Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SalParadise 06-12-06, 07:08 AM	For instance, could I make a returning dagger +1 of flaming burst, flaming burst, flaming burst, and flaming burst? In the DMG there seems to be nothing against it that I can see, but it seems like it isn't likely to be allowed. Any insight?
Need_A_Life 06-12-06, 07:16 AM	No.
Wharin 06-12-06, 07:25 AM	Thats a fairly hot and debatable topic. The rules really don't say otherwise, and damage, unlike bonuses to well... anything else, always stack. While I have yet to see an example in any Source book, I have seen it in various DnD-rules-using video games, for whatever thats worth. Basically its up to your DM to decide. Its already shown how a weapon can have various element damage enchantments (even said so in the FAQ). And aside from fire-immune and fire-susceptable creatures (which admittadly, can have dramatic differences) having a flaming flaming flaming longsword is no different than a flaming frost shocking longsword. Its just putting all your enchantment eggs in one basket.
SalParadise 06-12-06, 07:28 AM	That's essentially why I asked. The thing about putting all your enchantment eggs in different baskets is that if a creature in question is immune to one of the elements, or even worse -- absorbs it -- then you're going to be hurting. I am trying to develop a throwing weapon character, which means that I have to grab a huge swath of magical throwing weapons (10 different weapons at level 20), but I have the whisperknife ability to use a single returning weapon 3 times in a round, or 2 separate weapons twice in a round. Trying to balance the cost is obscene in many ways, so I'm debating what the best way to go about it is. You don't very well want to throw an item that could heal the opponent, but I would rather have a focused amount of damage rather than tossing it around the spectrum (if for nothing else, to only need to overcome one type of energy resistance). I'll have to ask the DM I s'pose.
Wharin 06-12-06, 07:31 AM	Well, like I said, there is no rule saying you can't (that I know of), but there isnt any written precedent to back it up. So its up to your DM to decide.
Thorak 06-12-06, 08:03 AM	Similar effects don't stack. That's the rule. Besides, think about this logically. Your sword is flaming. And then you add flaming. So it's, flaming. It's on fire. That's what does damage. It being on fire for two different reasons does not make the fire do more damage.
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 08:26 AM	I would have to agree with Thorak on this one. These abilities would not stack. However, the only bonus to having this is if somehow you were to have the ability on your weapon negated. (Which I cannot figure out when right now...) The abilities would overlap, and not stack. Frankly, you would be better off spending the extra 72000 GP on other abilities for the weapon. (+6 bonus squared*2000 GP) Sandeman
Sunrider 06-12-06, 08:29 AM	I allow it in my games. It's not unbalancing in any way and, against certain creatures, may even be counterproductive (e.g. against Red Dragons). Putting all your eggs in one basket isn't a good idea in general. Even something seemingly as powerful as Wounding x 4 (-4 Con per hit) is totally useless against anything protected from it... in that case, your weapon is just an ordinary +1 whatever (and, if players really insisted on it, they could have just gotten Wounding, Greater Wounding and Marrowcrushing instead). As for a weapon with Flaming Flaming Flaming? Maybe it burns hotter than a normal flaming sword.
Maxxx 06-12-06, 09:09 AM	As far as I remember Weapon of Energy from the Spell Compendium stacks with the damage of the weapon, even if it is the same type, so why should a flaming flaming longsword not do 2d6 points of fire damage, it is just more on flames ;)
DracoPhoenix 06-12-06, 12:00 PM	IIRC for every +1 bonus equivilant effect you need the same +1 enchantment, so a 2x flaming sword would actually be an effective +4 item (+2 bonus, twice flaming(+1flaming, +1 flaming)) it's his money, the balance is maintained in terms of power (its 2 +1 bonuses) ymmv
runestar 06-12-06, 12:11 PM	Unless the bulk of your foes happen to consist of creatures with the cold subtype, I don't really seem anything inherently broken about it, even as I understand the rule about bonuses not stacking with themselves unless stated otherwise. Even if that were the case, I would probably houserule yes anyways. :)
__DnD4Life__ 06-12-06, 12:41 PM	Besides, think about this logically. Your sword is flaming. And then you add flaming. So it's, flaming. So, essentially what your saying, is if i have a +1 weapn, and add +1 to it, it is still +1?
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 12:47 PM	I would rule this to be akin to casting the same spell multiple times. (I.E. Bulls Strength.) While the rules do not say so, I would rule that these enchantments do not stack, but are overlapped. As for the Flaming Burst, it is the equivilent of a +2 bonus, so for 3 extra "flamebursts," that is the equivilent of +6. Total cost of this weapon: +10 bonus, or 200000 GP. If you let it go, the weapon is powerful, but limited in its scope. You would be better off spending the total amount of 200000 GP on a weapon like a returning, seeking dagger+1, Keen, Flaming Burst, Thundering with Shocking Burst thrown into the mix. Thus, your critical range will be extended to 17-20, (IIRC) and you will get the benifits of criticalling on with a flaming burst, thundering and a shocking burst. (And the ability to negate any concealment bonus.) Just my two cents... Sandeman
mvincent 06-12-06, 01:05 PM	Similar effects don't stack. That's the rule.If you view the effect as being on the weapon, then yes. If you view the effect as the damage, then no (i.e. damage in general stacks, that is the rule). Besides, think about this logically. Your sword is flaming. And then you add flaming. So it's, flaming.That is a reasonable interpretation. However, WotC has published several instances of NPC's with weapons that have multiple instances of flaming on them (i.e. extra hot flaming). These might've been considered rule exceptions, but since it can go either way the OP should probably ask his DM. Now technically, if one were allowing multiple instances of flaming, then fire resistance should probably be applied separately to each instance (but that gets too complicated).
