Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jadehawk 01-22-07, 04:14 PM	or any of those other energy special abilities for magic items? I had an argument with a friend in my dnd group about this, and i'm afraid he's right where he stands, though I have disallowed it in my game. As far as I can tell, there is nothing saying that you can't have a flaming flaming burst weapon. Such a weapon would be +4 at least (+1 magic, +1 flaming, +2 flaming burst) and would deal 2d6 fire, or 1d6 and 1d10 (or more depending on the weapon critical hit multiplier) fire on critical hits. My impression is that flaming burst is a +1 enhancement on the flaming ability, increasing damage from 1d6 to 1d10 on critical hits. But neither I nor my friend can find anything that actually says they don't stack. The only thing I can come up with is that the damage is the same type, so if it were comparable to a bonus type (like a competence bonus) you would only take the highest bonus, and not the total. Is that how magical energy damage works?
bondious 01-22-07, 04:20 PM	I think it's a generally accepted notion on these boards that Flaming Burst is a "+1 increase" from Flaming. That's the way I play it, in any event. I don't think I'd mind someone having a Flaming Flaming Burst weapon, though. If you think about it, you could have a Flaming Frost Shock weapon, or something like a Frost Shocking Burst, so I don't see the harm. The player's paying the +3, so let 'em. Now if they wanted mulitple Flaming enhancements, like a Flaming x3 or something (for a +3 cost), I'd say no.
jaelis 01-22-07, 04:20 PM	Opinions differ on the question. Mechanically, there is nothing unbalanced about letting them stack.
jadehawk 01-22-07, 04:45 PM	I agree that there is a balance, though it does throw a monkey wrench in the rule on enhancing items. That is, if they are not connected abilities you wouldn't be able to change a flaming weapon into a flaming burst. You could add flaming burst on top, and pay the price of a +2 enhancement. You know how improving say gloves of dex +2 to +4 costs only the difference in the ability (in this case a difference of [16000 - 4000] 12000 gp)? Well if you can flaming with flaming burst, you are effectively saying that the abilities are separate and so you can't improve a flaming weapon to a flaming burst weapon. Your options are to sell the flaming weapon (usually at half value) and buy the flaming burst weapon at full price, or to add flaming burst on top of flaming for the cost of the +2 difference. I suppose my problem is that because it sits on the fence it gets the best of both worlds (in that it can be improved at the cost of a +1 enhancement as well as stacked at the cost of a +2 enhancement)...its such a minimal advantage at the end of the day, but i am a stickler on principles.
Dm_Farble 01-22-07, 04:54 PM	I've had the same problem with my players, and them wanting weapons with uber qualities... One actually wanted a Keen Vorpal Flaming Frost Shock Greatsword... I told them no. Since then I have ruled that the only magic items that appear in the game are either from killing monsters or from the merchants. Both of which are directly under my control :chicken:
jaelis 01-22-07, 04:57 PM	I agree that there is a balance, though it does throw a monkey wrench in the rule on enhancing items. That is, if they are not connected abilities you wouldn't be able to change a flaming weapon into a flaming burst. Why not? There's no need to overthink things, just allow what you want to allow. I've had the same problem with my players, and them wanting weapons with uber qualities... One actually wanted a Keen Vorpal Flaming Frost Shock Greatsword... I told them no. Since then I have ruled that the only magic items that appear in the game are either from killing monsters or from the merchants. Both of which are directly under my control You're welcome to allow your players whatever weapons you see fit. But there's nothing wrong with the above greatsword in the rules, and combining flaming, frost, and shocking is supported by the faq. It is also balanced fine as a +10 equivalent.
Vegepygmy 01-22-07, 05:02 PM	A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon... Even if the flaming ability is not active, the weapon still deals its extra fire damage on a successful critical hit.IMO, these two quotes make it abundantly clear that a flaming burst weapon is already a flaming weapon, so a "flaming flaming burst" weapon is as redundant as it looks (i.e., no, you cannot stack them).
Dm_Farble 01-22-07, 05:07 PM	Yes, but that would seriously overpower the character. 3d6 Elemental dmg +2d6 Weapon dmg + Increased critical range + Vorpal = Massive dmg + flying heads. I mean, it would be awesome to have this weapon, especially if you had a high attack bonus, but it just overpowers the characters.
jaelis 01-22-07, 05:12 PM	Yes, but that would seriously overpower the character. 3d6 Elemental dmg +2d6 Weapon dmg + Increased critical range + Vorpal = Massive dmg + flying heads. I mean, it would be awesome to have this weapon, especially if you had a high attack bonus, but it just overpowers the characters. No it doesn't. It is actually a fair bit weaker than a plain +5 vorpal weapon, because you won't confirm your head-lopping crits as often, and just won't hit as often period. At this level, most everything has energy resistance so you'll rarely score your elemental damage. And keen is a bust for a greatsword... save it for the falchion and scythe. To be clear, it is a powerful weapon... at +10 bonus it's the best you can do pre-epic. So if it's not for a near 20th level character, then you're right, it is overpowered. But not because of stacking elemental damages.
bondious 01-22-07, 05:17 PM	Yes, but that would seriously overpower the character. 3d6 Elemental dmg +2d6 Weapon dmg + Increased critical range + Vorpal = Massive dmg + flying heads. I mean, it would be awesome to have this weapon, especially if you had a high attack bonus, but it just overpowers the characters. Remember, though, that Vorpal only cuts off heads on a confrimed natural 20 roll, so the Keen has no extra effect on this. Neither does it have any effect on the Flaming, Frost or Shocking abilities. Basically put, I don't see this weapon being overpowered at all. It might be a little cheezy to some, and I've always played with the notion that a weapon should be balanced (for the most part) between abilities and enhancement bonus, but there's nothing here that screams either "illegal" or "too much" to me. [Hmmm...looks like jaelis beat me to it. Oh well :D]
Aryxbez 01-22-07, 05:30 PM	Vegepygmy sounds quite right but besides that I don't allow them to stack not because it would too powerful or anything I know it would never be so. My reasons are: 1. It is kinda cheesy (like the flamingx3 weapon) 2. Also as far as I see it they are giving the same fiery d6 and like most magic, the same thing applied won't stack however if there ever is an exception to this rule then I will allow it with open arms
Dm_Farble 01-22-07, 05:36 PM	The guy was lvl 11 and he wanted it. THAT is overpowering. He could afford it amazingly enough...
