Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Raestlin wrote:
Name Violation wrote:

if you're looking at DPR then +1 to hit and damage is slightly better than +d6 damage

also a +1 flaming, frost, acid, weapon cant overcome the dr/admantine,cold iron, and silver a +4 sword could.

and by the time you can afford a weapon like that (according to WBL), just about everything has at least resist 5 or better to 2 or more of the elements

We are comparing apples to apples, not apples and oranges and bears that like to eat apples but not oranges. Definitely there are situations where the +2 would be better ex) a creature immune to cold and electricity that is weak against fire. But thats a contrived scenario made to tailor to one side of the argument. My post was referring to how the multiple active elemental abilities seems unlikely.

so are you ok with a +1 flaming furious holy bane weapon in the hands of a barbarian?

i like the idea of allowing the same elemental damage to be added multiple times.
a +1 flaming, flaming, flaming (3d6) sword

Liberty's Edge

Yes, you can have multiple elemental properties active at the same time. Some might take offense to flaming/cold at the same time, which is at the heart of the original question. It's been an ongoing question for years, going back into SRD/D&D. The game itself is fine with the concept; if a given group doesn't like it, that's cool. When dealing with the general issue, such as flaming/electrical, that particular offense is moot.

Swift actions can be used to activate some magic items, but the fact that the description of swift actions including magic item activation doesn't then equate to all magic items taking a swift action to activate, particularly given that many items, including the command activation category that is of question for magic weapon properties, specifically says otherwise.

I appreciate that there is language that says that a weapon property, once active, is active until another command is given. I think that the way to interpret that, within the context of the rules as a whole, is that it is active until turned off; it is turning it off that is the terminating command.

While some view PF as a brand new game, the history of its development and marketing says something else. "3.5 Thrives" is a major marketing campaign for PF. They aren't talking about 3.5" diskettes, after all. The game is the continuing life of the 3.5 SRD. The primary product presented for the SRD prior to PF, and the vast majority of the developmental effort that went into the support of that rules system, was D&D 3.5. For those who see PF as a brand new game and wish to revisit every rules discussion that happened prior to PF, the 3.5 FAQ may not be meaningful. For those, on the other hand, who view PF in the context of its historical development, the 3.5 FAQ answers this question quite well.

The pricing system covers the additional cost for the extra properties and placing a high value on them. A +1 flaming longsword costs 8315gp. A +1 flaming shocking longsword costs more than double that at 18315gp to get that extra die of damage.

In all, the thread seems split by very wide margin in support of multiple properties being usable at the same time. The arguments against it don't appear to hold much water. And, they are contradicted by the historical rulings provided by those who were the custodians of the same rules, which have no meaningful change.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah I guess its a waste of time to buy something called a Core Rulebook for Pathfinder, I mean its just 3.5 right?

Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Its based on 3.5 in much the same way as 3.0 is based on 2nd edition, which is to say that it could be called a continuance of the same spirit but is very much not the same game.


Raestlin wrote:
Yeah I guess its a waste of time to buy something called a Core Rulebook for Pathfinder, I mean its just 3.5 right?

*casts Banish on this argument* Some of us like our shiny new books and WotC won't print/distribute 3.5 any more (and I don't like piracy except when wearing a patch).

Fire and frost isn't so bad - I liked the argument that people don't care if you enchant say, Fire and Acid together. Since it's 'just a magical effect' I'd be inclined to say "It's a fantasy game where magic shoots from fingertips". It certainly isn't anything new in lore/gaming so it's not really a surprise that some people would interpret the rules to allow both. My own opinion? If the rules swing in your favour, SEIZE THEM WITH BOTH HANDS AND A FOOT!!! (Also get some teeth into them and growl insanely at anyone who tries to take them away. YMMV)

Yarp, the above has zero mechanical or rules-based thoughts, however a dude on this forum said people can have opinions so I do.


DanQnA wrote:
Raestlin wrote:
Yeah I guess its a waste of time to buy something called a Core Rulebook for Pathfinder, I mean its just 3.5 right?

*casts Banish on this argument* Some of us like our shiny new books and WotC won't print/distribute 3.5 any more (and I don't like piracy except when wearing a patch).