Erak 06-12-06, 01:11 PM	So, essentially what your saying, is if i have a +1 weapn, and add +1 to it, it is still +1? Well you can't "add" a +1 to a +1 weapon. You have it enchanted to +2 and sub out the cost of the +1 from the cost.
Bulletproof_Condom 06-12-06, 01:23 PM	The rules don't really say that you can or you can't stack multiple instances of the same special ability, and you can rationalize either viewpoint, so this becomes a DM's call. I sense that while some people will allow it, most won't. Regardless, the only fully correct answer here is "go ask your DM."
SalParadise 06-12-06, 01:25 PM	I would rule this to be akin to casting the same spell multiple times. (I.E. Bulls Strength.) While the rules do not say so, I would rule that these enchantments do not stack, but are overlapped. As for the Flaming Burst, it is the equivilent of a +2 bonus, so for 3 extra "flamebursts," that is the equivilent of +6. Total cost of this weapon: +10 bonus, or 200000 GP. If you let it go, the weapon is powerful, but limited in its scope. You would be better off spending the total amount of 200000 GP on a weapon like a returning, seeking dagger+1, Keen, Flaming Burst, Thundering with Shocking Burst thrown into the mix. Thus, your critical range will be extended to 17-20, (IIRC) and you will get the benifits of criticalling on with a flaming burst, thundering and a shocking burst. (And the ability to negate any concealment bonus.) Just my two cents... Sandeman It's a specialized build which really just wants the extra damage on crits, so the burst qualities are what I'm looking for. But I figured one each of the bursts would be far less advantageous than all in the same, for various reasons, but I s'pose I could put one of each burst on it instead...
Thorak 06-12-06, 02:14 PM	Well you can't "add" a +1 to a +1 weapon. You have it enchanted to +2 and sub out the cost of the +1 from the cost. Ding! Oh, and here's some further support for my point; check out epic magic weapons. Specifically, things like Fiery Blast. +6 enchantment equivalent, does +3d6 Fire damage, and +6d6 on a critical. It basically is triple flaming burst. And it's epic.
SlagMortar 06-12-06, 02:23 PM	+6 enchantment equivalent, does +3d6 Fire damage, and +6d6 on a critical. That would seem to indicate that double Fiery burst should be a +4 enchantment equivalent and not be epic, since the bonus equivalent is below +5.
Bulletproof_Condom 06-12-06, 02:26 PM	You know what? I retract my previous stance. Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability...Here's an explicit statement that prevents the existence of items with multiple instances of the same ability (at least in randomly generated treasure). That's the closest anything in the books comes to saying yes or no. And it's saying "eh... not really." However, if your DM houserules duplicate abilities, there's no reason +1d6 fire wouldn't stack with +1d6 fire.
Wharin 06-12-06, 02:28 PM	Similar effects don't stack. That's the rule. Besides, think about this logically. Your sword is flaming. And then you add flaming. So it's, flaming. It's on fire. That's what does damage. It being on fire for two different reasons does not make the fire do more damage. Similiar *bonuses* don't stack. Which 8 times out of 10 *are* the effects in question, but damage and ability damage are not applicable to "stacking" and "overlapping". Unless you can show me the rule that says otherwise. I looked and I couldnt find it. Stacking In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus or worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified. Extra damage is extra damage is extra damage. Its not a modifier, be it a bonus or penalty. It's just damage. Surely you don't think that Flaming burst only adds the +1d10 on a crit, and not +1d6 (the usual fire damage) + 1d10. After all its damage from the same source. I couldn't find any mention in Craft Magical Arms and Armour saying that you couldn't give the same weapon enhancement twice. The only thing that *hints* at that "rule" is when randomly creating magic weapons as treasure, it says to re-roll any enhance thats already on there. I suspect that is due to the majority of enhancements that don't affect damage, and instead give some other effect that either would give a modifier (ie Keen), or some effect that simply doesn't make sense to have it be applied twice (ie: Brilliant Energy). That shouldn't nessisarily preclude a wizard from crafting a flaming flaming flaming weapon if he wants to. Damage is damage is damage. If you can quote a rule that mentions damage not stacking, I'll bend (And there really might be, as I only use the SRD for any non-PHB rules and scouring a book is much easier than scouring hyperlinked, fragmented websites). Until then, its a GM call at best. [edit: And as to it making sense or not, well... fires do come in different temperatures. Sure the hotter the fire, the more damage it deals]
Atirakis 06-12-06, 02:31 PM	Yeah but the epic book sucked bad, not as bad as Dieties & DemiGods but still bad enough that I hardly even crack the cover ever.
chucky 06-12-06, 02:43 PM	Damage dice do stack. Enhancment bonuses of the same type do not. Aka you can sneak attack with disintegrate. But you cant slap magic weapon +5, the spell, onto a +5 magic weapon to get +10. Same bonus type. Adding the same type many times just makes the weapon just that much hotter, colder, electrical.... Of course the gm of your game will deal with this as he/she/it sees fit for the campaign. If you make a epic magic weapon that is +1 and 10 fire blasts the people who dont like that type of weapon will take notice and do what they do. A good gm can deal with any player.
OravennasBrother 06-12-06, 03:00 PM	Checking the SRD in the foot-notes for random magic weapon generation it states "Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability, an ability incompatible with an ability that you’ve already rolled, or if the extra ability puts you over the +10 limit. A weapon’s enhancement bonus and special ability bonus equivalents can’t total more than +10." To me, when I DM, that would mean - NO I won't allow you to make a sword +1 triple Flaming. Though you could take flaming and flaming burst; even add troll-bane if you like.