jaelis 01-22-07, 05:56 PM	The guy was lvl 11 and he wanted it. THAT is overpowering. He could afford it amazingly enough... Well if you give an 11th level character 200000 gp, these things will happen :D
Thamius 01-22-07, 06:02 PM	The quote by Vegepygmy from the SRD says it all. If a player has a +1 flaming weapon (+2 equivalent) he does an extra +1d6 damage when he hits with the flames activated. If he improves his flaming special ability to flaming burst, which I rule is easily done because they are clearly related, he now has a +1 flaming burst weapon (+3 equivalent, pay the cost as the difference between a +2 and +3 weapon) that functions as a normal flaming weapon (if you so choose) until you score a confirmed critical hit, at which time your fire damage is +1d6 and +1d10 (or 2d10 or 3d10, depending on the weapon's crit multiplier). Think of flaming burst as improved flaming, if you want. They don't stack exactly, that would be redundant. Of course, you can't take your +1 flaming weapon and upgrade it to a +1 icy burst weapon, the two enchantments are clearly not related. Of note, you can choose whether or not to have the flames "turned on," but the flaming burst effect is going to occur on a critical hit regardless, even if you don't really want it to. The flaming burst even affects creatures not normally affected by critical hits! It's all spelled out in the DMG and SRD.
jadehawk 01-22-07, 06:30 PM	The quote by Vegepygmy from the SRD says it all. If a player has a +1 flaming weapon (+2 equivalent) he does an extra +1d6 damage when he hits with the flames activated. If he improves his flaming special ability to flaming burst, which I rule is easily done because they are clearly related, he now has a +1 flaming burst weapon (+3 equivalent, pay the cost as the difference between a +2 and +3 weapon) that functions as a normal flaming weapon (if you so choose) until you score a confirmed critical hit, at which time your fire damage is +1d6 and +1d10 (or 2d10 or 3d10, depending on the weapon's crit multiplier). Think of flaming burst as improved flaming, if you want. They don't stack exactly, that would be redundant. Of course, you can't take your +1 flaming weapon and upgrade it to a +1 icy burst weapon, the two enchantments are clearly not related. Of note, you can choose whether or not to have the flames "turned on," but the flaming burst effect is going to occur on a critical hit regardless, even if you don't really want it to. The flaming burst even affects creatures not normally affected by critical hits! It's all spelled out in the DMG and SRD. I don't have my books about me but I believe the 1d10 supercedes and does not stack with the normal 1d6 damage. However, if you go with the stacking of flaming with flaming burst (which in itself would be a +3 enhancement, making a +1 weapon turn to +4), then you could arguably deal 1d6 fire, or 1d6 + 1d10 fire on critical hits.
mvincent 01-22-07, 06:31 PM	The 3.5 FAQ says: "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 However it does not specifically mention two of the exact same element on a weapon. I believe Flaming and Flaming burst would be considered the same in regard to the "flaming" portion of their effect (but not the "burst" part, of course). The rules say: "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." Note that this stacking rule can also apply to two spells or effects of identical strengths. This stacking rules could apply to flaming, flaming damage if those enhancements are are viewed as an effect on the weapon. D&D does not have precedence for this stacking rule applying to what can be placed on a magic item but it is certainly possible. The other application of this stacking rule that some have tried to use is saying that the 'effect' is on anyone hit by such a weapon. This is an incorrect interpretation however, as damage stacks in D&D: i.e. the stacking rules do not govern damage, and indeed the stacking of damage 'effects' from multiple, similar sources is often how people are defeated in D&D. However, I believe Fire resistance would technically be applied separately to each instance of flaming. However, a big strike against them stacking is the fact that epic flaming (Fiery Blast (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/weapons.htm#fieryBlast)) would be superfluous (and needlessly expensive) if you could just do the same thing with regular flaming (but better and cheaper). A case for them stacking though is that there are officially published instances of creatures wielding Flamingx3 weapons (Example: King Snurre). These could be non-standard weapons though. Based on many previous discussions on this, I feel it is subject to interpretation and completely up to the DM.
Thamius 01-22-07, 06:48 PM	I don't have my books about me but I believe the 1d10 supercedes and does not stack with the normal 1d6 damage. However, if you go with the stacking of flaming with flaming burst (which in itself would be a +3 enhancement, making a +1 weapon turn to +4), then you could arguably deal 1d6 fire, or 1d6 + 1d10 fire on critical hits. Here's the whole section out of the SRD, word-for-word, not just the small pieces quoted earlier: 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. Flaming Burst: 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 x3, add an extra 2d10 points of fire damage instead, and if the multiplier is x4, 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 know it's counter-intuitive, but the flaming +1d6 and flaming burst +1d10 (or more) are added together. I used to rule that the burst superseded the regular flaming damage, too, until a player made me pull out my DMG and read the actual entries. Kudos to him, he was right, RAW! Another question occurs to me that I haven't been directly challenged on before: If a creature has fire resistance 5, on a critical hit do you apply the resistance to each of the fire damages in succession, or do you add the total fire damage together and then subtract out the 5 points just once?
bondious 01-22-07, 07:14 PM	I know it's counter-intuitive, but the flaming +1d6 and flaming burst +1d10 (or more) are added together. I used to rule that the burst superseded the regular flaming damage, too, until a player made me pull out my DMG and read the actual entries. Kudos to him, he was right, RAW! Another question occurs to me that I haven't been directly challenged on before: If a creature has fire resistance 5, on a critical hit do you apply the resistance to each of the fire damages in succession, or do you add the total fire damage together and then subtract out the 5 points just once? Unless I'm mistaken, energy resistance (in this case fire resistance 5) negates the numerical value listed of the specified energy damage PER ROUND? OR, basically, the first 5 points of fire damage per round. This is contrary to what's stated above, which acts sorta like an "Energy Damage Reduction". Here's the text, from the SRD: RESISTANCE TO ENERGY 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. If I'm correct, then this would make the above statement moot. IF I'm correct, of course. ;)
Thamius 01-22-07, 07:42 PM	Unless I'm mistaken, energy resistance (in this case fire resistance 5) negates the numerical value listed of the specified energy damage PER ROUND? OR, basically, the first 5 points of fire damage per round. This is contrary to what's stated above, which acts sorta like an "Energy Damage Reduction". Here's the text, from the SRD: If I'm correct, then this would make the above statement moot. IF I'm correct, of course. ;) I'm inclined to agree with you, I was getting my energy resistance and damage reduction rules intertwined. Many thanks for helping clarify the issue.
mvincent 01-22-07, 07:49 PM	Unless I'm mistaken, energy resistance (in this case fire resistance 5) negates the numerical value listed of the specified energy damage PER ROUND? OR, basically, the first 5 points of fire damage per round. This is contrary to what's stated above, which acts sorta like an "Energy Damage Reduction". Here's the text, from the SRD: If I'm correct, then this would make the above statement moot. IF I'm correct, of course. ;)The glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_resistancetoenergy&alpha=) says: "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." This is the correct way to handle it.
mvincent 01-22-07, 07:50 PM	I'm inclined to agree with youThat would be incorrect.
mvincent 01-22-07, 07:51 PM	If a creature has fire resistance 5, on a critical hit do you apply the resistance to each of the fire damages in succession, or do you add the total fire damage together and then subtract out the 5 points just once?A critical hit is not two hits in succession, but rather one hit. You apply fire resistance just once.
bondious 01-22-07, 08:02 PM	Okay, so I got ONE definition from the SRD and you got ANOTHER one from the Wizards Glossary. Weird. So which one is to be believed? A critical hit is not two hits in succession, but rather one hit. You apply fire resistance just once. I agree on this point: it's one hit from one source, regardless of the fact that you might have to roll a d6 AND one or more d10's of fire damage. It'd be akin to saying that because a greatsword does 2d6 damage that you would apply DR TWICE, once for each d6. I just doesn't work that way.
mvincent 01-22-07, 08:23 PM	So which one is to be believed?Your quote, though misleading, does not actually deny the glossary's interpretation. However, the glossary definitely denies your interpretation. This can be corroborated with a myriad of D&D precedence. If you doubt it, please ask someone you trust.
