I've been fairly conclusively proven wrong on this point, so I'm admitting error. The wording, combined with the FAQ, suggests that each enchantment has an "off" command, that being the "another" command mentioned in the admittedly poor phrasing of the DMG. See? For those of you who were saying I'll argue this into incomprehensible idiocy because I'm too stubborn to give up; I'm not. And you don't even have to resort to name-calling and such. I just want my points to be proven, thoroughly, wrong before I admit it. Thanks for the debate, those of you who felt the same.
strenoth 02-21-05, 04:57 PM	Heh, a good rules-lawyering debate always works out stuff to rather total finality. I think we need a board called Rules-Lawyer Debates, which is also where the developers shoudl go to find the flaws in their wordings. :)
Aracor 02-21-05, 05:05 PM	While I admittedly think that we rather DID argue the point to incomprehensible idiocy, but that's OK. It was rather enjoyable. Now if only I could convince sparkster4242 about how heighten spell works... Oh well. Glad I managed to talk sense into you. Fun argument. ~Aracor
AdroitMonk 02-21-05, 07:21 PM	Since it was asked of me in response to my post, here's what the SRD says about activation and deactivation of magical items: Command Word If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed. A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word. The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells identify and analyze dweomer both reveal command words. Use Activated This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory. Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character’s possession (on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case. Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use activation is not an action at all. Use activation doesn’t mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such from drinking a potion or swinging a sword. I suppose the real problem comes from the fact that the rules regarding command-word items do not actually talk about deactivation at all, leaving it totally open to interpretation, resulting in threads like this. If we go by the RAW, speaking the command word turns it on only, as there is nothing mentioned concerning deactivation at all. Nowhere does it say, "Speaking the command word again deactivates the effect." So, how does one deactivate the effect? The rules do not say anywhere that the command word is a toggle, nor does it allow for a second command word for deactivation, since it always refers to command-words in the singular (e.g. "THE command word"). Even the description of Flaming does not say the effect lasts until "THE command word is given again." It says "another command," which means one other than the Flaming command, since the rules regarding Command Word items says there can be only one for a particular effect. Since the only other section that even remotely applies to deactivation is the at-will description of some use-activated items, apparently when I had read it (way back when) I had applied it to any effect that does not have a set duration or instant effect, regardless of activation method, since no other explanations were given. That is not wrong, of course, any more the way others have mentioned here. So, these debates will last until DEactivation rules are specified in a future revision of the SRD or the Errata. I'll have to check the FAQ, since the only thing people have referenced here has to do with stacking multiple different elemental effects. I have a feeling deactivation isn't mentioned there, either, though. The Errata and the FAQ also do not address stacking the same effect multiple times, so that debate will continue as well.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-25-05, 01:46 PM	Heh, a good rules-lawyering debate always works out stuff to rather total finality. I think we need a board called Rules-Lawyer Debates, which is also where the developers shoudl go to find the flaws in their wordings. :) better call it nitpicker's how to split hair forum. this "debate" ceased to be rational after a few pages and devolved into an esoteric argument about the precise wording.
Thorak 02-25-05, 03:26 PM	better call it nitpicker's how to split hair forum. this "debate" ceased to be rational after a few pages and devolved into an esoteric argument about the precise wording. Says someone who apparently doesn't know what either "rational" or "esoteric" mean. Unless you're trying to say that English grammar is an esoteric subject, i.e. "intended for or understood by only a particular group", per dictionary.com. And as for rationality; there is little that involves more rational thought than nitpicky details. If you don't like it, you don't have to either read or post. If you do, though, I suggest that A> you have something constructive to say, and B> use words whose meaning you understand.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-25-05, 05:00 PM	Says someone who apparently doesn't know what either "rational" or "esoteric" mean. Unless you're trying to say that English grammar is an esoteric subject, i.e. "intended for or understood by only a particular group", per dictionary.com. And as for rationality; there is little that involves more rational thought than nitpicky details. Say someone who's more interested in appearance (wording) over substance (meanning). lol... Esoteric: designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone <a body of esoteric legal doctrine -- B. N. Cardozo> b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group <esoteric terminology> <esoteric strategies>; broadly : difficult to understand <esoteric subjects> 2 a : limited to a small circle <engaging in esoteric pursuits> b As always, I'm arguing MEANING when you're arguing WORDING. this "discussion" has devolved into a grammatical back and forth that's gotten very technical. I'm gonna try to explain it simply... This is a thread about a game. not a scientific publication, a game. Maybe using the precise, 100% right word is of paramount importance for you, but for me (and most gamers I know), the meaning is more important. Getting too technical doesn't help a debate, it ruins it. It become rethoric instead of logic (I'm using the popular meaning of logic, here, not the precise, dictionnary-friendly one). When I want to argue a rule, I argue the rule. not the precise wording. That's where the "esoteric" come from. Intended for a This is also forgetting the faq/errata argument... If you don't like it, you don't have to either read or post. If you do, though, I suggest that A> you have something constructive to say, and B> use words whose meaning you understand. Ah, I see... If I feel a good debate has been railroaded into an incredibly technical "argument", I shouldn't say so, but instead praise you on your incredible grasp of grammar issues... even if we were talking about D&D... A): Physician, heal thyself. B): Meaning I should pore over my text with a dictionnary to search for the exact meaning of a word? I prefer to trust the reader's intelligence to be able to understand the (quite clear) meaning.
