|
I have a player who wants to turn on the frost ability of his weapon and leave it on all the time. My argument is that it's command word activated for a reason and that reason is that it would have detrimental effects on your equipment if the weapon was left in its "cold state" all the time. (Think of potions freezing or scabbard/belt/whatever freezing and doing damage such as that described by the chill metal spell.)
His argument is that there are no spell effects in which the caster is immune that the caster's gear isn't also immune. (Including things like saving throws being only for the caster, not each individual item.)
My response is that the frost effect can freeze your metal gear such that your gear does damage to you, not the frost effect itself. It's like being invisible and summoning a monster to attack for you: you don't turn visible because you didn't directly attack.
How do you folks think this should work? And how do you rule it in your game?
(This particular PC is creating a weapon of legacy per the WotC book and said item will have both frost and icy burst effects so hopefully your answer covers both of those effects at a minimum!)
I am thinking it would also cost more to make as it is an always on ablity
a frost is roughly 2k+ weapon and enhancement so 4k + some change
A frost band which is always on is 54k and change...now the +3 weapon is 18k of the 54 so ya know just something to think about
First, I see Frost as being exactly the same as Icy Burst with regard to turning it on/off and any rulings about how much it does or does not mess up the wielder or his gear to leave it on.
Likewise with the other elemental stuff.
Second, I tend to agree somewhat with both sides here:
1. These weapons do not harm the wielder. Setting his clothes on fire, freezing his armor so that it causes him frostbite, dissolving his equipment with acid, etc., all harm the wielder, even if the harm is indirect (like leaving him naked with no posessions other than his magic weapon). While there is no RAW defining "harm" in this case, I think it's clear that the people making these items don't want them burning down their homes, workshops, or personal gear, so I assume the creators of the items have, over the centuries and millennia that people have made such weapons, found the way for "harm" to include the belongings of the wielder.
2. On the other hand, a guy with a sword flaming away in its scabbard at his hip will find it impossible to sit in a wooden or cloth-covered chair, or to ride a horse, or to stand next to a friend, or to go anwhere near a seamstress shop or a tailor, or a stable, or a granary, or a brewery, or anywhere else flammable stuff is stored or sold. Lightning and acid are little better. Cold is a lot safer, but it will still kill your horse or make your chair brittle enough to break or make your friends standing near you very upset that you're freezing them.
Consequently, while it is also not stated in RAW, it's almost impossible to imagine someone going through life with his elementally powered weapon activated all the time. That's why it comes with an off-switch.
3. Also not RAW (or, maybe it is RAW and I just don't know where to look for it), but I don't think items can function unattended. Rings of invisibility don't suddenly become invisible while they're sitting in your sock drawer, and they don't make your socks, or the drawer, invisible either. Your Staff of Fire sitting over there in the corner of your bedroom won't all of a sudden decide to incinerate your home. Etc.
So, I assume that when you put down, put away, drop, or otherwise store an item, any activated powers automatically cease. This would include sticking your sword in the scabbard - that would automatically turn off the activated ability. When you draw that sword, it remains off until you activate it.
Most of that is just my take on how magic items would work in a world where people who own them have to be able to live, work, play, and associate with others.
However, it's probably not an issue to activate the weapon at the dungeon entrance and leave it going throughout the whole dungeon, as long as you don't stand too close to your friends. No, there is no RAW about harming your friends by proximity to such weapons, but really, think about it for a minute. It would be kinda like standing next to someone while you're holding a swamp cooler pointed at them - even if it doesn't directly damage them, they definitely won't like it at all.
|
|
First, I see Frost as being exactly the same as Icy Burst with regard to turning it on/off and any rulings about how much it does or does not mess up the wielder or his gear to leave it on.
Hmm, I don't. I see the functions that activate only on a confirmed crit as being use-activated and not command word-activated. Big difference.
1. These weapons do not harm the wielder. [...] I think it's clear that the people making these items don't want them burning down their homes, workshops, or personal gear [...]