Fire and frost isn't so bad - I liked the argument that people don't care if you enchant say, Fire and Acid together. Since it's 'just a magical effect' I'd be inclined to say "It's a fantasy game where magic shoots from fingertips". It certainly isn't anything new in lore/gaming so it's not really a surprise that some people would interpret the rules to allow both. My own opinion? If the rules swing in your favour, SEIZE THEM WITH BOTH HANDS AND A FOOT!!! (Also get some teeth into them and growl insanely at anyone who tries to take them away. YMMV)

Yarp, the above has zero mechanical or rules-based thoughts, however a dude on this forum said people can have opinions so I do.

I think that long ago this went from a lets discuss the rules thread into a name calling/ you're insulting the way I run games/ I hate other people who do things differently than me thread, and it shouldn't be. Regardless of what the rules are you can play it however you or your group wants in your game, that's not the question here.

Now I know most people here think you can have multiple commands at the same time, but to me the wording makes it seem the other way around.

I'd much rather have a discussion arguing about what the rules actually state than about what people want them to state or how they play. I know that the base issues here are 3.5 vs pathfinder, the similar wording between the two, a 3.5 WotC FAQ, and what the original intent of those words and the system/s actually are. Personally without wasting some DEV's time I'd like to get a better ruling on this, but at least can we have ordered discussion rather than bickering?


Raestlin wrote:

Yeah I guess its a waste of time to buy something called a Core Rulebook for Pathfinder, I mean its just 3.5 right?

Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Its based on 3.5 in much the same way as 3.0 is based on 2nd edition, which is to say that it could be called a continuance of the same spirit but is very much not the same game.

Lol. Ok bud. Let's disregard the history, that's fine.. I've never played 3.5 anyway. The fact remains that there is not a single piece of explicit text that says only one of these commands can be active at a time or that they cancel each other out.

Can you have a dancing weapon that is also flaming? Yes.
Can you have a defending weapon that is also flaming? Yes.
Can you have a frost weapon that is also flaming? Again yes.

All magic weapon enchants work exactly the same way barring any specific ruling or footnotes that say othewise.

*puts a fork in this thread*

It's done.

The Exchange

Mystaran Halflings had a substance called Blackflame...intensely cold black fire. You could have a Sword of Black Flame. it was discovered burning inside Amethyst in a deep cavern.

Dark Archive

OK by RAW taking notice of the following:

"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."

That means that yes you may enchant the weapon with multiple elemental properties but only one will be active upon command.
Once another command is given (regarding the weapon I suppose) the previous effect disappears.

Now if you really want to benefit from really intense elemental damage then take a Keen Scimitar or any other weapon with increased critical modifier and stack it with Burst enchantments.

"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 ×3, add an extra 2d10 points of fire damage instead, and if
the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d10 points of fire damage.
Even if the flaming ability is not active, the weapon still
deals its extra fire damage on a successful critical hit."

Imagine a +1 Keen,Flaming Burst,Icy Burst,Shock Burst,Acid Burst Scimitar (Total +10 enchantment), it would deal on crit +4d10 damage from different elements.

IMO I'll pass.


Sonchezz wrote:
I'd much rather have a discussion arguing about what the rules actually state than about what people want them to state or how they play.

Ah, well alright - you'd rather I contribute based on the rules, so here we go.

Starting on page 467 of the Core Rulebook in the Weapons section. The first relevant bit is here on page 468:

"A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities."

OK, so that covers our activation of abilities, they have to be identical. Moving along to page 469 we get a list of the effects (covered in a second) where we see the 4th point on the chart:

"Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability, an ability incompatible with an ability that you've already rolled...etc etc"

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the effects we want to add to the melee weapon are:

Flaming:
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.
Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.

Frost:
Frost: Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold that deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
Moderate evocation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm; Price +1 bonus.

So I moved on and had a look at page 551 where it goes into detail about creating weapons and nothing in there limits what you can put on a weapon, just stating that you have to meet the prerequisites. I'd already read this thread but so as not to re-raise anything by mistake I read through it again - where is the rule that says Frost and Fire are mutually exclusive? The example weapon is confusing, see page 473 in the text for the Frost Brand:

"A frost brand extinguishes all nonmagical fires in a 20-foot radius. As a standard action, can also dispel lasting fire spells,but not instantaneous effects." (Emphasis mine)

Now, what I get from reading this is that as a standard action it would dispel the fire effect. You could say that even if the command word activated both abilities at the same time this fluff is saying the fire wouldn't take effect while the frost was active because you took a standard action to activate it which put the fire out while the fire was starting. I can already hear people saying "IT SAYS 'CAN' YOU DOLT!!!" - my reply is along the lines of 'Aye, it does.'