Bopple 01-22-07, 08:34 PM	You gave out enough money to buy a +10 weapon, and saying the weapon is broken? :confused: The weapon is never broken. And elemental damage is not all that great, because almost all the creatures have elemental resistance(and multiple resistance, for powerful creatures).
bondious 01-22-07, 09:42 PM	Your quote, though misleading, does not actually deny the glossary's interpretation. However, the glossary definitely denies your interpretation. This can be corroborated with a myriad of D&D precedence. If you doubt it, please ask someone you trust. I never stated that I doubt anything, but was merely wondering which of the two are correct. If you think about it, the SRD and the Glossary are both WotC D&D rules, so why should they be different? And which one is the correct one, or at least the most recent one? That's all I was saying. And now I'm looking at the Glossary of the DMG, and it has nearly the exact same quote as I posted above EXCEPT these lines, which I'll insert in red: RESISTANCE TO ENERGY 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. For example, a janni has resistance to fire 10. A janni can ignore the first 10 points of fire damage it takes each attack. 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. So there we go, the SRD's incorrect and so am I...which is cool 'cause it just made the fire resistance of the monsters I throw at my players even BETTER than I THOUGHT it was! Glad to be wrong! :plotting:
runestar 01-23-07, 01:44 AM	Fiery Blast: On command, a fiery blast weapon is sheathed in fire (though this deals no damage to the wielder). On any hit, this fire engulfs the creature struck, dealing +3d6 points of bonus fire damage. On a successful critical hit it instead deals +6d6 points of fire damage (or +9d6 if the critical multiplier is x3, or +12d6 if the critical multiplier is x4). Bows, crossbows, and slings with this special ability bestow the bonus fire damage upon their ammunition. Caster Level: 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, fireball; Market Price: +6 bonus. Tell me why I would even bother with this epic weapon ability if I could just have 6 flaming abilities on the same weapon, or 3 flamings and 3 flaming bursts stacking together...?:confused:
Vaelan 01-23-07, 02:27 AM	Tell me why I would even bother with this epic weapon ability if I could just have 6 flaming abilities on the same weapon, or 3 flamings and 3 flaming bursts stacking together...?:confused: Why are people supposed to care about rules that they don't use? Epic isn't exactly the most popular ruleset. A stronger argument would be based on the actual weapon properties and their relevance to an appropriate context, rather than a comparison to a weapon property that is clearly useless in its context.
runestar 01-23-07, 02:35 AM	Why are people supposed to care about rules that they don't use? Epic isn't exactly the most popular ruleset. A stronger argument would be based on the actual weapon properties and their relevance to an appropriate context, rather than a comparison to a weapon property that is clearly useless in its context. I think it would work both ways. Do you think wotc would have bothered releasing a vastly inferior weapon property if it could already be replicated by non-epic means? Plus, my points have pretty much been summed up earlier, so I don't feel like reiterating them again. And I don't think you can roll up a flaming, flaming burst weapon using the DMG weapon generation tables either, for whatever its worth.
bondious 01-23-07, 03:57 AM	Tell me why I would even bother with this epic weapon ability if I could just have 6 flaming abilities on the same weapon, or 3 flamings and 3 flaming bursts stacking together...?:confused: I'm not sure anyone's advocating these things. What we ARE talking about is whether Flaming and Flaming Burst should stack, or if they should be considered steps in the same staircase. I don't think anyone has spoken in a positive manner about multiples of the same ability on one weapon, though. And for the record, I agree that if you could just buy like a Flaming x6 or Flaming Burst x3, that would pretty much make the Epic Fiery Blast ability useless and WAY more expensive, to boot. On the other hand, I don't feel that it's either broken OR unbalanced to allow a Flaming Flaming Burst weapon. And I don't think you can roll up a flaming, flaming burst weapon using the DMG weapon generation tables either, for whatever its worth. I really don't know about that. I mean, the Flaming and Flaming Burst abilities are listed seperately, and though they have a commanality they're still different. As a counterpoint, the arguement can be made that since they're similar, and since one appears to be the "next step up" for the other, that they should be considered just that. Check this out: 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. Now it's obvious that Flaming and Flaming Burst are not the same ability, or else there would only be one entry and the other wouldn't exist, so I'm thinking that the debate here is whether they are "incompatible" with each other. Until that's solved, I'd say it's inappropriate to say that the two cannot be rolled together on the Random Treasure table.
runestar 01-23-07, 04:08 AM	I'm not sure anyone's advocating these things. What we ARE talking about is whether Flaming and Flaming Burst should stack, or if they should be considered steps in the same staircase. I don't think anyone has spoken in a positive manner about multiples of the same ability on one weapon, though. Well, technically, a flaming, flaming burst weapon would be a flaming, flaming weapon with an extra ability. my earlier reasoning was that I felt the designer probably created the epic flaming blast weapon property exactly because he saw that flaming would not stack with itself or flaming burst, as such, the only way to get more fire damage would be via a more expensive weapon property, one which is epic in nature. Apologies if my thinking was way-off track or if I confused anyone. As for whether they should stack, I admit that I do not really see anything broken about it, namely because I see it as mathematically being equivalent to 2 different elemental flags(such as a flaming, frost weapon, or a flaming, frost burst weapon etc). I went with this specific example as it seems less likely that a monster resistant to fire would be resistant to cold, and vice versa.
Bopple 01-23-07, 04:23 AM	Well, I don't find anything wrong balancewise, with a flaming, flaming, flaming burst weapon. But I find it quite wrong, flavorwise. And runestar's epic ability example reinforces my belief. Authors of WotC have shown irritating habits of omitting the obvious things, from time to time.