Um, wouldn't the creator simply tell the brainless fighter, "Don't forget to turn it off by saying 'grizzle-gump-fer-dash' when you're done!"
It's interesting that you reject the "indirect" concept here, yet apparently abide by it in the case of invisibility. Why is that?
2. [...] Cold is a lot safer, but it will still kill your horse or make your chair brittle enough to break or make your friends standing near you very upset that you're freezing them.
All that without any statement in the RAW that they don't affect the wielder's gear?
3. Also not RAW (or, maybe it is RAW and I just don't know where to look for it), but I don't think items can function unattended. [...]
IMO your examples are meaningless. A ring of invisibility is activated and targets the wearer with the magic, so a ring that is removed becomes visible per the invisibility spell description. Ditto the staff of fire that cannot be activated except by a spellcaster.
But here we have a weapon that by RAW can be activated and NEVER turned off. Would you leave it leaning up against the wall in a corner of your bedroom? I think not!
You can assume it turns itself off after 3 rounds of inactivity (or some other arbitrary boundary), but that means a player that wants his PC to have it always on will simply state, "I go around activating the weapon every 3 rounds." Of course, if activating the weapon creates noise (speaking the command word at a minimum, but maybe a little *woosh* sound as it powers up, not unlike a light saber but lower pitched?!) then the PC won't want to be turning it on all of the time because of the noise.
In addition, I've seen on ENworld comments that multiple effects can be keyed to the same command word. Some GMs argue for it, others against. Again, no answer via RAW. I'd be okay with that; the player using such an item with multiple abilities might be out of luck if they encounter a creature healed by one of the abilities. >D
Let's assume you go with the idea that once turned on, it just stays on and doesn't hurt the wielder/carrier nor any of their gear. Would a frost weapon have the potential to freeze potions? Is that considered "harm"? Could your water ration freeze?
If an energy weapon is "on" and then the weapon is dropped (or disarmed), there is now no wielder for the weapon. Does anyone who picks it up take energy damage from it? Why or why not?
Last, what would you do to the price of an ability that requires a command word (such as frost) to make it use-activated instead? This would seem to solve the whole problem, although you don't get any of the cool fluff to describe the scene now... :)
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.
1. These weapons do not harm the wielder. [...] While there is no RAW defining "harm" [...]
...there is a definition for "wield," and therefore "wielder." Let go of the hilt and you're no longer protected.
Rather than being a total bastard about that, I instead go with roughly this:
I don't think items can function unattended.
Without a hand on the hilt, it goes out.
Pretty sure that the critical effect of Elemental Burst weapons is use-activated, by the way. Always happens, can't prevent it.
|
|
[...] once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically [...]
Cool, thanks!
And what about weapons that don't use a sheath? The weapon in question is a bow. Does it have to be unstrung to be "sheathed" (this would be the way the bow is normally carried anyway)?
What if a flaming effect is left burning and the user slips the bow over their shoulder (let's not consider for the moment that it's a bad way to carry it!)...?
|
To deal with the question that came up in a game where a person with a Flaming sword asked if he could use it as a torch, I just house-ruled that energy weapons may feel warm, cold or tingly to the touch, but don't actually generate a blast of damaging energy until they hit something.
No freezing ponds with your Frost spear, becoming immune to Web spells by holding a Flaming sword, or worrying about getting electrocuted for using your Shock morningstar in the rain.
That would lead to strange effects with thrown weapons..I don't think a +1 frost dagger would go out the moment you throw it.
...Without a hand on the hilt, it goes out...
Fade time. End of round. ;)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have a player who wants to turn on the frost ability of his weapon and leave it on all the time.
How do you folks think this should work? And how do you rule it in your game?
There is no RAW that says the Frost (or any other to my knowledge) enhancement doesn't effect the wielder and/or only gets cold when it hits an opponent.