Anyway, I then bounced over to page 458 where it talks about command words - nothing in there about activating multiple abilities at the same time.

Just to throw the spanner in the works though, despite the above statement I can't really get past my first quote - "...assuming each piece has identical abilities." I can't see how "Fire" and "Frost" are identical, now that might be a failing in my eyesight but where I see people in this thread advocating "Switch 'em both on with one command word" I have to point to that phrase and grimace. Which then leaves us with the conundrum - why enchant it with fire and frost when only one can be activated with a standard action and enabling the other will turn the previous one off?

*Exit brains*

I hope you guys appreciated that because I'd forgotten the command word to activate my brain and had to take 20 on my SEARCH skill to find it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
DanQnA wrote:


"A frost brand extinguishes all nonmagical fires in a 20-foot radius. As a standard action, can also dispel lasting fire spells,but not instantaneous effects." (Emphasis mine)

I would like to point out that a Frostbrand is a specific weapon with special abilities above and beyond what a weapon with the Frost tag has.

I would also like to note that if your PC's are creating the weapon no where do the rules state that you *cannot* make the activation word the same for both abilities.
I think too many people are stuck on Flaming and Frost. Are there any other +1 equivalent weapon enchantments which cancel each other out? Are there any other weapon enchantments that cancel each other out anywhere? (I admit there could be I don't own all the books but there certainly aren't in the Core rulebook) Are those abilities so incredibly powerful that they *need* to be made exclusive of each other? If I can stack Lawful, Bane, Wounding, and Vorpal without a problem why in the world would there be an issue with me stacking two elemental effects?
I do agree that the wording on the Frost, Shocking and Flaming special abilities is open to some interpretation but I think logic shows no reason to make the special abilities exclusive.


gailedon wrote:


I would like to point out that a Frostbrand is a specific weapon with special abilities above and beyond what a weapon with the Frost tag has.

+1. A frostbrand is a unique weapon and is in no way representative of a Frost [weapon].


Good points, and thanks for the input.

I can get a reference if challenged but I remember also reading that if a weapon crits then all of the abilities apply so you would do cold and heat damage in a single swing.

I guess the TL;DR version of my post and my intention could be summed up as:

From a reading of the rules I can understand that it's nowhere restricted that you could NOT put both damage types into the same weapon.

From that same reading there is nowhere I can justify activating both properties at the same time although as gailedon points out there is also nothing stopping you (thanks gailedon!) so I would give it the thumbs up BASED ON mdt's posts about 3.5 (thanks mdt!).

(For the record I don't care how other people view 3.5, that is a subjective opinion which people are very welcome to differ on, but for my part where Pathfinder is silent and 3.5 can provide assistance I am not going to ignore it)

Galeidon, the examples in the book:

Impossible to create both abilities in the same weapon:

Anarchic (Creator has to be chaotic) and Axiomatic (Creator has to be lawful) so no way they can appear in the same weapon.

Disruption (weapon must do bludgeoning damage) and Keen (weapon must be piercing or slashing) OR vorpal (weapon must be slashing) (Yes, keen vorpal swords look OK)

Holy (creator must be good) and Unholy (creator must be evil)

Argued it is possible to put in the same weapon

Flaming, Frost and Shock

...

Also, I was thinking when I reread my first quote - I think it may be making a special case for activating ammunition, not a generic case (pure speculation within the bounds of context, so shoot me!)

Shadow Lodge

Hits everyone reading the thread with his acidic, frost, flaming, thundering, shock, brilliant energy adamantine greatsword +1.


Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

pg. 459 Main Book
"A command word can be a real word, but when this is
the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating
the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal
conversation. More often, the command word is some
seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an
ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a
command word magic item is a standard action and does not
provoke attacks of opportunity."