Sleepwalker13666 01-23-07, 05:05 AM	The general consensus is it's a redundant stack, but utimently all it means is +2d6 fire damage and bonus 1d10 on crits, a character could go flaming, shocking burst, but if he wants to go all fire it's not overbalancing to let him, I have a character using a flaming, flaming burst spiked chain who is a phyrokinetist, I could have gone with a different element on my chain, but I wanted to go all fire. It's actually a debilitiating choice, a creature immune to fire will totally own my ass.
jaelis 01-23-07, 10:13 AM	Just to say, I personally am perfectly comfortable allowing flaming x2 and the like. I wouldn't say that the RAW permits this, but I wouldn't say it denies it either. I'm not interested in convincing anyone to allow it if they don't want to. I just wouldn't want someone reading this thread to come away with the impression that it is an unpopular interpretation.
mvincent 01-23-07, 12:38 PM	I don't think you can roll up a flaming, flaming burst weapon using the DMG weapon generation tables either, for whatever its worth.True, but it was previously established that those tables are actually non-exclusionary (i.e you can generate combinations not on them unless prohibited by the items description). Also, even with those tables you could have say; +1 Flaming, Flaming Burst arrows used with a +2 Flaming, Flaming Burst bow (possibly with the "flame arrow" spell cast on them even), so stacking could still be an issue.
Melpomene 01-23-07, 12:42 PM	One of the miniatures (the Fire Giant king) has a +X Flaming Flaming Flaming greatsword.
mvincent 01-23-07, 01:15 PM	One of the miniatures (the Fire Giant king) has a +X Flaming Flaming Flaming greatsword.Correct. King Snurre from Giants of Legend (mentioned above) has a flaming x3 weapon. I've also heard of at least one other example of an officially published flaming x3 weapon. These might be non-standard weapons though.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 01:56 PM	Recently I noticed something in the DM Guide, and -if I am interpreting the descriptions correctly- none of the elemental abilities are able to stack with each other. Now, before I get flamed, allow me to explain why I believe so. as per page 224 of the DM Guide... 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. Frost Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A frost weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition. Now, what does this mean? Both of these abilities are activated by giving your weapon a command. The description also states (I underlined it) that the effect remains until a different command is given; that leads me to believe that it is not possible to have multiple elemental abilities active on the same weapon at the same time. The "Burst" abilities are slightly different, so I will break that down seperately. again, as per page 224 of the DM Guide... Flaming Burst A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a succesful 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 and extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a succesful critical hit. If the weapon's critical multiplier is x3, add an extra 2d10 points of fire damage instead, and if the weapon's critical modifier is x4, add an extra 3d10 points of fire damage. Bow, 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 critical hit. Ok, now the first thing to recognize here is that a flaming burst weapon funcions as a flaming weapon. The flaming weapon requires a command word to activate. You could add the flaming quality to a weapon twice, but you can't use the same command to activate multiple magical effects; that means that only one of the flaming enhancements could be active at a time - that means that they would not stack because the first flaming enhancement would cease to function once you gave the second command to activate the second flaming enhancement. The interesting thing about Flaming Burst is that the critical aspect of the weapon still functions independently of the flaming property. So, say for the sake of example I have a Frost Flaming Burst weapon. I utter the command word to activate the frost ability. I then make an attack and score a critical hit. I deal the extra 1d6 of frost damage because that is the currently activated (via my command) ability; because of the critical hit, the 1d10 of flaming damage is also activated. In theory, Elemental Burst Enhancements do partially stack. Partially stack? To make things easier, I will give several examples. Example 1: Flaming Frost Weapon - I can activate one ability at a time, but not both abilities at the same time because each ability requires a command, and each ability also ceases to function once a different command is given. I could attack with this weapon to either deal and extra 1d6 fire OR an extra 1d6 cold, but not both. Example 2: Flaming Icy Burst Weapon - Much like the previous example, I can only activate either Frost of Flaming, but not both at the same time; however, the extra critical damage of the icy Burst quality is always active. If I had the Flaming property active, I would deal 1d6 fire damage and 1d10 cold damage upon a critical hit; if I had the Frost property active, I would deal 1d6 cold and 1d10 cold damage upon a critical hit. In this example the burst enhancement partially stack because it is still active, but the only part of it which is still active is the effect which deals more damage upon critical hits. Example 3: Flaming Burst Icy Burst Weapon - As I have already explored in the two examples prior to this one, I can either have the flaming ability active or the frost ability active, but not both. However, since both of the elemental enhancements on this weapon are burst enhancements, the effects (again) do partially stack because both properties have a secondary effect which takes effect during critical hits. If I have the flaming property active and score a critical hit, I would deal 1d6 fire damage from the flaming property, 1d10 fire damage as a result of the critical hit, and 1d10 cold damage also as a result of the critical hit. On the other hand, if I had the frost property active and scored a critical hit, I would deal 1d6 cold damage from the frost property, 1d10 fire damage as a result of the critical hit, and 1d10 cold damage as a result of a critical hit. In conclusion, the flaming and flaming burst properties partially stack, but it doesn't make any sense to enchant a weapon in such a way because you won't deal any more damage than you would if you simply just had a flaming burst weapon. Also, the only possible way (according to the RAW in the DM Guide) for any of the elemental abilities to function together in any possible way, all of those enhancements need to be elemental burst enhancements.
mvincent 01-23-07, 02:10 PM	As mentioned above (in post #16), the 3.5 FAQ says: "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."
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 02:15 PM	As mentioned above (in post #16), the 3.5 FAQ says: "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 was under the impression that multiple magical effects could not be activated by the same command word. It's the same reasoning behind why a PC wearing multiple magical items which launch fireballs, rays, lightning bolts and the like can't activate all of those effects with the same command; the PC needs to take an action to activate each effect. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the same concept would apply to weapons. I think this would make a great sage advice question. Personally, as of my revelation today, I no longer feel that multiple abilities (even if on the same weapon) can be activated with the same command word. Edit: Also, the FAQ does not mention being able to activate multiple effects at the same time. As post #16 mentioned: The 3.5 FAQ says: "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" However, this says nothing about those abilities being activated with the same command. Yes, a flaming flaming burst weapon would be allowed by the RAW, but it would be pointless.
Keenath 01-23-07, 02:21 PM	My groups have always considered Flaming Burst to be just an 'upgrade' of Flaming, so you can't stack them. That's just for flavor reasons and because the text seems to say that, though -- not a balance issue. I've had the same problem with my players, and them wanting weapons with uber qualities... One actually wanted a Keen Vorpal Flaming Frost Shock Greatsword... I told them no. Should've let him. Vorpal is the worst weapon ability EVER. Sure, you occasionally take a head, but consider: How many enemies do you fight that are major threats, compared to the number who are relative weenies? When you roll a 20 and confirm, what fraction of enemies you fight would survive the critcal hit and not be just about ready to fall over anyway? A Vorpal weapon basically 'stores up' the value of a +5-equivalent with each attack you make, and then releases it all in a single blow. But you can't control WHEN it releases it -- you may well blow 200 HP-worth of damage against a goblin! From the DM's perspective it's just as bad. Most of the time that Vorpal will work against some idiot that doesn't matter. But what if it DOES trigger against your great wyrm red dragon, or your demon king of the abyss? Now what should've been a great battle is over before it starts, and everyone except Mister Vorpal feels like they got gypped. Or at least, I would if I were a player in that group! It's much preferable, in my opinion, to buy +5-worth of abilities instead of Vorpal -- +5 that will apply all the time, rather than on less than 5% of my rolls.