Rulebook 06-12-06, 03:18 PM	why would you allow flame and flame burst, but not double flame? so you'd allow double flame+, but not just two regular flames... remember that burst weapons also function as the regular energy weapons too! (flaming burst +1d6 +xd10)
Nightwing_22 06-12-06, 03:44 PM	I know that King Snurre has a Flaming x3 Greatsword(based on his miniatures stat card). I don't see anything preventing multiple elemental enchantments from stacking or any good reason why they shouldn't stack. +3d6 is negated fairly easily by Resist Energy (a 2nd level spell) or Protection from Energy (a 3rd level Spell). I think that the increase in damage is offset by the fact that it is easily negated by any spellcaster and that many creatures have energy resistances. However, I would rule that you cannot double up until your enhancement bonus is equal to the Flaming bonus cost (i.e +1 Flaming, +2 Flaming(x2), +3 Flaming(x3), etc.) This keeps them from gaining massively cheap damage bonuses.
mvincent 06-12-06, 03:50 PM	Here's an explicit statement that prevents the existence of items with multiple instances of the same ability (at least in randomly generated treasure).It's been previously established that those charts don't actually indicate or determine what is allowed.
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 04:03 PM	why would you allow flame and flame burst, but not double flame? so you'd allow double flame+, but not just two regular flames... remember that burst weapons also function as the regular energy weapons too! (flaming burst +1d6 +xd10) It does not come right out and say it, but here is what the SRD says about the Flaming Burst Property: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit. If the weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3, add an extra 2d10 points of fire damage instead, and if the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d10 points of fire damage. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. Even if the flaming ability is not active, the weapon still deals its extra fire damage on a successful critical hit. Strong evocation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +2 bonus. I think this is meaning that it is like a flaming sword, but with the explosive critical added. Also, this is supported with the flaming being a moderate evocation CL 10, and the flaming burst being a Strong Evocation, CL 12. Perhaps the flaming ability has to be placed first, then the burst ability. Again, the rules don't say so, but I believe that it is the spirit of what is written. It's a specialized build which really just wants the extra damage on crits, so the burst qualities are what I'm looking for. But I figured one each of the bursts would be far less advantageous than all in the same, for various reasons, but I s'pose I could put one of each burst on it instead... I can see where you are going with this. With the build I mentioned, on a critical (Range of 17-20) you would be dealing out 2d4+2d6+2d10+1d8+4+(Whatever Strength Bonus you have.) So, without the strength bonus, you are dealing out a minimum of 13 damage with this weapon. (Assuming you rolled all ones.) Max Damage is 52 without strength bonus, and average damage would be around 25. Also, you are not nerfed by a monster of a particular subtype. For instance, the monster with the Fire Affinity would still be affected by the Sonic and the Electrical attack. Hmm... This gives me an idea. Imagine you had this for a character with a shortbow... I shudder to think about that. You would have to replace the returning feature with another. (Speed anyone? Har Har, one extra attack!) 3d6+2d6+4d10+2d8+6 = Max Damage of 92. And a chance to be deafened permanantly. Ouch! I wonder if there are any feats to really optimize this out? Sandeman
Erak 06-12-06, 04:38 PM	A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.Once it is flaming.......it does 1d6 fire damage. It cannot be more flaming......it is just flaming. No multiple enchantments of flaming for more damage. A Flaming Burst weapon "functions as a flaming weapon". If you had a Flaming weapon and added Flaming Burst.....you effectively lost the Flaming ability........as the Flaming Burst is now overriding it.
Dalthbar 06-12-06, 04:44 PM	This isn't something I'd have a problem with. As stated - you're very focused and any resistances or immunities will defeat your entire weapon instead of just part of it. It's really not any different than a +1 flaming, shocking sword except where the extra d6's come from. And while some people will say "it can't get more flaming", it's very easy to say that I made a +2 weapon ability called Very Flaming, which does +2d6 fire damage. I have +3 weapon ability called Very Very Flaming which does +3d6... etc. etc. It's just a more powerful fire effect. In the grand scheme of things, I really can't see it affecting the game negatively at all and at most will allow a character to add more flavor to their character. After all that is said and done, I'd rather see a flaming, flaming sword any day over a flaming frost sword. (another thing that we don't have any rules to prohibit but is just stupid on so many levels if you think about it)
Wharin 06-12-06, 04:52 PM	Once it is flaming.......it does 1d6 fire damage. It cannot be more flaming......it is just flaming. No multiple enchantments of flaming for more damage. A Flaming Burst weapon "functions as a flaming weapon". If you had a Flaming weapon and added Flaming Burst.....you effectively lost the Flaming ability........as the Flaming Burst is now overriding it. That's pretty much what this thread is about. Care to site where you have that ruling? Is it that side bar for Random Treasure? If you infer that that applies to player created weapons, thats your perogative, but understand that there is nothing that confers this. This doesn't nessisarily mean that you are wrong, but just chiming in with out any more evidense for your cause this deep into the thread, it really doesn't do anything for your cause. And clearly you've never been to the Scouts if you think that a fire is just a fire. Theres a fire, and there's a FIRE. Same for enhancements (unless cited otherwise): theres flaming, and then there's flaming flaming flaming.
Erak 06-12-06, 04:54 PM	Well.....read the Keen ability and if you can stack the same ability......by definition it will stack as it doesn't state explicitly that it doesn't stack with itself.
mvincent 06-12-06, 04:55 PM	Once it is flaming.......it does 1d6 fire damage. It cannot be more flaming......it is just flaming. No multiple enchantments of flaming for more damage.Curious: do you believe that bane also cannot be placed on a weapon multiple times (example: hammer of goblin bane + drow bane + giant bane)?
mvincent 06-12-06, 04:58 PM	I'd rather see a flaming, flaming sword any day over a flaming frost sword. (another thing that we don't have any rules to prohibit but is just stupid on so many levels if you think about it)You probably already know this, but the 3.5 FAQ specifically states that this is allowed.