So by RAW, you must assume it is Frosty cold to the touch all the time it is activated. If so, it will freeze your scabbard, ice burn your leg, make the strap brittle, etc.
So your player needs to suffer these ill effects if he leaves it always active.
Second, you are the DM. Rule Zero is in effect, you could take the stance "well regardless of how it really works, at my table it works this way" and the player will either respect that or not. If he doesn't respect that, he will find another GM and your problem is fixed.
[...] once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically [...]
All I said above was my impression of the intent and/or the RAW. Since the intent (way the RAW is to be read) is that it goes out temporarily when Sheathed, the problem is solved in an elegant way that may please both camps.
EDIT: Slightly off-topic, but isn't it silly with censorship when it turns a perfectly valid word, 4 letters, used to describe the action involved in readying an arrow for shooting into a swear word?
Are you questioning the wisdom of the censor software's author? I'll have you know he graduated magna cum laude!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no RAW that says the Frost (or any other to my knowledge) enhancement doesn't effect the wielder and/or only gets cold when it hits an opponent.
So by RAW, you must assume it is Frosty cold to the touch all the time it is activated. If so, it will freeze your scabbard, ice burn your leg, make the strap brittle, etc.
So your player needs to suffer these ill effects if he leaves it always active.
Sorry, disagree. There's nothing that says these weapons do anything except on a hit. You can't shove a flaming greatsword into a troll, stand back, and watch it die. You can't stick a flaming dagger into a turket and watch it cook. These weapons do their extra damage when they strike a target. Further, if a flaming weapon is sheathed, can not the sheath be considered the wielder - who by RAW is not harmed by the weapon?
RAW, intent, and James Jacobs seem in conjunction to me.
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.
I have to agree, this sounds like the easiest solution. You could even say that when you get your weapon enchanted, the sheath goes along with it so that it can be "altered" to not be effected by the weapon's new ability (and to surpress it while sheathed).
I never liked the idea of command word activation in this case anyways. Now the "fighter" has to waste a valuable turn to activate his elemental property (and multiples)?
"Duh... Now where did I put that sheath for my flaming Warhammer?"
"Duh... Now where did I put that sheath for my flaming Warhammer?"
If anything, that would give the DM a way to mess with (or lead to where he wants them to go) PCs!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If it's that big of a deal, put some low level intelligence on the weapon so it can turn itself on/off. :-)
I think I'm of the school of thought that the 'default' enchantment has an 'auto off' function, so that it's off when it's not in hand. Sheathe the sword, it goes out when your hand leaves the hilt. Get disarmed, it goes out. To use someone else's example, think of when we see lightsabers get knocked from people's hands. They go out. Now in the expanded universe we've seen Lightsabers that can be 'locked' on, require a combination to activate, even needed to use the force to move the on button, but the default is 'it leaves your hand, it goes out'
Also, when it's on your hip, do you still count as the wielder?
|
|
Also, when it's on your hip, do you still count as the wielder?
Okay, so let's say we play it this way.
The PC wants to use his hands for other things (lock picks, wand, whatever) and needs to put down the bow, so it "turns off". When they pick it back up, they don't have to turn it on, right? Does it make a *woosh* sound as it powers back up? (Flavor text, I know, but because none of this is RAW we might as well discuss flavor text too. :))
A bow works differently from swords in that a sword can be "put away" and be instantly usable by drawing it. But a bow that is "put away" has the string removed and the bow is stored in a case or in a specially made sheath. So a bow is not instantly usable. For playing purposes, the rules ignore this. But does the string have to be removed for the bow to be "put away" and thus turn off the energy ability?
I'm back to thinking that use-activated is the way to go. Would you charge a price difference for a use-activated effect vs. a command word-activate effect?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Azrhei,
In my Pathfinder if Robbie rogue puts his +1 short sword of ice and fire down, it turns off. When he picks it up, it is still a +1 short sword until he says the command words of "George" and "Martin". Then the frost and flame enchantments are back on.