Vegepygmy 01-23-07, 02:30 PM	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. Frost Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A frost weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition. Now, what does this mean? Both of these abilities are activated by giving your weapon a command. The description also states (I underlined it) that the effect remains until a different command is given; that leads me to believe that it is not possible to have multiple elemental abilities active on the same weapon at the same time."Another" != "any other" "Flame on!" is one command. "Flame off!" is another command, as is "Frost on!" But giving the "Frost on!" command does not necessarily turn off your weapon's flaming ability. If the ability description stated that "the effect remains until any other command is given," it would, but "another command" is more reasonably read here as a particular, different command word.
mvincent 01-23-07, 02:48 PM	the FAQ does not mention being able to activate multiple effects at the same time.What part of: "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." ... is confusing?
pukunui 01-23-07, 02:48 PM	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.This sentence says to me that the flaming burst special ability already includes the flaming special ability. So if you had a flaming flaming burst weapon it would either be redundant, or it would give you even more fire damage from the flaming ability on top of the fire damage granted by the flaming ability already being included in the flaming burst ability ... if that makes any sense. Edit: Also, the FAQ does not mention being able to activate multiple effects at the same time. However, this says nothing about those abilities being activated with the same command.Yes, actually it does mention it. The very last sentence reads: "Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously [my emphasis], or activate them one at a time, as desired." EDIT: Damn, mvincent beat me to it. Just my :twocents: Cheers, Jonny
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 02:51 PM	What part of: "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." ... is confusing? I suppose the part which is confusing me is that I was always under the impression that the core rule books took precedence over other books and sources when it came to differing presentations of rules. Edit: If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate a link to the area of the FAQ in which this is discussed. If I'm wrong, I accept that, but I would appreciate a link the area of the FAQ which deals with this subject.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 02:56 PM	"Another" != "any other" "Flame on!" is one command. "Flame off!" is another command, as is "Frost on!" But giving the "Frost on!" command does not necessarily turn off your weapon's flaming ability. If the ability description stated that "the effect remains until any other command is given," it would, but "another command" is more reasonably read here as a particular, different command word. On one hand I can see your point of view; I really can, but, on the other hand -to me- "until another command is given" means exactly what it says - "until another command is given." To me, that would mean any other command because it doesn't specify that the next (another) command has to or need be a command which has anything to do with the ability.
pukunui 01-23-07, 03:04 PM	I suppose the part which is confusing me is that I was always under the impression that the core rule books took precedence over other books and sources when it came to differing presentations of rules. Edit: If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate a link to the area of the FAQ in which this is discussed. If I'm wrong, I accept that, but I would appreciate a link the area of the FAQ which deals with this subject. I can't actually find that particular Q&A in the FAQ, but I did find this: The flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst weapon powers require a critical hit to trigger the burst. What happens when you attack a foe that isn’t subject to critical hits? Will the burst power work? A flaming burst, icy burst, or shocking burst weapon also is a flaming, frost, or shock weapon, respectively. What happens when the burst power is triggered? Does the burst damage augment or replace the damage from the energy power? A burst power has its normal effect against foes that aren’t subject to critical hits. If you strike such a foe and your attack roll is good enough to threaten a critical hit, go ahead and roll to confirm the critical. If you confirm the critical, the burst power is activated, but the foe doesn’t take any extra weapon damage. For example, you have a +1 flaming burst longsword and you hit a wight with it, rolling a 19 (good enough for a threat with a longsword). The wight is an undead creature and not subject to critical hits, but you roll to confirm the critical anyway. If you confirm the critical, the wight takes normal damage from the sword (1d8+1 points if you’re a Medium character, plus your Strength modifier), not double damage as a critical hit. The sword’s burst power kicks in however, dealing an extra 1d10 points of fire damage to the wight. Damage from a burst weapon is in addition to any damage from the weapon’s energy power. If the energy power is activated, you deal 1d6 points of energy damage from the energy power, plus extra energy damage from the burst power (see the power descriptions). For example, a confirmed critical hit from a +1 flaming burst longsword deals 1d6+1d10 points of fire damage in addition to the weapon damage from the critical hit itself.This lends weight to what I was saying before. A flaming burst weapon already includes the flaming ability. It's a flaming weapon with the [energy] burst ability added on. So whether or not you could have a flaming flaming burst weapon depends entirely on whether or not you can have a flaming flaming weapon.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 03:13 PM	I can't actually find that particular Q&A in the FAQ, but I did find this: This lends weight to what I was saying before. A flaming burst weapon already includes the flaming ability. It's a flaming weapon with the [energy] burst ability added on. So whether or not you could have a flaming flaming burst weapon depends entirely on whether or not you can have a flaming flaming weapon. My reasoning was/is the following: Flaming Weapon deals 1d6 extra flaming damage on a successful hit Flaming Burst deals functions as a Flaming Weapon, but also deals 1d10 flaming damage on a critical hit On a normal hit (non-critical) the flaming burst weapon would only deal the 1d6 damage A creature immune to criticals (IMO) would also be immune to burst weapons because it is not possible to critical those creatures; the only way you get the extra 1d10 is upon a critical hit As for the flaming flaming burst weapon, I don't see the point... As I mentioned before, it is my understanding of the rules that the flaming property functions until "another command' is given. To me, that means that any other command word (directed at the weapon to activate an ability) would cause flaming to cease to function. Flaming Burst Weapon: functions as flaming weapon... A flaming burst weapon would deal 1d6 damage on a normal hit; a flaming burst weapon would deal 1d6 damage and 1d10 more on a critical hit Flaming Flaming Burst Weapon: If the flaming property is active, the weapon would deal 1d6 damage on a normal hit; the weapon would also still deal the 1d10 extra damage on a critcal hit because that aspect of the burst is always active. Alternatively, if I choose to activate the flaming burst property instead of the flaming property, I deal 1d6 flaming damage on a regular hit; I deal 1d10 more flaming upon a critical hit. Being that -the way I interpret what the DM Guide says- you would not be able to activate both abilities at the same time, it would be pointless to have both abilities on the same weapon. 1d6 + 1d10 = 1d6 + 1d10 You're paying for an extra ability on the weapon which wouldn't give you any benefit. Edit: As far as the critical deal, I do see that the FAQ says differently, but I don't understand how they arrived at that conclusion. By my logic, if an ability activates upon a critical hit, a creature which cannot be critically hit would be immune to that ability. I digress though; my original point for posting was to give my reasoning for saying that I do not feel that flaming and flaming burst stack. In my opinion, a flaming flaming burst weapon would deal no more damage than a weapon which was simply just a flaming burst weapon.