shadow mage 02-25-05, 05:13 PM	Say someone who's more interested in appearance (wording) over substance (meanning). ... B): Meaning I should pore over my text with a dictionnary to search for the exact meaning of a word? I prefer to trust the reader's intelligence to be able to understand the (quite clear) meaning. So...the dungeon master's guide is simply a bunch of winks, nudges, and "you know what I means?" I'd like to think the concept of numbers was introduced into these books for a reason...and that 'rules' were established in these books for a reason...
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-25-05, 06:34 PM	...sigh... The books are written for a reason, the rules are there for a reason, and no, you can't just interpret what you want. what I'm saying is, use common sense. Most of the time, it IS pretty obvious what the designers meant, even if a single word was "misused" (ie not selecting the precise, right word). Example: Bob the lumberjack goes to work. He spot a very old tree in an elven forest. He cut the tree and then go home. Wich tree does "the" represent? Grammaticaly, you could argue that it's not 100% sure he cut the very old tree, as he could have cut any tree and I would have still written it as "the tree". common sense say he cut the very old tree. My point is: Argue rules. Argue meaning. argue context. Argue common sense. Don't argue precise, technical wording. You've read my post. Even though english's not a language I master, odds are you're still understanding what I mean. I value substance over appearance. ...And here I am, doing exactly what I said was killing a lot of debates in these parts... Since this thread's been "alive" (more accuratly undead, at the very treshold of Final Death), this is gonna be my last post. If you absolutely need to keep posting here, feel free to do so. Otherwise, let's put this poor horse out of his misery...
Callahan 02-25-05, 07:37 PM	So...the dungeon master's guide is simply a bunch of winks, nudges, and "you know what I means?" I'd like to think the concept of numbers was introduced into these books for a reason...and that 'rules' were established in these books for a reason... It helps if you think of them as guidelines. That way you're playing an RPG and not doing homework.
Old Sparky 02-25-05, 08:43 PM	I hate homework. Has anyone fired this debate off at the Sage? I'd love to see some sort of official settling of the debate since the last 7 pages have made my head hurt.