Now if Robbie Rogue goes to Wally Wizard and says "I want you to build me a sword of ice and fire that doesn't go out when I let go of it," then his sword can stay 'on' if dropped. But... it will damage anything that isn't the wielder if left on. So if Robbie is disarmed and goes to pick up his 'stay on sword' he will take 1d6 of fire and 1d6 of frost when he picks it up, and it will be fine after that.
Again, this is Matthew's Pathfinder and your reality may vary. ;-)
The other reason to turn off the energy property (especially for flaming weapons) is that they tend to be pretty visible, even at a distance. When you're trying to sneak through the monster's lair without attracting too much attention, carrying around a sword that's on fire isn't terribly smart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Slightly off-topic, but isn't it silly with censorship when it turns a perfectly valid word, 4 letters, used to describe the action involved in readying an arrow for shooting into a swear word?
It's 5 letters "Notch" not Noch...
No need to 'correct' me, I know what you tried to say.
I'm back to thinking that use-activated is the way to go. Would you charge a price difference for a use-activated effect vs. a command word-activate effect?
No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I'm happy enough thinking that the sword is on fire whenever the player wants it to be on fire. If he doesn't want it to be on fire, he can turn it off. Whether command words are involved or not, I don't care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off-topic, but a very funny example of how I (as DM) addressed this issue.
This item in question was a decanter of endless water, which after much deliberation, I agreed to let the party affix to the end of their makeshift raft for propulsion (geyser mode). (It was just so ingenious an idea that I let it work...) Anyway, they were attacked while rafting from below by a behemoth crocodile, which destroyed the raft and sent the decanter into the water.
Now, because I ruled that it's on until the owner possesses it and utters the command word to turn if off, the decanter jetted erratically all throughout that lake and eventually out of sight.
Months later, they went back to look for it and after a bit of magical scuba-diving, found that it had lodged itself deep into a crevace, and was still endlessly jetting a fissure of water into the lake (which had risen several inches in level by then). The owner had a real challenge reaching his prize item, since he had to swim against the current of a geyser.
I don't believe they've used it that way since. :)
No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I'm happy enough thinking that the sword is on fire whenever the player wants it to be on fire. If he doesn't want it to be on fire, he can turn it off. Whether command words are involved or not, I don't care.
You should care, only in the fact that "activating a command word magic item is a standard action".
No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I'm happy enough thinking that the sword is on fire whenever the player wants it to be on fire. If he doesn't want it to be on fire, he can turn it off. Whether command words are involved or not, I don't care.I'm back to thinking that use-activated is the way to go. Would you charge a price difference for a use-activated effect vs. a command word-activate effect?
Exactly. It can be assumed that the character does whatever it takes to put the weapon away safely and draw it so it will be used effectively. There is really no benefit to bogging down the game by making a weapon difficult to deal with and making the player have to specify every little detail of what he does.
|
Slightly off-topic, but a very funny example of how I (as DM) addressed this issue.
This item in question was a decanter of endless water, which after much deliberation, I agreed to let the party affix to the end of their makeshift raft for propulsion (geyser mode). (It was just so ingenious an idea that I let it work...) Anyway, they were attacked while rafting from below by a behemoth crocodile, which destroyed the raft and sent the decanter into the water.
Now, because I ruled that it's on until the owner possesses it and utters the command word to turn if off, the decanter jetted erratically all throughout that lake and eventually out of sight.
Months later, they went back to look for it and after a bit of magical scuba-diving, found that it had lodged itself deep into a crevace, and was still endlessly jetting a fissure of water into the lake (which had risen several inches in level by then). The owner had a real challenge reaching his prize item, since he had to swim against the current of a geyser.
I don't believe they've used it that way since. :)
+1
No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I'm happy enough thinking that the sword is on fire whenever the player wants it to be on fire. If he doesn't want it to be on fire, he can turn it off. Whether command words are involved or not, I don't care.You should care, only in the fact that "activating a command word magic item is a standard action".