mvincent 01-23-07, 03:27 PM	I suppose the part which is confusing me is that I was always under the impression that the core rule books took precedence over other books and sources when it came to differing presentations of rules.The FAQ is excellent for resolving issues that are subject to interpretation. That is a big part of its purpose. If you firmly believe that (sans FAQ) the matter is not subject to interpretation at all, then you could make a case (but then I likely could not credit you with objectively viewing the issue). I would appreciate a link to the area of the FAQ in which this is discussed.The FAQ can be obtained here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a). It is in pdf format (so links to exact sections are not possible), but this answer is on page 38 of today's version (you can also use ctrl-F to find passages).
mvincent 01-23-07, 03:35 PM	A creature immune to criticals (IMO) would also be immune to burst weapons because it is not possible to critical those creatures; the only way you get the extra 1d10 is upon a critical hitAs noted above, "officially" you are incorrect.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 03:44 PM	Unfortunately, the 3.5 FAQ does not seem to be working for me. I tried to see if possibly the 3.0 FAQ would have what I was looking for, but it doesn't. I intend to try again later with the 3.5 FAQ. As far as interpretation, I actually am trying to look at this objectively. Honestly, until today -when I sat down and read through some of the DM Guide more- I would have supported what you are saying, but now I feel the way I have been posting about the subject. Again, the main two issues I see are that -IIRC- two magical effects cannot both be activated by the same command. Also, the way I comprehend what the DM's guide is saying leads me to believe that giving your weapon "another command" would cause the first commanded effect to cease functioning. I suppose after I read the 3.5 FAQ I will have a more educated opinion; I'll have to wait until the link works for me though.
pukunui 01-23-07, 03:45 PM	Flaming Weapon deals 1d6 extra flaming damage on a successful hit Flaming Burst deals functions as a Flaming Weapon, but also deals 1d10 flaming damage on a critical hit On a normal hit (non-critical) the flaming burst weapon would only deal the 1d6 damageI agree with all of the above. A creature immune to criticals (IMO) would also be immune to burst weapons because it is not possible to critical those creatures; the only way you get the extra 1d10 is upon a critical hitThe burst ability is meant to be an exception to the "immune to criticals" rule. You don't get to do critical damage when you successfully roll a critical, but you still get to do the 1d10 burst damage. As for the flaming flaming burst weapon, I don't see the point...I don't either, but for a different reason. I would rule it as redundant.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 03:48 PM	As noted above, "officially" you are incorrect. Right, and I said in my other post that the FAQ states something different than what my opinion on the subject would be. I don't understand how they came to that decision though. Logically, to me at least, if something can not be critically hit, how could an ability which requires a critical hit to function effect that creature? I do realize that my opinion here is contrary to what the FAQ indicates, but the "official" answer doesn't seem to make sense according to WOTC's own rules.
elondir 01-23-07, 03:53 PM	My interpretation of the rules is thus: flaming is upgradable to flaming burst, and that upgrades to fiery blast. They replace each other, and do not stack. You can, however, have a +5 flamiing icy burst weapon, for example.
mvincent 01-23-07, 04:02 PM	The burst ability is meant to be an exception to the "immune to criticals" rule. Vorpal too. The point is that just because someone is immune to something, it doesn't mean that the something never occured: i.e. a red dragon that is hit by fire is still technically being hit by fire. If such a dragon (foolishly) had a protection from fire spell on him, the spell would still ablate as normal, even though the dragon is immune to fire.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 04:08 PM	Vorpal too. The point is that just because someone is immune to something, it doesn't mean that the something never occured: i.e. a red dragon that is hit by fire is still technically being hit by fire. If such a dragon (foolishly) had a protection from fire spell on him, the spell would still ablate as normal, even though the dragon is immune to fire. Ok, I can buy that. I'm still not totally swayed on the flaming flaming burst weapon issue though. I'm still waiting on the FAQ link to work.
pukunui 01-23-07, 04:23 PM	Ok, I can buy that.By way of another example: most living creatures have "vulnerable spots". Making a critical hit is mean to be like slicing open someone's jugular vein or hitting them in the groin or something. Undead don't have "vulnerable spots". If you kick them in the groin, it won't really matter. If you slice open their jugular vein, their lifeblood won't come spurting out. That doesn't mean you still haven't successfully "critically hit" them. It just means that the critical hit has no effect. But any extra abilities riding on the critical hit will still take effect. Your generic undead creature isn't immune to fire damage, and regardless of whether your critical has resulted in any extra damage, the fiery burst will still activate and do damage if it can. I'm still waiting on the FAQ link to work.It's not working for you? It worked for me ... You can always just scroll up so you can see the left-hand sidebar with all the WotC d&d tabs, click on the "Game Rules" tab, then click on the "Game Rules FAQ" box, and it will take you to the page with all the Game FAQs. The main 3.5 FAQ is first on the list and the current edition is dated 12/20/06.
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 04:28 PM	By way of another example: most living creatures have "vulnerable spots". Making a critical hit is mean to be like slicing open someone's jugular vein or hitting them in the groin or something. Undead don't have "vulnerable spots". If you kick them in the groin, it won't really matter. If you slice open their jugular vein, their lifeblood won't come spurting out. That doesn't mean you still haven't successfully "critically hit" them. It just means that the critical hit has no effect. But any extra abilities riding on the critical hit will still take effect. Your generic undead creature isn't immune to fire damage, and regardless of whether your critical has resulted in any extra damage, the fiery burst will still activate and do damage if it can. It's not working for you? It worked for me ... You can always just scroll up so you can see the left-hand sidebar with all the WotC d&d tabs, click on the "Game Rules" tab, then click on the "Game Rules FAQ" box, and it will take you to the page with all the Game FAQs. The main 3.5 FAQ is first on the list and the current edition is dated 12/20/06. This is what I get when I click on the 3.5 FAQ: The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please try the following: Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly. If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted. Click the Back button to try another link. HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Technical Information (for support personnel) Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404. Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages. I tried using the tab on the left and then clicking the FAQ from there, but still no luck.
mvincent 01-23-07, 04:34 PM	I'm still waiting on the FAQ link to work.Does this link (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv12202006a.zip) possibly work for you? What if you right-clicked on it and selected "save as"? Do you already have Adobe Acrobat installed? If you just want the text, it's easy enough to give you the entire answer: "The new descriptions for the flaming, frost, and shock weapon special abilities say that these weapons’ energy effects work only on command. Why was this changed in the revision? Does that mean that their wielders must use a standard action to activate them for each attack? Or do the energy effects last awhile? If so, how long do they last? What’s the chance that you burn (or freeze or shock) yourself when holding onto an activated weapon? Can you put away an activated weapon without damaging the scabbard where you store it? What happens if you have ammunition with these effects? Do you have to activate each piece of ammunition separately? What happens if you have a flaming, frost, and shock weapon? Logically, such a weapon couldn’t exist, but what if it did? Would you have to activate each property separately? Finally, how does all this affect flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst weapons? Do these weapons’ flame, frost, and shock properties have to be activated for the burst powers to work? 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. Any attack you make with an activated weapon deals energy damage to your foe if you hit—you don’t have to do anything special to deal energy damage with it. A burst weapon’s burst power is use activated and it works even when the weapon’s energy power is not activated (see the last sentence in each power’s description). The energy from a flaming, frost, shock, flaming burst, icy burst, or shocking burst weapon never harms you while you’re wielding or carrying the activated weapon (see the power descriptions), and it will not harm your equipment. If you lose or set down an activated weapon, the energy it produces will harm other objects it touches, so it is best to deactivate it first. 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."