shadow mage 02-25-05, 10:20 PM	It helps if you think of them as guidelines. That way you're playing an RPG and not doing homework. That's true too, and it's how I look at it too. However, the topic of this thread is in regards to game balance, which is gained numerically and through acurate wording (something WotC has problems with, unfortunately, which is why debates like this one exist), hence my comment. Oh well, doesn't look like this thread will die out afterall. So how about a proposal. How's about everyone post their personal ruling regarding this situation, hm? That way we can really see where everyone's coming from and we can at least help each other attain game balance even if we disagree on mechanics. -rolls untrained Diplomacy check-
Fou-Lu 02-25-05, 10:24 PM	:thinks: I've read mother-buying-stuff theories, grammar discussions, command word activation rules... am I still reading the same topic? :confused: Well, that's what I think: DM: You're walking through the dungeon and you see a drow in the darkness, he draws a sword and comes after you. Player: I DRAW MY FLAMING/FLAMING/FLAMING/FLAMING/FLAMING SWORD (WHICH IS ACTIVATED WITH ONLY 1 WORD) AND SAY "BURN!" DM: You draw your sword and says the command word. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. :blink: No way... it wouldn't work! How could it be described? a VERY flaming sword? A sword with a huge flame (a flame that huge would absolutely burn more than just the sword)... So, i just don't accept the idea of a sword being enhanced with the same power multiple times! Damage does stack most times, BUT... we're also talking about MAGIC, remember? This would be the same as claiming +90 skill bonus to Jump when someone casts JUMP on you 3 times. Or the same as claiming +3 attack bonus when under 3 BLESS magics... how could it be even IMAGINED? People on the streets would look and say: "OOOH HE'S SO BLESSED" O_o' i just... can't... imagine... it's... weird :doh: I hope I made myself clear... sorry if i've said some stupidity =P
BeyondFated 02-25-05, 10:35 PM	DM: You're walking through the dungeon and you see a drow in the darkness, he draws a sword and comes after you. Player: I DRAW MY FLAMING/FLAMING/FLAMING/FLAMING/FLAMING SWORD (WHICH IS ACTIVATED WITH ONLY 1 WORD) AND SAY "BURN!" DM: You draw your sword and says the command word. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. The sword is now covered in flames. No way... it wouldn't work! How could it be described? a VERY flaming sword? A sword with a huge flame (a flame that huge would absolutely burn more than just the sword)... So, i just don't accept the idea of a sword being enhanced with the same power multiple times! I would like to say, how flaming x3/9/what-have-you could work, so as to try to sway the people whom scream that it's impossible. Now then, ignoring all the semantics and definitions and all that bull crap which I pretty much skimmed after page 5, let's say that our buddy John the Fighter has a flaming/flaming longsword. He first commands flaming enhancment #1 to come on, *poof!* flaming hurt comes leaping from the blade. Ok, now here's the tricky part, ASSUMING he utters another command word and the first enhancment doesn't shut off, enhacment #2 pops on and the flames get, now bare with me cause this is crazy, hotter. And the flame stays the same size! Now then I'm sure we can all agree that the great gods of magic said "ALL FIRE MAGIC MUST BE ___ DEGREES HOT, AND NO MORE!" becasue that would be silly! And I belive we can all agree that 400F is alot hotter and would hurt more than 300F. And as we keep adding flamings to the sword, the fire keeps getting hotter, and hotter, and hotter! And it could work for most (MOST, so none of that, "Oh, well, we'll just stack 9 woundings, tehe!" crap) any enchantment. Frost would get colder, shocking would up the volts or amps (I forget which is the one that will kill you), and corrosive would slowly have a higher PH value. Now, I'm not saying that's how it is/should be. I just think that it is a logical, and easily beleavable way to imagine stacking flamings/frosts/whatever. However, I will not touch whether it is balanced or not, cause I'm a powergamer, and my view of balanced is very skewed. :D
Fou-Lu 02-25-05, 11:44 PM	Ummm... I get your point and it's pretty reasonable, but there's something I can't stop wondering about. You described the flames as if it got hotter, or more powerful, for game effects (which was a pretty nice idea :D)... But wouldn't the weapon you described be a Sword of greater flaming (or something like that) rather than flaming/flaming? PS: I actually ain't sure if is there a greater flaming enchantment on d&d 3.5 (i keep using 3.0 ^^) but Ii mentioned this as a concept, right? =P
Callahan 02-25-05, 11:55 PM	That's true too, and it's how I look at it too. However, the topic of this thread is in regards to game balance, which is gained numerically and through acurate wording (something WotC has problems with, unfortunately, which is why debates like this one exist), hence my comment. Oh well, doesn't look like this thread will die out afterall. So how about a proposal. How's about everyone post their personal ruling regarding this situation, hm? That way we can really see where everyone's coming from and we can at least help each other attain game balance even if we disagree on mechanics. -rolls untrained Diplomacy check- If official rules had any sway on this "argument" it would have been over on the first page.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-26-05, 12:46 AM	:OMG! It's reviving itself... This thread's alive! I mean, in order to be alive, the subject must be an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Metabolism: processus by which energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated. This thread process the arguments to the utmost limit, milking it for all they're worth. I think it qualify as evidence of metabolism. Growth: progressive development Though I wouldn't exactly call it "productive", it still qualify for a technical interpretation. What am I saying... 7 pages IS growth. Reaction to stimuli This thread react to the arguments posted, causing more posts (growth). Reproduction more than reproduction, this thread possess the ability to raise from the dead!! With such an ability, who cares about reproduction? Gentlemen... This thread's alive. Stay tune tomorow for the Turing test. We'll see if this thread is sentient... We may have discovered a new form of life...