There's nothing stopping a crafter from making a +1 Flaming Shocking sword that activates its lightning effect whenever someone says the word "fork" and that activates its fire effect whenever someone says the word "fork." If a crafter tunes a weapon so that each of its abilities activates off of the same command word, then whenever the wielder says that command word those abilities activate, regardless of the will or intention of the wielder. If all of the weapon's abilities activate off of a single command word then you never have to say any other commands and the weapon stays active. The "until another command is spoken" line from the elemental damage effects is never triggered.

My only problem is that this line of text conflicts with my understanding of why saying a command word is a standard action. There's no will involved, the word doesn't even have to be long or complicated, why does this take a standard action for any non-metagame reason?


DanQnA wrote:

Good points, and thanks for the input.

Impossible to create both abilities in the same weapon:

Anarchic (Creator has to be chaotic) and Axiomatic (Creator has to be lawful) so no way they can appear in the same weapon.

Disruption (weapon must do bludgeoning damage) and Keen (weapon must be piercing or slashing) OR vorpal (weapon must be slashing) (Yes, keen vorpal swords look OK)

Holy (creator must be good) and Unholy (creator must be evil)

No problem sir, thank you for the civil discourse.

1. Note that you can actually have an anarchic + axiomatic weapon if you have another creator enhance the weapon with the opposing ability after the weapon has been created. Nothing prevents this augmentation. But, we agree it is impossible to create that way. Same goes for holy/unholy.

2. Some weapons have multiple damage types so be careful when you say impossible: Cestus (APG), Lucerne Hammer (APG), Bec-de-Corbin (APG) and Gnome Hooked Hammer (Core) can be enchanted with both disruption and keen. Luckily for us there doesn't seem to be a B/S weapon.. bada-bing!


Stynkk wrote:

No problem sir, thank you for the civil discourse.

1. Note that you can actually have an anarchic + axiomatic weapon if you have another creator enhance the weapon with the opposing ability after the weapon has been created. Nothing prevents this augmentation. But, we agree it is impossible to create that way. Same goes for holy/unholy.

2. Some weapons have multiple damage types so be careful when you say impossible: Cestus (APG), Lucerne Hammer (APG), Bec-de-Corbin (APG) and Gnome Hooked Hammer (Core) can be enchanted with both disruption and keen. Luckily for us there doesn't seem to be a B/S weapon.. bada-bing!

I had thought about having an opposite-aligned crafter put the holy/unholy damage type on the weapon and given the variation of play-types this is quite possible so I maintain you are again correct and it is possible, but not on initial item creation (although the "Atonement" spell could fix any problems in that regard pretty quickly).

Again, in some corner cases you could have some of those other ones together. Thanks for fixing my laziness to double check the weapons with multiple damage types! We should collaborate :)

I'm waiting for someone to come along and declare that the "shock" and "flame" types can't go together because "shock" is actually 'burning damage' and so would be 'stacking' the effects and therefore outside RAI. I'm getting my tar and feathers and readying my lynch rally cry, you're all invited.

Shadow Lodge

Not sure if this helps anybody since it's 3.5, but there is precedent for both a flame/frost weapon and a flame/flame/flame weapon.

In Shackled City AP there is a beasty with a +1 flame/frost greatsword.
In the D&D mini line the Fire Giant Jarl (unique, forgot his name) has a +1(?) flame/flame/flame greatsword.


I have explained this argument previously, but it was pretty agressively attacked on this thread, so I'll explain it here again.

Fact 1: Rule X uses Wording W in both PF and 3.5.
Fact 2: Reference R, usually an FAQ or "Rules of the Game" article, clarifies Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to 3.5.
Conclusion: Because PF uses the same Wording W for Rule X, it is reasonable to assume that, unless told otherwise, Reference R can be used to clarify Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to PF as well.

This is reasonable because, if Paizo wanted to change the functioning of a rule, it is assumed that they would change the wording on that rule in some way -- and if Paizo chose to cut-and-paste the exact wording from 3.5, it is assumed that they inteded that wording to apply the way it did in 3.5.

The "until another command is given" language is found in the 3.5 SRD and was clarified to simply mean that each energy damage enchantment on the weapon can be selectively turned on and off as the wielder wishes. So, yes -- you can have a weapon dealing 1d6 fire and 1d6 cold damage at the same time, and you can turn off one or both of those effects with a standard action. That's the rule from 3.5, the wording wasn't changed in PF, and so the rule remains the same.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Regrs wrote:
Imagine a +1 Keen,Flaming Burst,Icy Burst,Shock Burst,Acid Burst Scimitar (Total +10 enchantment), it would deal on crit +4d10 damage from different elements. IMO I'll pass.