Erak 06-12-06, 04:58 PM	That's pretty much what this thread is about. Care to site where you have that ruling? Sure.....the definition of a flaming weapon from the enchantment states that "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit." Period. That is the definition of a flaming weapon.....no matter how you want to slice it. Just look at the other weapon enchantments and see how silly the idea of stacking the same enchantment is.
Wharin 06-12-06, 05:03 PM	Well.....read the Keen ability and if you can stack the same ability......by definition it will stack as it doesn't state explicitly that it doesn't stack with itself. Keen This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat). Well I would say that the other Keen enhancement on this supposed Keen Keen sword would qualify as "any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon". While it doesn't come right out and say that it doesn't stack with itself as an example, its self explanatory.
Erak 06-12-06, 05:03 PM	Curious: do you believe that bane also cannot be placed on a weapon multiple times (example: hammer of goblin bane + drow bane + giant bane)? No I have no problem with it as long as you select a different subtype of creature for each enchantment which is specifically allowed by the enchantment.
Wharin 06-12-06, 05:05 PM	Sure.....the definition of a flaming weapon from the enchantment states that "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit." Period. That is the definition of a flaming weapon.....no matter how you want to slice it. Just look at the other weapon enchantments and see how silly the idea of stacking the same enchantment is. Sure if you assume that a flaming flaming weapon is just a flaming weapon. A really tall person is probably smaller than a really, really tall person. Right? Same difference.
Vaelan 06-12-06, 05:06 PM	There is no support within the rules for any of the opinions expressed in this thread. I'd say that if you want to pay exponentially increasing amounts of money for multiple iterations of the exact same effect (+1d6 fire damage), go ahead and do it. I find the argument that a weapon can't be "more flaming" ridiculous. It could simply burn hotter, which would deal more damage.
Erak 06-12-06, 05:21 PM	Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion. There ya go......multiple Flaming enchantments on the same weapon even at different caster levels that provide the same effect do not stack.....only the best applies. Per the second quote once Flaming Burst is applied to a weapon that is Flaming.......it makes the first enchantment irrelevant since it duplicates the effect.
Wharin 06-12-06, 05:37 PM	So when two people are casting Fireball at the same time at the same target only one of them (presumably the stronger one) actually takes effect? I would be loathed to call "damage" a simple "effect" of a spell. And though I am not sure where you got those quotes, I am pretty sure they refer to say, multiple castings of bull strength, or blessing and bane and how they cancel each other out, rendering each other effectively useless. Weapon enhancements such as Flaming or Frost isnt exactly the same thing as being Blessed or Hasted, which are effects.
Erak 06-12-06, 05:43 PM	Fireballs are instantaneous effects right? They stack: Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
GhostStepper 06-12-06, 05:45 PM	So when two people are casting Fireball at the same time at the same target only one of them (presumably the stronger one) actually takes effect? I would be loathed to call "damage" a simple "effect" of a spell. In the rules of DnD 2 people cant cast fireball and have their effects occur at the exact same time since the duration is instantaneous and there is an initiative order. Your example is invalid.
mvincent 06-12-06, 06:02 PM	There ya go......multiple Flaming enchantments on the same weapon even at different caster levels that provide the same effect do not stack.....only the best applies. Per the second quote once Flaming Burst is applied to a weapon that is Flaming.......it makes the first enchantment irrelevant since it duplicates the effect.A few clarifications: 1) Flaming is not an "enchantment" in D&D (as opposed to say GURPS or some other systems). In D&D, the term "enchantment" means something else entirely. 2) The Flaming ability is not necessarily the same thing as say, a flaming spell being cast onto the weapon. If it was, there would be no debate. 3) If you personally view special weapon abilities as being treated similarly to spells being cast on the weapon (in regards to effect stacking), how would you justify multiple banes on the same weapon (per your previous statement) i.e. it is the same 'spell' (ability) each time (even though a different bane race is selected each time) so wouldn't it still be subject to the stacking rules?
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 06:08 PM	What I would do is house rule this. Sure, the rules don't specifically state anything, but if you and your players agree to the rule, then rock on. The thought of a 3 X Flaming blade is cool, and you would need some serious gold to get the effect. (At the bare minimum you would need to pay out 98000 GP just to get this effect, +1 for an enchantment, +6 to have 3 flaming bursts enchanting this weapon. If you want to make it more effective, then add the Keen ability, and you are now looking at 128000 GP. So, I would have no problem with having a player stack out the fire damage bonuses. If he stacks out the fire burst, icy burst, and and shocking burst, it would be no different really that he would have 3 x the fire burst. The only diff being that the character with the extra fire damage would have wasted the 128000 GP on anything witht he fire affinity, or with resist energy (fire) Sandeman
Erak 06-12-06, 06:08 PM	"2) The Flaming ability is not necessarily the same thing as say, a flaming spell being cast onto the weapon. If it was, there would be no debate." Well that's a new one on me.......don't you have the spell cast on the weapon in your campaign as it is being made?