Santrilla 02-26-05, 04:50 AM	Ummm... I get your point and it's pretty reasonable, but there's something I can't stop wondering about. You described the flames as if it got hotter, or more powerful, for game effects (which was a pretty nice idea :D)... But wouldn't the weapon you described be a Sword of greater flaming (or something like that) rather than flaming/flaming? PS: I actually ain't sure if is there a greater flaming enchantment on d&d 3.5 (i keep using 3.0 ^^) but Ii mentioned this as a concept, right? =P Well, I imagine the player would call it a sword of greater flaming or something. I always name my magic weapons anyway (albeit something lame, like Burny the Shortsword :P ). But you're right, it would sound silly to say flaming/flaming/flaming. Just one of those things that involves a bit of imagination, I guess. It's reviving itself... This thread's alive! I mean, in order to be alive, the subject must be an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Metabolism: processus by which energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated. This thread process the arguments to the utmost limit, milking it for all they're worth. I think it qualify as evidence of metabolism. Growth: progressive development Though I wouldn't exactly call it "productive", it still qualify for a technical interpretation. What am I saying... 7 pages IS growth. Reaction to stimuli This thread react to the arguments posted, causing more posts (growth). Reproduction more than reproduction, this thread possess the ability to raise from the dead!! With such an ability, who cares about reproduction? Gentlemen... This thread's alive. Stay tune tomorow for the Turing test. We'll see if this thread is sentient... We may have discovered a new form of life... Yeah yeah, you made your point. No need to be childish about it.
Thorak 02-26-05, 11:05 AM	Say someone who's more interested in appearance (wording) over substance (meanning). lol... Esoteric: designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone <a body of esoteric legal doctrine -- B. N. Cardozo> b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group <esoteric terminology> <esoteric strategies>; broadly : difficult to understand <esoteric subjects> 2 a : limited to a small circle <engaging in esoteric pursuits> b Again, if you think English grammar falls under any of those categories, I weep for the incompetence of your teachers. As always, I'm arguing MEANING when you're arguing WORDING. The difference being I can prove wording, while you can't prove meaning. In a rational discussion, that being the other angle you dug at me with, you can't argue what you think the meaning is. If that were true, religious people saying evolution didn't happen because "God said so, and I believe Him" would be making a "rational" argument. this "discussion" has devolved into a grammatical back and forth that's gotten very technical. I'm gonna try to explain it simply... This is a thread about a game. not a scientific publication, a game. Maybe using the precise, 100% right word is of paramount importance for you, but for me (and most gamers I know), the meaning is more important. Getting too technical doesn't help a debate, it ruins it. It become rethoric instead of logic (I'm using the popular meaning of logic, here, not the precise, dictionnary-friendly one). When I want to argue a rule, I argue the rule. not the precise wording. That's where the "esoteric" come from. Intended for a This is also forgetting the faq/errata argument... Again, this comes down to "I don't like you because I don't want to bother thinking this through all the way." You can't argue a rule without arguing the precise wording. That's like arguing about a law without arguing about the precise wording. The only difference is what the rule/law applies to; the game, or the country. One's more important than the other, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give D&D the benefit of a thorough debate. Ah, I see... If I feel a good debate has been railroaded into an incredibly technical "argument", I shouldn't say so, but instead praise you on your incredible grasp of grammar issues... even if we were talking about D&D... A): Physician, heal thyself. B): Meaning I should pore over my text with a dictionnary to search for the exact meaning of a word? I prefer to trust the reader's intelligence to be able to understand the (quite clear) meaning. A> I've been constructive. Notice how we reached a nice firm conclusion, with my counter-arguments? B> I'm not saying you need to pore over a dictionary. Just don't use words you don't know the meaning of. Nobody has a clue what you mean when you use the wrong word. That's what words are for, to explain what you mean. Using them incorrectly only makes your meaning less clear. In short; yes, this was a debate about grammar. Because it was about rules written in English. Grammar is inherently relevant. Otherwise, I could say the rules said "purple fizzy apple bear", and claim complete accuracy because the rules of English are irrelevant. And my meaning's absolutely clear, right? You're smart enough to figure out what I meant, I assume, even though none of the words I'm using were the right ones.