That weapon costs over 200,000 gp. Suggesting that a 20th-level character could, on a critical hit, do an extra 22 points of damage -- assuming the creature its fighting isn't immune to fire, acid, or cold damage -- doesn't seem to be too far out of line.

It's the +1 Keen,Flaming Burst,Icy Burst,Shock Burst,Acid Burst military pick that you want to concern yourself about. One hit out of every 10 does an extra 12d10 (or 66 pts) of various energies. But again, that's the most expensive magical weapon ever.


Chris Mortika wrote:


It's the +1 Keen,Flaming Burst,Icy Burst,Shock Burst,Acid Burst military pick that you want to concern yourself about. One hit out of every 10 does an extra 12d10 (or 66 pts) of various energies. But again, that's the most expensive magical weapon ever.

Not really. First off, it doesn't get an extra 12d10 one out of 10 hits, it threatens. You still have to confirm. And, it's only a +1 weapon, so that hurts on the confirmation rolls, since you're theoretically a 20th level character with this weapon, but using a +1 weapon, which means you're behind the curve on the to-hit with it.

Shadow Lodge

Jiraiya22 wrote:

Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text.

Thats kind of what I meant when I said that we are at impasse because we are both reading the same words and coming to different conclusions. I think you are misinterpreting, and you think I am misinterpreting.

Shadow Lodge

AvalonXQ wrote:

I have explained this argument previously, but it was pretty agressively attacked on this thread, so I'll explain it here again.

Fact 1: Rule X uses Wording W in both PF and 3.5.
Fact 2: Reference R, usually an FAQ or "Rules of the Game" article, clarifies Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to 3.5.
Conclusion: Because PF uses the same Wording W for Rule X, it is reasonable to assume that, unless told otherwise, Reference R can be used to clarify Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to PF as well.

The reason why you were attacked is you are using flawed logic.

For example: Just because my homebrew RPG has the exact same wording and rules for 90% of the system as 3.5 in no way means that the remaining 10% has ANYTHING to do with 3.5 rules.

Just because some aspects of Pathfinder agree with 3.5 does not imply that the rest of it does.


Raestlin wrote:
The reason why you were attacked is you are using flawed logic.

Pay attention to usernames. You just replied to my first post in this thread. It was not I that you previously attacked.

Quote:
For example: Just because my homebrew RPG has the exact same wording and rules for 90% of the system as 3.5 in no way means that the remaining 10% has ANYTHING to do with 3.5 rules.

That's true, and we're talking about the 90%.

Quote:
Just because some aspects of Pathfinder agree with 3.5 does not imply that the rest of it does.

That's true. We're talking about the "some aspects". Specifically, we're talking about the wording that Paizo copied wholesale from 3.5 and chose not to change. We're not talking about the stuff Paizo decided to change.

The argument is simple -- when Paizo chose to leave Rule X alone (i.e. not change its wording or application), we can assume they are also leaving the rulings associated with Rule X alone. Thus, the 3.5 FAQ and associated rulings are useful for those parts of Pathfinder that were not altered from 3.5.
More specifically, the wording about flaming staying on the weapon "until another command is given" originated in 3.5, not in Pathfinder. The 3.5 FAQ clarified that this wording DOES NOT mean that activating another ability on the weapon turns the flaming off. It is irrational for you to assert that this wording means something in Pathfinder that its original authors made clear it did not mean where it was first used.


Raestlin wrote:
Jiraiya22 wrote:

Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text.

Thats kind of what I meant when I said that we are at impasse because we are both reading the same words and coming to different conclusions. I think you are misinterpreting, and you think I am misinterpreting.

I know, that's why I tried to find an argument that fit with your interpretation, although I may be misunderstanding your difficulty. If so, please tell me exactly why you don't think a weapon can have multiple effects at the same time?

Liberty's Edge

Raestlin wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:

I have explained this argument previously, but it was pretty agressively attacked on this thread, so I'll explain it here again.