Johnny_Angel 01-23-07, 04:48 PM	Well then, I admit that I stand corrected. I can't help but feel that weapons with all three qualities "probably" are made in a way which allows all three to be activated is a bit of a wishy-washy answer, but I agree that accord to the FAQ, I am wrong. On a side note, I do have adobe acrobat installed, and the majority of the other links seem to work for me. The only other one I had problems with was the link to the miniatures game FAQ, but that one eventually worked. The only one I can't seem to get to work is the link to the 3.5 FAQ.
jaelis 01-23-07, 05:38 PM	On a side note, I do have adobe acrobat installed, and the majority of the other links seem to work for me. The only other one I had problems with was the link to the miniatures game FAQ, but that one eventually worked. The only one I can't seem to get to work is the link to the 3.5 FAQ. You might make a note of the problem here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=763400).
runestar 01-23-07, 09:25 PM	Or you could just make all the activation phrases part of a long, nonsensical phrase... Like aaa activates flaming braaa activates frost caaa activates shocking daaa activates acidic braa activates thundering So when you say abracadabra...:P
Wharin 01-24-07, 10:57 AM	I am sure alot of what I am about to say has, on some level, been said before, but i am going to put my own little spin with it, and put it in my own words: As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with a flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flamingburst weapon. Absolutely nothing. And i'll tell you why. Some of my reasons involve actual RAW backings, some are more interpretive, and others involve game balance or a mix of all three. For this thread, I am going to just use the word flaming, and not flaming burst because, as others said before, flaming burst is really just "Flaming + critical hit bonus". First, I don't understand where all this crap about stacking is coming from. For there to be a 'stack', there needs to be a bonus (pay careful attention to syntax, or it'll bite you in the ass later). Flaming swords don't give a 'flaming' bonus to damage; it deals +1d6 flaming damage. Very very rarily is there ever any mention of a bonus to damage, but there are a few, and THOSE don't stack, obviously. Admittadely its a subtle difference, a bonus to damage, and extra damage (of a different type), but it is a difference. One doesn't stack, and the other "does" as extra damage is extra damage. Second, yes, the DMG doesn't allow for a flaming flaming flaming weapon,... as randomly generated treasure. Nowhere does it prohibit a weaponcrafter from throwing on the same enchantment multiple times (but to use the phrase of the day, more than half of those affects explicitly don't 'stack'). Not being one of the designers, I can't claim to know all of their reasons, but I suspect that little diddy about not having the same enhancement 2x for randomly generated treasure is for enhancements like Ghost-touch, Keen, Brilliant Energy, Vorpal and so on and so forth. How upset would you be if you found this supposedly epic weapon, only to find out its a +1 Brilliant Energy, Brilliant Energy, Keen, Keen, Keen shortsword. Third, just how different is a Flaming Flaming Flaming Flaming weapon from a Flaming, Frost, Acidic, Shocking sword (which has already been established by the FAQ/Sage as completely fine)? Well, it turns out that there are 2 differneces: one admittadely very good, and the other very bad. For fluidity's sake, i am going to give the bad one first as the good one bridges well into my 4th reason. The Bad being, well, against a creature with the fire subtype, or otherwise immune to fire (or VERY fire resistant), the sword is next to useless. The very good of course, being that against a creature with the Cold subtype, or otherwise vulnerable to fire, a Fire x4 weapon is admittadely [I]very very good. Fourth, are we really worried about the fighter who has to throw himself into the frey in order to deal 2d6 slashing + 5d6 fire damage (+50%vs vulnerable) to 1 opponent (or a few more more depending on his BAB, dice rolls, and possible use of cleave) instead of the wizard who, from a 200 hundred yards away can fry an entire heard of baddies for 15D6 fire damage (+50% vs. vulnerable) each? Are we really going to be that cheesy? If any of you who read this happen to play in one of my games who really have a problem with this let me know, so i can karate chop you in the nose. Fifth, though its really moot, as far as i am concerned, as its technically 3.0 (but i won't get into that- yes yes, i know if its not updated into 3.5 its technically still good, yeah yeah), but those Epic enchants still have a few purposes. The first (and weakest) being that its cheaper (6k gp cheeper, in fact) to get a Fire Blast enchantment on a cold iron weapon, then 3 separate Firey Bursts. The other, being in a more interpretive way, I think its also there to show that, yes, having +3d6 flaming damage (as long as you can afford it) is perfectly fine. After all, if Flaming burst is (as stated on this thread by many) just an upgrade of "Flaming", where does it say that "Flaming Blast" can't be an upgrade of Flaming Burst. (I also don't understand how 3 flaming bursts is cheaper than a flaming blast- both cost an effective +6 bonus) But ultimately, alot of this moot. As an adventurer, you'd be doing youself a disservice if you 'put all your eggs in one basket' and went with a single elemental damage enhancement. All too often do you come up against creatures with either a huge resistance vs an element, or just out right immunity (if your DM has anyting to say about it, as he most assuradely you will). With a mixed bag of enhancements, you are at least splitting the difference and playing the odds.
mvincent 01-24-07, 01:40 PM	A few corrections... not that disagree with you (as I feel both interpretations are perfectly valid) but merely to provide clarity: I don't understand where all this crap about stacking is coming from. For there to be a 'stack', there needs to be a bonus Despite the initial paragraph, the Stacking Effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#stackingEffects) section of the rules appears to cover more than just bonuses. It seems to apply to magical effects in general. It could certainly be interpreted as disallowing say, the flame arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameArrow.htm) spell from being (usefully) cast multiple times on the same group of arrows. I reckon if asked, the Sage would agree. (note: this in regard to an effect being placed on the weapon. As mentioned earlier, stacking in regard to damage on a target is of course allowed) its technically 3.0It's also part of the most current SRD (here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/weapons.htm#fieryBlast)) its cheaper (6k gp cheeper, in fact) to get a Fire Blast enchantment on a cold iron weapon, then 3 separate Firey Bursts.Actually, the added cost for enhancing a cold iron weapon need only be paid once, not once per enhancement. I also don't understand how 3 flaming bursts is cheaper than a flaming blast- both cost an effective +6 bonusFiery Blast weapons are typically made with an epic (21) caster level (which may not affect cost, but typically does make them a bit harder to acquire). They also do significantly less damage on a critical than flaming burst x3. Also, the existence of flaming burst itself is a decent indication that the designers didn't intend for flaming to stack. Flaming x2 is actually much better than flaming burst. I'm fairly certain the designers would've noticed that, so I'm curious why they did it that way. I have to conclude that they might've felt it was unbalancing (even if I don't), which also helps explain why they made fiery blast the way it is.