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 06:16 PM	Well that's a new one on me.......don't you have the spell cast on the weapon in your campaign as it is being made? Sort of, these spells are what you have to know when you create the item, and you must cast them daily while working on the item. Not really the same thing. 3) If you personally view special weapon abilities as being treated similarly to spells being cast on the weapon (in regards to effect stacking), how would you justify multiple banes on the same weapon (per your previous statement) i.e. it is the same 'spell' (ability) each time (even though a different bane race is selected each time) so wouldn't it still be subject to the stacking rules? Yes, it would be subject to the stacking rules. What that means is you cannot place the Bane for the same enemy, and get double benefits. You can apply multiple banes though, and they apply to multiple types of creatures. (Again, not hard and fast, just an interpretation of the rules.) Sandeman
mvincent 06-12-06, 07:16 PM	Yes, it would be subject to the stacking rules. What that means is you cannot place the Bane for the same enemy, and get double benefits. You can apply multiple banes though, and they apply to multiple types of creatures. (Again, not hard and fast, just an interpretation of the rules.) Note: I don't disagree, just playing devil's advocate Wouldn't that still be prevented by the following stacking rule?: "Same Effect with Differing Results The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. " Note: I also don't agree with that stacking rule; still just playing devil's advocate
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 08:10 PM	Sort of. I would rule this to more like a feat; take Weapon Focus for example: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. Sandeman
mvincent 06-12-06, 08:39 PM	Sort of. I would rule this to more like a feat; take Weapon Focus for example:Then why not view flaming similarly to a class ability, like say sneak attack? (i.e. extra dice of sneak attack stack with each other, and are often treated similarly to extra dice from elemental weapon abilities) (more devil's advocate, of course)
Erak 06-12-06, 08:40 PM	Think of it like this......could you create an arrow of slaying.......with multiple slaying effects.......all on the same creature type.......and force it to make multiple saving throws from one attack?
FatMonkey13 06-12-06, 08:53 PM	An enchantment on a weapon is not a spell. (No more then a quarterstaff is a standard player race.) So does 1d6 fire damage stack with 1d6 fire damage? I say it does not work like that... but rather you have a target that gets hit for 1d6 fire damage followed immediately by additional 1d6 fire damage... But it appears that there are no explicit rules on if an enchantment can be applied multiple times this issue so it seems for now it is a matter of debate...is for cretin
mvincent 06-12-06, 09:34 PM	Think of it like this......could you create an arrow of slaying.......with multiple slaying effects.......all on the same creature type.......and force it to make multiple saving throws from one attack?Note that slaying arrows are specific items rather than weapon special abilities. Instead, Bane x8 might be a good example (although we lose all those +2 bane bonuses). The more extreme examples might be: Flaming x8 (+8d6 fire) or Holy x4 (+8d6 vs. evil) for 162k gp. For the same price: compare that to a (undebatably allowed) shock/frost/flaming/holy/vicious/spell-storing weapon (+5d6, or +7d6 vs. evil with +5d6 from spell-storing: shocking grasp). Of these, the flaming x8 weapon seems the best (assuming fire resistance is applied only once), following by the undebatably allowed weapon, then the holy x4 weapon. If fire resistance is applied vs. each die of fire damage (which technically appears to be the RAW way to handle it, despite being cumbersome) then the flaming x8 weapon would take second place to the undebatably allowed weapon... as most opponents will have at least fire resistance 5 at that high of a level.
kalmarjan 06-12-06, 10:26 PM	For the same price: compare that to a (undebatably allowed) shock/frost/flaming/holy/vicious/spell-storing weapon (+5d6, or +7d6 vs. evil with +5d6 from spell-storing: shocking grasp). LOL Now, that is rediculous. It is like opening up the DMG and picking weapon abilities at random. (I know its not, it just looks like it.) Seriously though. At the point where a character would be able to afford something like this, would it not be better to play with some type of artifact? Would this build not be retarded? Can you imagine in your head the character holding a swiss army longsword with all those abilities? "No really, it has a solution for everything. Instead of worrying about immunity or weakness, we just overload the creature with everything, and let fate sort out the rest. Roll for init, monkeyboy!" This seriously sounds like something you would read out of a KODT episode. Sandeman
Wargrave 06-12-06, 10:55 PM	Nothing against the OP, as he dosn't seem too supportive of the idea...but its just ridiculous. Wounding alone is too powerful, but wounding twice? Would throwing add 10ft each time? Would spell storing hold more spells? A Spellstoringx5 weapon could (with 5 vampiric touches) could deal 50d6 damage in a single hit. or perhaps Poisonx5.....5d10con damage in a single hit. Inflict serious wounds? 15d8+75 Mighty Cleave? The way its worded you could get 5 additional cleave attacks for each kill you get.
runestar 06-12-06, 11:15 PM	Nothing against the OP, as he dosn't seem too supportive of the idea...but its just ridiculous. Wounding alone is too powerful, but wounding twice? Would throwing add 10ft each time? Would spell storing hold more spells? A Spellstoringx5 weapon could (with 5 vampiric touches) could deal 50d6 damage in a single hit. or perhaps Poisonx5.....5d10con damage in a single hit. Inflict serious wounds? 15d8+75 Mighty Cleave? The way its worded you could get 5 additional cleave attacks for each kill you get. You obviously have no idea how the rules work. :rolleyes: As for the mighty cleaving example, the limitations on cleave still apply - you only get the extra cleaves if you successful kill the foe you applied that extra attack to. Meaning said weapon is useless if I have the great cleave feat. :) And what's wrong with multiple throwing enhancements? That hardly seems game breaking. And yes, so your 1st successful hit does uber damage. What then? The rest of your blows will be sub-optimal. And you are paying for all that enhancements. I concede on the wounding example, so I have a +2 weapon with wounding * 4 , which deals 4 con damage per hit. But that's a +10 weapon, and so won't readily be accessible until at higher lvs. But since you feel it is so useful, and admitably, I feel a little in that way too, so... Overall, it hardly seems overpowered. Sure, there might be the occasional scenario or 2 which breaks the mold, but that's really more the exception than the norm.