Fact 1: Rule X uses Wording W in both PF and 3.5.
Fact 2: Reference R, usually an FAQ or "Rules of the Game" article, clarifies Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to 3.5.
Conclusion: Because PF uses the same Wording W for Rule X, it is reasonable to assume that, unless told otherwise, Reference R can be used to clarify Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to PF as well.

The reason why you were attacked is you are using flawed logic.

For example: Just because my homebrew RPG has the exact same wording and rules for 90% of the system as 3.5 in no way means that the remaining 10% has ANYTHING to do with 3.5 rules.

Just because some aspects of Pathfinder agree with 3.5 does not imply that the rest of it does.

And yet, this is an area where the rules ARE the same, so when, according to your position, the rule is ambiguous or can be interpreted in different ways, why throw out what the developers of the rules have said about those words and those rules?

Tossing out the 3.5 developer rulings and commentary on this topic is akin to tossing out the value of a commentary on Hamlet's Soliloquy that cites a 1922 edition of the text because a 1992 edition of Willy's work changes a word in Henry V.

disclaimer:
I'm not a scholar of English literature and have made up the entire scenario as an analogy.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed some posts. Keep it civil, and remember that it's just a game.

Shadow Lodge

Jiraiya22 wrote:
Raestlin wrote:
Jiraiya22 wrote:

Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text.

Thats kind of what I meant when I said that we are at impasse because we are both reading the same words and coming to different conclusions. I think you are misinterpreting, and you think I am misinterpreting.

I know, that's why I tried to find an argument that fit with your interpretation, although I may be misunderstanding your difficulty. If so, please tell me exactly why you don't think a weapon can have multiple effects at the same time?

My point is that it can be enchanted with both, but the way I read the rule is that both abilities cannot be activated at the same time. As the command for the second elemental ability would "turn off" the first one. I believe this because it states that the flaming property persists until "another command is given" and to activate the frost property you must "give a command" that satisfies the above condition and the flaming property is turned off and the frost is turned on. Note that it doesn't say a command to turn it off turns it off, just that when it recieves another command it will cease being activated.

That is how I am reading it, but we may disagree on the interpretation.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Raestlin wrote:

My point is that it can be enchanted with both, but the way I read the rule is that both abilities cannot be activated at the same time. As the command for the second elemental ability would "turn off" the first one. I believe this because it states that the flaming property persists until "another command is given" and to activate the frost property you must "give a command" that satisfies the above condition and the flaming property is turned off and the frost is turned on. Note that it doesn't say a command to turn it off turns it off, just that when it recieves another command it will cease being activated.

That is how I am reading it, but we may disagree on the interpretation.

So once a +1 flaming long sword is activated, it can't be turned off?


Raestlin wrote:

My point is that it can be enchanted with both, but the way I read the rule is that both abilities cannot be activated at the same time. As the command for the second elemental ability would "turn off" the first one. I believe this because it states that the flaming property persists until "another command is given" and to activate the frost property you must "give a command" that satisfies the above condition and the flaming property is turned off and the frost is turned on. Note that it doesn't say a command to turn it off turns it off, just that when it recieves another command it will cease being activated.

That is how I am reading it, but we may disagree on the interpretation.

And the people who originally wrote the phrase "until another command is given" into the flaming property's rules, later clarified that they intended the phrase to mean "until the wielder gives a command to turn off the flaming property". The flaming property stays on until you give a command to turn it off -- independent of whatever commands you use to turn on and off other properties.

Your interpretation, that Paizo chose to leave in word-for-word a rule written by an earlier designer, but intended for that rule to be interpreted differently, is pretty ridiculous.


Raestlin wrote:
Jiraiya22 wrote:
Raestlin wrote:
Jiraiya22 wrote:

Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text.

Thats kind of what I meant when I said that we are at impasse because we are both reading the same words and coming to different conclusions. I think you are misinterpreting, and you think I am misinterpreting.

I know, that's why I tried to find an argument that fit with your interpretation, although I may be misunderstanding your difficulty. If so, please tell me exactly why you don't think a weapon can have multiple effects at the same time?

My point is that it can be enchanted with both, but the way I read the rule is that both abilities cannot be activated at the same time. As the command for the second elemental ability would "turn off" the first one. I believe this because it states that the flaming property persists until "another command is given" and to activate the frost property you must "give a command" that satisfies the above condition and the flaming property is turned off and the frost is turned on. Note that it doesn't say a command to turn it off turns it off, just that when it recieves another command it will cease being activated.