Wharin 01-24-07, 02:28 PM	A few corrections... not that disagree with you (as I feel both interpretations are perfectly valid) but merely to provide clarity: Despite the initial paragraph, the Stacking Effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#stackingEffects) section of the rules appears to cover more than just bonuses. It seems to apply to magical effects in general. It could certainly be interpreted as disallowing say, the flame arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameArrow.htm) spell from being (usefully) cast multiple times on the same group of arrows. I reckon if asked, the Sage would agree. (note: this in regard to an effect being placed on the weapon. As mentioned earlier, stacking in regard to damage on a target is of course allowed) Well, yes, the rules do specifically say that you can't "stack" two Flame arrow spells; that much i concede, but there is, as of yet, no mention that a crafter cannot put the same enhancement on a weapon more than once. Every point of that section in the link provided either used the syntax "bonus/penalty" or "spell". There is absolutely no mention of straight up, flat out extra damage. It's also part of the most current SRD (here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/weapons.htm#fieryBlast)) Actually, the added cost for enhancing a cold iron weapon need only be paid once, not once per enhancement. Ahh, yes. I was going on the assumption that the person would be putting the flaming burst on one at a the weapon one at a time. But yes, if all three are put on in the same go, the cost would be the same. I did say that it was a weak arguement point. Fiery Blast weapons are typically made with an epic (21) caster level (which may not affect cost, but typically does make them a bit harder to acquire). They also do significantly less damage on a critical than flaming burst x3. :doh: So it seems. Not being a fan of the burst/blast weapons, i did fail to notice that part Also, the existence of flaming burst itself is a decent indication that the designers didn't intend for flaming to stack. Flaming x2 is actually much better than flaming burst. I'm fairly certain the designers would've noticed that, so I'm curious why they did it that way. I have to conclude that they might've felt it was unbalancing (even if I don't), which also helps explain why they made fiery blast the way it is. I dunno. Back when Flaming burst was written, when Keen and Improved critical stacked, a flaming burst keen scimitar wouldn't be bad at all. Also I should point out that there is absolutely no mentioning/ruling what have you in the DMG that you cannot have a flaming, flaming burst weapon being awarded. Even the Random Treasure Generating tables let you roll that up. Ultimately, its up to the DM to decide, and maybe the silver tongue of the player to help. Honestly with all of the various +dx damage enhancements out there, the need for an elemental enhancer multiple times seems highly unneeded. I am just against the idea of people saying that it absolutely cannot be done, where there isnt any concrete evidense or even logical backing to follow it up with. Its not game breaking, so i fail to see what the big deal is
mvincent 01-24-07, 04:25 PM	Well, yes, the rules do specifically say that you can't "stack" two Flame arrow spells; that much i concede, but there is, as of yet, no mention that a crafter cannot put the same enhancement on a weapon more than once.Correct. if all three are put on in the same go, the cost would be the same. I believe the extra cold-iron cost need only be paid once even if enhancements were placed on it at separate times. Back when Flaming burst was written, when Keen and Improved critical stacked, a flaming burst keen scimitar wouldn't be bad at all.That is actually a good point. Still: in 3.0 a keen scimitar with improved crit would 'burst' on about 45% of hits, for an average of (5.5 x.45) +2.475 additional damage, which is worse than the 3.5 average damage from an additional flaming enhancement. Ultimately, its up to the DM to decide, and maybe the silver tongue of the player to help. Honestly with all of the various +dx damage enhancements out there, the need for an elemental enhancer multiple times seems highly unneeded. I am just against the idea of people saying that it absolutely cannot be doneAgree completely.
Wharin 01-24-07, 06:35 PM	I believe the extra cold-iron cost need only be paid once even if enhancements were placed on it at separate times. Nope, its each time you enchant it, which means that its only really cost effective if you enchant it all at once in one shabang. While the wording, I suppose, is a bit ambiguous, it was even asked in Sage Advice a few months back, and his answer was that its up to the vendor to make sure that he crafts his cold iron wares wisely, lest not make any money off of them, or worse, stand to lose money. That is actually a good point. Still: in 3.0 a keen scimitar with improved crit would 'burst' on about 45% of hits, for an average of (5.5 x.45) +2.475 additional damage, which is worse than the 3.5 average damage from an additional flaming enhancement. Yeah... i suppose thats about right. I was going to say that it depends on AC's and BAB's, but i suppose it does work out to be about that much regaurdless, doesnt it? Well... yet another weak arguement from me: Burst weapons automatically crit on Coup De Gras, so any time you get your opponent helpless, that just that much more damage.
mvincent 01-24-07, 07:29 PM	Nope, its each time you enchant itAh. Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to say that it depends on AC's and BAB's, but i suppose it does work out to be about that much regaurdless, doesnt it?Yeah... it took me a little bit to notice that also. Burst weapons automatically crit on Coup De GrasThat could actually be of some use vs. trolls
runestar 01-24-07, 10:16 PM	You are all aware that being an epic weapon enhancement, a firey blast weapon is automatically subject to the epic item creation rules(cost*10), right. Tell me why I would even bother with it if I could replicate it with 6 flaming or 3 flaming bursts or 2 flaming+2flaming bursts, which will not trigger epic item pricing?:confused: Am I missing something here?
mvincent 01-25-07, 12:08 PM	You are all aware that being an epic weapon enhancement, a firey blast weapon is automatically subject to the epic item creation rules(cost*10), right.I was wondering about that. I originally saw where rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/basics.htm#marketPrice) said: "If the item gives a bonus beyond the limit allowed in for normal, nonepic magic items, multiply the portion of the market price derived from that characteristic by 10. Some epic characteristics, such as caster level, don’t trigger this multiplier." (which wouldn't increase the cost for Fiery Blast) But now in a different section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/weapons.htm) I found that it also applies to "weapons with a single special ability whose market price modifier is +6 to +10" Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Tell me why I would even bother with it if I could replicate it with 6 flaming or 3 flaming bursts or 2 flaming+2flaming bursts, which will not trigger epic item pricing?:confused:As generally concluded above (and apparently agreed on now), you likely wouldn't even without the epic pricing. Regardless, the matter is still open to DM adjudication. It seems that it was the intent of some writers that stacking is not allowed, however other writers have allowed it.