Wargrave 06-12-06, 11:21 PM	5 saves makes 50d6 balanced? I wasnt even considering the bonus hp What about Poison? No comment? Balanced completely eh? And no if the normal rules for cleave still applied there would be no bonus at all. It adds a cleave attack which by itself breaks the limits of cleave so there no holding it back for multiple additions. And its only a +5 weapon. ]
runestar 06-13-06, 01:18 AM	5 saves makes 50d6 balanced? I wasnt even considering the bonus hp Multiple temp hp from the same sources do not stack - they supercede. Thus, 5 vampiric touches cast in succession still net you 10d6 temp hp, but the upside is that you get to roll 5 times and choose the best out of the 5. :) And how often can your party afford to recharge your spell storing weapon after each battle? It's at best a 1-trick pony best saved for the end boss. Mighty Cleaving: A mighty cleaving weapon allows a wielder with the Cleave feat to make one additional cleave attempt in a round. You must still drop the foe(ie: reduce it to below 0 hp) to benefit from the extra cleave. With cleave, I normally can make only 1 additional cleave attack each round. Mighty cleaving would increase this cap by 1. If they were allowed to stack, each addition would simply increase this cap by another 1, but you must still qualify for each extra cleave attempt(ie: you must kill a foe to get it). And like I said, great cleave gives you unlimited cleave attempts each round, making said enchantment moot at higher lvs anyways. ;) How confident are you of consistent 1-hit=1-kill blows? :) And its only a +5 weapon. Yes, a +5 weapon which can be made moot with a single feat, and which would be better off being spent on other enhancements. I concur that 5d10 con damage looks very strong, and that is perhaps one of a few exceptions to the rule. But again, your druid will either need to be at very high lv or need tons of downtime to refill your weapon with 5 poison spells consistently, so again, the combo is a 1-trick pony that you will be unable to replicate often. In short - I see your point, but again, how often can you expect to take advantage of said combo? A weapon with 5 spell-storing properties can cast a spell 5 times, but the opportunity cost is that after those 5 hits, the weapon does nothing, but with elemental damage enhancements, you will get the base effect with each and every hit. Maybe if your dm lets you rest after each encounter...I can see how it might be overpowered, but so long as the general guidelines for encounters is adhered to, I still don't see what's so wrong about it. Plus, turnabout is fair play... ;) Regardless, not all the weapon enhancements are subject to abusive stacking. If you feel so inclined, simply ban ones you feel are more broken. There are so many different weapon enchantments in the game, you have listed just a few, I don't think its fair to let this few spoil the market, so to speak. With regards to the initial poster, I still don't think there's anything abusive about stacking multiple flaming flags.
Sunrider 06-13-06, 02:43 AM	Note that slaying arrows are specific items rather than weapon special abilities. Instead, Bane x8 might be a good example (although we lose all those +2 bane bonuses). The more extreme examples might be: Flaming x8 (+8d6 fire) or Holy x4 (+8d6 vs. evil) for 162k gp. For the same price: compare that to a (undebatably allowed) shock/frost/flaming/holy/vicious/spell-storing weapon (+5d6, or +7d6 vs. evil with +5d6 from spell-storing: shocking grasp). Of these, the flaming x8 weapon seems the best (assuming fire resistance is applied only once), following by the undebatably allowed weapon, then the holy x4 weapon. If fire resistance is applied vs. each die of fire damage (which technically appears to be the RAW way to handle it, despite being cumbersome) then the flaming x8 weapon would take second place to the undebatably allowed weapon... as most opponents will have at least fire resistance 5 at that high of a level. Energy resistance is damage reduced per round, not per hit. It doesn't work like physical damage reduction. Basically, you ignore the first X amount of damage of a particular energy type each round; the rest affects your normally. Say, for instance, you have Fire Resistance 30. If you're hit by one 10d6 fire ball and make the save (17.5 average damage), you're fine. If you're hit by seven fireballs in the same round, you're SOL. In any case, I don't see why allowing mods to stack is unbalancing in any way, or unsuitable for descriptive weapons. Whether the weapon does 1d6 fire, 1d6 lightning and 1d6 cold damage, or just 3d6 fire damage, it's still doing 3d6 extra elemental damage per hit, and both weapons cost exactly the same. Against something vulnerable to fire, it's better. Against something immune to fire, it's useless. Against something resistant to fire but not the other elements, it's worse. Against something with some resistance to all three energy types, it's better. Overall, it comes out about even. Flavourwise, you could simply say it burns hotter than a typical flaming weapon (which, IMO, is even easier to explain than Flaming and Frost on the same weapon). Even wounding (which is probably one of the most powerful abilities when stacked) isn't too powerful - a +1 weapon Wounding x 4 weapon is, at minimum, +9, which is rather expensive. Throw in Sure Striking (so that it can actually hurt something...) and it becomes +10. You're losing out on a lot of other potentially-useful mods, and it's a one-trick pony that can be stopped by a simple low/mid-level spell. Moreover, if you didn't allow them to stack, you could simply use the (perfectly legal) +1 Wounding/Marrowcrushing/Greater Wounding weapon, inflicting the same 4 Con damage per hit (and with the advantage that Marrowcrushing works against some creatures that Wounding doesn't).
Nom 06-13-06, 07:33 AM	Energy resistance is damage reduced per round, not per hit. It doesn't work like physical damage reduction. Basically, you ignore the first X amount of damage of a particular energy type each round; the rest affects your normally.Resistance to energy (PH glossary): "... each time it is dealt", "... dealt by each attack". Each time, not each round. Exactly like DR.
meave 06-13-06, 08:58 AM	IIRC for every +1 bonus equivilant effect you need the same +1 enchantment, so a 2x flaming sword would actually be an effective +4 item (+2 bonus, twice flaming(+1flaming, +1 flaming)) it's his money, the balance is maintained in terms of power (its 2 +1 bonuses) ymmv It is true that a weapon needs at least a +1 bonus if you want to add any special abilities to a weapon. But it is not necessary to have a +1 bonus equivalent for each +1 bonus a special ability costs.