shadow mage 02-26-05, 03:19 PM	I have to side with Thorak here, and mostly because it supports my own point lightly touched upon by him. Yes, this is "only a game". However, it is a game with rules. Rules are established for a reason. If a GM doesn't like them, for instance, he may change them, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the rules are still there, still exist, and are still ingegral to game balance (which is the original idea behind whether or not these +1 flaming x3 weapons are permitted or not, I think). The whole point of these many pages of arguing/debating is because of the ambiguous wording, which leaves too much open for interpretation especially since everything around it is so clearly defined. As for the rest of the vegitable guy's posts, mocking comments are fine, nobody has issues with that, everyone who's been on these forums for any length of time has been annoyed/attacked/spammed/harassed or whatever else by another forum member. However, mocking comments without added comments to further the discussion of this topic qualifies quite clearly as spamming. Code of Conduct, another example of hard rules. Of course, since this is only a forum about games it should clearly be permitted to ignore their rulings and debate them... :rolleyes:
Old Sparky 02-26-05, 03:32 PM	What are the game balance issues? Would a flaming/flaming/flaming weapon be any more unbalancing overall than a flaming/cold/electrical weapon? Both would do an extra 3d6 points of damage. One would be significantly more useful against creatures that are cold-using or have the water subtype... ...while he other would be slightly more useful against cold-using creatures or those with water subtype, plus slightly more useful against fire-using creatures or those with the fire subtype, plus slightly more useful against whatever is vulnerabile to electricity. But, either way, when facing foes that aren't especially vulnerable to specific damage types, both weapons yield the same bonus damage. So, where is the imbalance? Because that's all that should really prevent fire (or any other extra damage type) from stacking with itself.
Patrick Draken-Korin 02-26-05, 11:27 PM	the only part of a flaming x3 weapon that i can see is that it doesn't stop there. it means that a flaming x7 weapon is possible, which deals 7d6 damage and is more than a flaming/shocking/corrisive/frost weapon by 3d6. that could be unbalanced (though i don't think that it is). a side note, has this thread been ressurected, reincarnated, raised as an undead or raised as a deathless? or would it be a construct and therefore never die, merely go dorment, and be able to be repaired?
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-27-05, 12:18 AM	I said I wouldn't post on this thread anymore, but I need to clarify something. The "this board's alive" comment was meant as a joke. A funny comment. Not sarcasm, but bewilderement as the argument started over from the beguinning (with much the same arguments as before) on the 7th page . I seem to have missed it, obviously. I don't like you because I don't want to bother thinking this through all the way Nope. This is not about wether I like you personnaly or any intelectual lazyness of my part. My point was that this discussion has been going for too long. It's been 7 pages of back and forth where every side repeated the same arguments over and over, with sometime minute differences. This should have been over after a page or 2... As for "esoteric", would it have been better to say "too technical"? Too focused on details? Grammar is not esoteric in itself, nor is it too technical, but you can get too technical about grammar (as with anything in this world). Wether I agree with you or not on the importance of grammar over meaning, I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. So, this truly is the last post in this thread for me.
Nukacola 02-27-05, 12:36 AM	All I have to say is, thank the gods they made it VERY.. and I mean VERY.. specific that KEEN doesn't stack. Can you imagine a +1 keen keen keen keen keen keen scimitar? "I threaten a critical EVERY HIT! WOO!!!! GOD OF DEATH BABY!!!!11!!!1!" I'd cry myself to sleep.
P33KAJ3W 02-27-05, 12:51 AM	Ever look at the +8 flaming epic ability? In my game if you add flaming to flaming you get flaming burst... do that 6 more times and you get the epic ability... so far so good Yes I know this is a house rule but it put it to bed for me!