As the DM, I really don't care if they use a standard action to deactivate it, or a full-round action, or no action at all. And if it's not important to the DM, then it's not important.
As the DM, I really don't care if they use a standard action to deactivate it, or a full-round action, or no action at all. And if it's not important to the DM, then it's not important.
It's not the deactivating that's the issue, it's hwo closely you follow the rules with ACTIVATING it. If the group gets jumped, fighter pulls his sword as part of his movement action and gets 1 attack in with a flaming sword. OR Group gets jumped, fighter pulls his sword as part of his movement action, and then uses his standard to say "FLAME ON!" and attacks next turn.
EDIT: Slightly off-topic, but isn't it silly with censorship when it turns a perfectly valid word, 4 letters, used to describe the action involved in readying an arrow for shooting into a swear word?It's 5 letters "Notch" not Noch...
Actually, it's "nock."
I am thinking it would also cost more to make as it is an always on ablity
a frost is roughly 2k+ weapon and enhancement so 4k + some change
A frost band which is always on is 54k and change...now the +3 weapon is 18k of the 54 so ya know just something to think about
Do you know how the math works?
It's a +3 frost weapon, not a +3 weapon that is cold.
Frost is a +1 equivalent, so it's a +4 weapon with benefits. +4 is 32350gp. So the extra stuff is worth 22125gp, and the cold damage is not part of that.
The OP is refering to a bow.
From PF Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
However I am sure that I have read that the fire/frost/whatever doesn't effect the bow itself but the arrow fired. So I would have the bow create fire arrows when and arrow is notched and the command word spoken but normal arrows with flame off. The bow itself doesn't flame.
I know that it says that the weapon is sheathed in fire but the impression I get is that the wording is about melee weapons.
Actually, it's "nock."EDIT: Slightly off-topic, but isn't it silly with censorship when it turns a perfectly valid word, 4 letters, used to describe the action involved in readying an arrow for shooting into a swear word?It's 5 letters "Notch" not Noch...
hahaha
I stand corrected.
hahahaI stand corrected.
For the record, I've also seen "notch" used, but "nock" is the more correct term.
As the DM, I really don't care if they use a standard action to deactivate it, or a full-round action, or no action at all. And if it's not important to the DM, then it's not important.It's not the deactivating that's the issue, it's hwo closely you follow the rules with ACTIVATING it. If the group gets jumped, fighter pulls his sword as part of his movement action and gets 1 attack in with a flaming sword. OR Group gets jumped, fighter pulls his sword as part of his movement action, and then uses his standard to say "FLAME ON!" and attacks next turn.
So he keeps his sword out all the time. Or he buys a fire proof sheath. This one of those thing that only gets in the way of game play and adds nothing.
For the record, I've also seen "notch" used, but "nock" is the more correct term.
hahahaI stand corrected.
I think other folks who use notch are just like me, picking a more common word to replace a similar less common one.
So he keeps his sword out all the time. Or he buys a fire proof sheath. This one of those thing that only gets in the way of game play and adds nothing.
Or you leave it up to the player whether his fiery sword gets fiery instantly, or whether he has to charge it up by saying "KAMEHAMEHA!!" for ten minutes. It's just window dressing, as far as I'm concerned.
So he keeps his sword out all the time. Or he buys a fire proof sheath. This one of those thing that only gets in the way of game play and adds nothing.Or you leave it up to the player whether his fiery sword gets fiery instantly, or whether he has to charge it up by saying "KAMEHAMEHA!!" for ten minutes. It's just window dressing, as far as I'm concerned.
Is that pronounced "Kaam Ehhaamha" or "Kame Hame ha"?
Yeah... I'll probably step out to buy a beer while he roleplays that little bit.
|
|
If you rule it as always on or that it takes a free action, swift action, move-equivalent action, standard action, full-round action or an extended multi-round action it is going to have direct game effects as to what that character can and cant do and what others can and cant do to them...AoO and such.