OravennasBrother 06-13-06, 09:13 AM	why would you allow flame and flame burst, but not double flame? so you'd allow double flame+, but not just two regular flames... remember that burst weapons also function as the regular energy weapons too! (flaming burst +1d6 +xd10) Yes I would allow flame+burst. Because it is allowed by the random tables. If not then it cannot normally be made. DESPITE the rules on crafting items, I don't allow a "Vest of Mage Armor" or a "Quiver of True Strike" or any of a number of other items I find abusive. My POV perhaps, but if you want to run the campaign, feel free.
SalParadise 06-13-06, 09:22 AM	I am really talking about the elemental damage namely here. And honestly, I view it the same way that sunrider does, in the sense that sometimes all damage of one type is better, sometimes it's worse, and sometimes it's just the same. However, I would far rather toss all my eggs in one basket for a variety of reasons than having a weapon that deals several different damage types for the sole purpose that I can't just stack one of them. However, I'm not thinking about game balance as much as I'm thinking about the actual rules and what they say. If they say it can be done, swell! If they say it can't, then no good. Since it seems to be ambiguous, I guess it's a case-to-case thing. Can't win 'em all, eh? Players think up the oddest things.
Sunrider 06-13-06, 11:30 AM	From the SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity. Each resistance ability is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted. It doesn’t matter whether the damage has a mundane or magical source. When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell. This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide.
mvincent 06-13-06, 11:46 AM	From the SRD:From the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_resistancetoenergy&alpha=R): "resistance to energy A creature with this special quality (extraordinary) ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, fire, or electricity). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored. For example, a witchknife has resistance to fire 5, so it ignores the first 5 points of fire damage dealt to it anytime it takes fire damage."
mvincent 06-13-06, 12:08 PM	A Spellstoringx5 weapon could (with 5 vampiric touches) could deal 50d6 damage in a single hit.Spell storing weapons (like most magic items) treat the spell at it's minimum caster level and attribute bonus (i.e. check out the ring of spell-storing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoring) description). So vampiric touch would only do 2d6x5 (10d6), and no one would benefit from the temporary hp (since it's the weapon casting the spell on the target). or perhaps Poisonx5.....5d10con damage in a single hit.The fortitude save would only be DC 14 Inflict serious wounds? 15d8+7515d8+25, with DC 14 will saves for half. Note that even a single instance of spell-storing can effectively take out a combatant if he fails his save: blindness, hideous laughter, charm etc. But yes, a multi-spell storing weapon might be the most obscene use of stacking and could indeed turn someone into a nasty one-shot wonder... but other higher level spells and magic items can also do that. Also, many DM's might reason that you can have multiple spell-storing, but only one goes off per hit. This would be inline with a psionic power storing weapon, which is the same as a spell-storing weapon except that using the stored power is a swift action (i.e. only one can be used a round).
Erak 06-13-06, 01:11 PM	Spell storing weapons (like most magic items) treat the spell at it's minimum caster level and attribute bonus (i.e. check out the ring of spell-storing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoring) description). That is not a general rule.....that is for randomly generated items. You control the caster level of anything you create or store in the ring once you fill it.
mvincent 06-13-06, 01:40 PM	That is not a general rule.....that is for randomly generated items. You control the caster level of anything you create or store in the ring once you fill it.You appear to be incorrect. The ring's description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoringMinor) says: "A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell."
Erak 06-13-06, 02:01 PM	A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than three. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing.So you are asserting that the caster can place metamagiced versions of spells into the ring but somehow they are not at his or her caster level? Am I understanding that right?
mvincent 06-13-06, 02:28 PM	So you are asserting that the caster can place metamagiced versions of spells into the ring but somehow they are not at his or her caster level? Am I understanding that right?That is correct.
Erak 06-13-06, 02:36 PM	Ok for the sake of argument let's say I agree. Can you provide me more examples of this as you said most magic items work like the ring with respect to treating magic at the minimum level needed to cast it.
mvincent 06-13-06, 02:56 PM	Ok for the sake of argument let's say I agree. Can you provide me more examples of this as you said most magic items work like the ring with respect to treating magic at the minimum level needed to cast it.Scrolls and potions for example (unless specifically made otherwise). Also, vibrant purple Ioun stones function the same as a ring of spell-storing. But I'm indeed curious of any other way you might interpret "Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell."? By this line's placement in the ring's description, it could not be related to random generation.
Erak 06-13-06, 03:15 PM	I think where you are getting confused is on the general rules for magic item placement. The DM is allowed to assume the minimum level to make generating and placing magic easier on him. For instance:Some individual items, notably those that simply store spells and nothing else, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it Items with full descriptions have their powers detailed, and each of the following topics is covered in notational form at the end of the description.However,:For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator’s level).So what we have are some general assumptions that DM's make when placing general treasure......but they are not the rules for magic item creation.
mvincent 06-13-06, 03:31 PM	I think where you are getting confused is on the general rules for magic item placement.For the sake of argument let's say I agree. The rules are fairly clear for spell-storing items like Vibrant purple Ioun stones and the various rings of spell-storing... those stored spells are at the minimum caster level. Do you believe spell-storing weapons are different?
Erak 06-13-06, 03:59 PM	No I think it opperates exactly as I am saying. For the sake of simplicity for the DM the spells initially found in the ring are at the min level to cast. This is so the DM does not have to determine exactly who charged the item. Subsequent spells cast into the ring under the control of the players are recast from the ring at the level of the person who charged it.
Dalthbar 06-13-06, 04:04 PM	For the sake of simplicity for the DM the spells initially found in the ring are at the min level to cast. This is so the DM does not have to determine exactly who charged the item. The only time this makes NO sense is if you get it from an NPC that was defeated. In that case you KNOW the caster level and you'd KNOW the spells cast into it since you prep'ed that as the DM ahead of time. If bought, I'd say there's zero spells in it. If purely "found" (in a dragon hoard, etc.) then and only then would I apply the "minimum caster level" rule to the spells.