AdroitMonk 02-27-05, 01:12 AM	First, I will mention that I brought up this discussion to my GM simply by asking him, "How do you deactivate a command-word item?" No other leading comments were made. He looked at me somewhat bewilderedly, as if I'd asked an incredibly inane question, and said, "It just turns off when you want it to." "You mean, 'at will?'" "Yes." So, he agreed with what I wrote here. That's how my GM runs it, but your GM can run it any way he wants, since no specific rules regarding deactivation have been written, leaving it open to house rules and your own interpretations. What are the game balance issues? Would a flaming/flaming/flaming weapon be any more unbalancing overall than a flaming/cold/electrical weapon? Both would do an extra 3d6 points of damage. One would be significantly more useful against creatures that are cold-using or have the water subtype... ...while he other would be slightly more useful against cold-using creatures or those with water subtype, plus slightly more useful against fire-using creatures or those with the fire subtype, plus slightly more useful against whatever is vulnerabile to electricity. But, either way, when facing foes that aren't especially vulnerable to specific damage types, both weapons yield the same bonus damage. So, where is the imbalance? Because that's all that should really prevent fire (or any other extra damage type) from stacking with itself. I then asked my GM about the "flaming/flaming/flaming" issue, and he said allowing it goes against the DMG, period. Similar effects do not stack. Damage from different effects always stack. That is a long-accepted and well-documented rule regarding everything from armor types to spell effects. Spell stacking is what we are really talking about here, anyway. What he usually says to us when we want to do something like this is: Make a caster character, then perform the necessary time and cost needed to research a "Greater Flaming" effect, just as you'd do to create a custom spell. And since it often takes a 3rd or 4th level spell just to get a +1 effect on an item, I can only imagine what it would take to get a Greater Flaming effect.
Old Sparky 02-27-05, 02:19 AM	I know when it comes to bonuses, the same kind don't stack unless specifically noted to do so. However, where does it say that the same kind of damage doesn't stack? Damage and bonuses aren't exactly the same thing.
shadow mage 02-27-05, 12:20 PM	I then asked my GM about the "flaming/flaming/flaming" issue, and he said allowing it goes against the DMG, period. Similar effects do not stack. Damage from different effects always stack. That is a long-accepted and well-documented rule regarding everything from armor types to spell effects. Spell stacking is what we are really talking about here, anyway. Eh, I debated on that with a friend actually but felt it was probably already brought here before in the seven-page english argument. Anyway, the way I see it is elemental effects are all similar effects. All elemental enhancements on weapons are designed in a similar manner, all have similar effects with only slight differences, and all have the same enhnancement bonus values and whatnot. All elemental effects, then, would be "similar" effects, bringing two things to mind. 1) Ambiguous wording by leaving "similar" unspecified. 2) Contradiction by DMG that similar effects do not stack when certain things (like flaming/shocking weapons or whatever) are even given as examples. Old Sparky I think has it right, though, in that damage enhancements are not similar bonuses but rather similar damages (although it could be argued anything "similar" doesn't stack, see ray of enfeeblement for an example). The way it seems (to me) is that the only thing preventing a flaming x4 weapon is the GM him/herself and how they rule it. It's certainly not unbalanced, and if it becomes unbalanced (like the forementioned +1 flaming x9 weapon) there are many many steps a GM could take to reduce the effectiveness of using that weapon. For instance, foes with elemental resistance. Intelligent enemies who know their being hunted by PCs using fire weapons. Or, my personal favorite, the BBEG's monk bodyguard who specializes in disarming and grapple combat.
Thorak 02-27-05, 01:38 PM	Nope. This is not about wether I like you personnaly or any intelectual lazyness of my part. My point was that this discussion has been going for too long. It's been 7 pages of back and forth where every side repeated the same arguments over and over, with sometime minute differences. This should have been over after a page or 2... It wasn't the same arguments over and over. There was plenty of change. If you don't like the discussion, you don't have to participate. I'm sure some of us, including myself, enjoyed it, and we don't really care that you didn't. And kindly don't take comments I clearly put into quotations out of them as if I had said them. That may have been just a stylistic error, but you're making it seem like I said something I didn't, by removing the context. As for "esoteric", would it have been better to say "too technical"? Too focused on details? Grammar is not esoteric in itself, nor is it too technical, but you can get too technical about grammar (as with anything in this world). Wether I agree with you or not on the importance of grammar over meaning, I think you can understand what I'm trying to say. So, this truly is the last post in this thread for me. No, it wouldn't have been better. Because grammar isn't technical. Or, at least, no more technical than understanding. You can't get "too technical" with grammar. It's the rules of language. Without those rules, communication is impossible. If something is written a certain way, we have to assume that it's grammatical structure was meant to be that. This is no more technical than assuming an instruction book for your Lego set will actually show you the proper steps to build it.