Yep, exactly.
I'm disappointed that the rules say they are command word activated effects, but then don't cover issues like this. Sort of like how they started down this path, decided they didn't like where it was going and retraced their steps but left their footprints in-place. ;)
I think I'm going to make it a free action to activate/deactivate.
It can't be used for an AOO unless it's already on (free actions happen on your turn), but for all other situations it's simple enough to turn it off when it's not going to be used. If you are disarmed of an energy weapon that is on, you'll take damage if/when you pick it up (since you're not wielding it at that time) and unless being disarmed happens on your turn, you won't be able to turn it off.
I realize that this violates the "command word activation" that is RAW, but does this seem like a good compromise to everyone?
Btw, I see the bow as being sheathed in flames that are "sucked into" the arrow as its pulled back and released. For this particular case, the energy effects are cold and electricity, but the concept is the same. And the arrow's energy is dispersed whether it hits the target or not (so no using it to throw a light source 100 feet away; use a light spell for that!).
I think other folks who use notch are just like me, picking a more common word to replace a similar less common one.
My guess is the etymology is that notching an arrow could refer to the process of actually crafting it, given that one notches the back end for the string to settle into. Also, it could be people verbing a noun, for the same reason. To notch an arrow in the sense of "loading" it into a firing position with a bow doesn't apply any of the dictionary meanings of the word "notch". Not to discourage you - go ahead and use whatever term you like. I'm just derailing the thread to explore this topic, which unlike flaming weapons' activation details, hasn't been beaten to death.
As to the arrows, I've always used 'Nock', as in, Nock an arrow. That's what I always heard growing up in the South, probably a southern derivation of Notch and C*ck mixed together. As a note, that four letter C word also refers to a male chicken, which you also can't put in for the same reason on the blog.
As to abilities on weapons :
1) Flaming/Shocking/Sonic/Frosting/Acidic/Dessicating/Etc, I've always ruled that while you are immune to it's effects, the environment around you isn't. Activate your flaming sword and drop it in a pool of water, the water will eventually boil and evaporate, frosting and it will freeze, shocking and it electrifies it, etc. Note that you can be burned by the water, or frozen by it, or shocked by it, because you are no longer the wielder once you drop it. I've had the players find +1 burning daggers used as torches in dungeons before. :) Putting it in the sheath turns it off, of course, until you draw it.
2) Burst weapons specifically state they act like Flaming/Shocking, etc, but do extra damage on a critical hit. So, to me, those are word activated items with an extra effect that only happens with the flaming/shocking/etc active. If you got the flaming off, the burst doesn't work. And you don't need a word to activate the burst, it happens automatically if it's on.
3) Weapons without sheaths I always treated as needing to be deactivated before you stow them. If not, while you are immune to the effects, the world around you is not. And certainly not the barmaid who's posterior brushes your Warhammer of Thunder. She's going to get a shock, then bring a metal mug down on your head and call in the bouncers.
4) Bows, I've always treated bows as having a physical manifestation of their energy right where the arrow goes. So, right above where your hand is the bow manifests a ball of energy. The arrow passes through the ball of energy as you nock it, and then when it flies away it takes some of that energy with it. This can look funky if you have a Flaming Frosting Composite Longbow.
I think other folks who use notch are just like me, picking a more common word to replace a similar less common one.My guess is the etymology is that notching an arrow could refer to the process of actually crafting it, given that one notches the back end for the string to settle into. Also, it could be people verbing a noun, for the same reason. To notch an arrow in the sense of "loading" it into a firing position with a bow doesn't apply any of the dictionary meanings of the word "notch". Not to discourage you - go ahead and use whatever term you like. I'm just derailing the thread to explore this topic, which unlike flaming weapons' activation details, hasn't been beaten to death.
Well either way you wouldn't use the synonym for rooster which gets censored to describe the action. That word might describe what you do with a crossbow or a gun ;)