Wargrave 06-13-06, 04:09 PM	The DC's would still be set with the casters ability modifer to the DC, and there no rule staing you cant set the caster level of a weapon of spell storing. Also I would like to point out again that I don't think vampiric touch would be overpowered because it would give temp hp, as it would not give too many, but rather because you would deal 50d6 damage i na single hit... and vampiric touch has no saving throw so....1dx+str+50d6 no save....not bad at all I think. And about recharging it, well if a sorcerer is high level and still has 5 spells at the end of the day he can cast vampiric tocuh or empowered/maximized/stilled/whatever version of it int othe sword...wouldnt be that hard.
Erak 06-13-06, 04:10 PM	Correct.....or you could get it from someone who doesn't know the activation word or doesn't know it is a magic ring.
mvincent 06-13-06, 04:26 PM	No I think it opperates exactly as I am saying. For the sake of simplicity for the DM the spells initially found in the ring are at the min level to cast. This is so the DM does not have to determine exactly who charged the item.Ah. That answers the question I asked of you earlier. The ring of spell storing description says: "Spell Storing, Minor A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus, or pay an XP cost to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action. For a randomly generated ring, treat it as a scroll to determine what spells are stored in it. If you roll a spell that would put the ring over the three-level limit, ignore that roll; the ring has no more spells in it. (Not every newly discovered ring need be fully charged.) A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than three. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing. The ring magically imparts to the wearer the names of all spells currently stored within it. Faint evocation; CL 5th; Forge Ring, imbue with spell ability; Price 18,000 gp." So you believe that the underlined part (which is at the beginning) was only meant to apply to spells (if any) that are initially randomly generated to be in the ring (even though the section specifically addressing that is father below, separated from this line)?
Dalthbar 06-13-06, 04:30 PM	So you believe that the underlined part (which is at the beginning) was only meant to apply to spells (if any) that are initially randomly generated to be in the ring (even though the section specifically addressing that is father below, separated from this line)? I think the underlined part was to ensure that a high level caster wasn't beefing up lower level casters with much higher-powered spells all the time. A 19th level mage would cast fireball into the 5th level mage's RoSS and then you can drop two in a single round. That's better than the 5th level's fireball in comparison. But as long as PCs aren't being abusive, I don't see a reason to impose that rule and let them cast their spells out of the ring as their caster level. That's my take.
mvincent 06-13-06, 04:32 PM	The DC's would still be set with the casters ability modifer to the DCNote that the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm) do say: "For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell."
mvincent 06-13-06, 04:41 PM	then you can drop two in a single roundTo clarify: "drop two" of what? But as long as PCs aren't being abusive, I don't see a reason to impose that rule and let them cast their spells out of the ring as their caster level.I'm unconcerned about personal play styles, but if you are acknowledging it as an actual rule (which you seem to be), then you have no debate with me. The fact that it is a rule is reason enough for some DM's to enforce it.
Erak 06-13-06, 04:54 PM	Well let's get to the heart of the question......mvincent do you believe that players who create magic items are able to set the level of the effects they place on said items? Or do you think it is always at the minimum level to cast the spell?
mvincent 06-13-06, 05:13 PM	Well let's get to the heart of the question......mvincent do you believe that players who create magic items are able to set the level of the effects they place on said itemsSure. That does not change the fact that spells stored in the various rings of spell-storing and Purple Ioun stones are (by the rules) at minimum levels*. I feel you are unjustified in concluding that the line in their description that says so relates only to initially generated spells. *And the save DC's are at the minimum possible value also.
Erak 06-13-06, 05:29 PM	From the 3.0 FAQ:The bead of karma from the necklace of prayer beads allows divine spells to be cast at +4 caster level and the effect lasts 10 minutes. How does this work, exactly? How do you tell when the 10 minutes starts? Also does this mean spells with durations longer than 10 minutes lose the +4 bonus after the 10 minutes is up? What about spells cast into spell storing items during the 10 minutes? Do they get the effect once the 10 minutes is over? A bead of karma is activated with a command word. You use an action to activate the item, and for the next 10 minutes any divine spell you cast functions at +4 caster level. Any aspect of the spell that depends on caster level (usually range, duration, damage, or any combination of the three) increases accordingly. An affected spell gets the benefit for its entire duration, even if that duration is more than 10 minutes. Storing a spell is not the same as casting it for purposes of using the bead, and the spell is stored at your regular caster level. The bead does not affect spell effects you cast from a device, even if you stored them yourself while the bead was functioning. Anyone have access to a 3.0 DMG to see if spell storring has changed wording wise? If not the 3.0 FAQ would seem to address the issue nicely.
mvincent 06-13-06, 05:51 PM	From the 3.0 FAQ: Anyone have access to a 3.0 DMG to see if spell storring has changed wording wise? If not the 3.0 FAQ would seem to address the issue nicely.It has changed somewhat (see here (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemsrings.rtf)) but not significantly in this regard. However, the FAQ answer you quoted does not appear to relate to our question... in context it does not seem to say what you seem to think it does. Listen, since you do not believe me as to what the second line from the ring of spell storing's description means, please ask customer service, the Sage, or a trusted fellow player. The line seems pretty clear to me, but I appear to be at an impasse as to conveying it to you, so I believe I'm done.
Erak 06-13-06, 06:00 PM	I think it says exactly what it says......the question was can you add 4 levels to your caster level with a Bead of Karma and store the higher level version in a spell storing item. The ruling from the Sage was no.....it stores at your regular caster level. Since the FAQ collects the Sages advice.....I will concur that I'm done as well.