That is how I am reading it, but we may disagree on the interpretation.

Alright, I disagree with your interpretation of the "until another command is given" sentence, but assuming you are correct if a crafter sets the command word for both the flaming and the cold properties to be the same word then both would activate at the same time, there would never be "another command given." This is possible because of the way command words are set, a weapon's ability can have any command word limited by the whims of the crafter. There's nothing to say multiple weapon abilities, or indeed multiple magical items, can not all have the same command word.


I'm going to try and address some of the more interesting questions that have cropped up in this thread. It seems the technical bits of the rules have obfuscated the functionality of the rules system for a number of people.


  • A weapon with the frost and flaming enhancements can be created.

  • When a flaming weapon is activated, it is wreathed in magical flames that do not harm the wielder. It can be safely sheathed while activated, and when it is drawn again it is still flaming. Same for all other elemental enhancements.

  • Elemental weapons are kind of like lightsabers, except with a command word. Command word switches it on, command word switches it off. By a reading of the rules using Occam's Razor, that is.

The rules have not changed much in this regard since 1st edition. Elemental weapons are easy to use, so I imagine the text is so simple and "ambiguous" because its assumed that players are already familiar with D&D, fantasy literature, or RPG magic weapons by the time they play pathfinder.

Hope this makes things simpler for people.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

The reason you can't stack identical enhancements (flaming x 3) is simply an extension of the core stacking rules. You can't wounding wounding a weapon, either.

Note also: Flaming x 3 is better then flaming/acidic/freezing.

1) Fire is useful in and of itself. Unless the creature has fire resistance, it is going to be taking a large amount of damage from fire. For cold creatures, this is important!

2) Many creatures are vulnerable to fire.

3) If you are facing creatures immune to fire, you don't make a sword like this. Finding a flaming weapon in Legacy of Fire is ridiculous.

4) The more energy types you have, the more likely it is that your foe will be immune/resistant to some or all of the damage types.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fire + Freezing = Rimefire (heat is transferred on both sides of the blade, supercooling one side and superheating the other)
Fire + Lightning = Stormfire (electricty chars and then ignites the matter it passes through)
Fire + Acidic = Pyroclastic (acid tears apart matter and releases its potential energy (think, magnesium once ignited)) Also: Superheated acids that burn and dissolve a target. I'd probably make the acid look like steaming blood, and call it Bloodfire.
Fire + Sonic = Explosive (blazing matter explodes in the aftermath of the stroke).

Ice + Lightning = Superconductive (frozen matter conducts electrical charges to massive effect). The electrical effect of the sword would probably be very subdued until it discharges through something.
Ice + Acidic = Saltrime (Frozen acids/salts sear and dissolve matter as the weapon strikes)
Ice + Sonic = Brittleburst (Frozen matter is shattered explosively from by freezing so quickly). Another name might be 'Coldvibe'. I'd probably call this weapon 'Ice Scream'.

Lightning + Acid = Catalytic (matter dissolving catalyzes an electrical reaction). Think of it like a battery - when the separate acid types the weapon exudes strike something, the potential energy between them discharges violently.
Lightning + Sonic = Thunderbolt (the electricity snaps out and air pressure rips through the aftermath). This weapon would crackle with lightning VERY loudly.

Acid + Sonic = Reactive (matter explodes on contact with the blade via acidic chemical reaction - think sodium hitting water)

i.e. all the reactions are easy to combine.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

Jiraiya22 wrote:


Alright, I disagree with your interpretation of the "until another command is given" sentence, but assuming you are correct if a crafter sets the command word for both the flaming and the cold properties to be the same word then both would activate at the same time, there would never be "another command given." This is possible because of the way command words are set, a weapon's ability can...

That is possibly a scenario that could be claimed, as a GM I would still say that whichever one ends the previous effect.

Also I am not claiming that there isn't a command to deactivate them, just that any other command deactivates it as well as the deactivate command. I would really like to see a Developer post on this, a Pathfinder developer not a 3 dollar an hour WOTC intern.

EDIT: You may also want to consider that activating a single ability costs a standard action, allowing them to tie several abilities to a single command word may be overpowered.

Liberty's Edge

I do consider it cheap and cheesy. The result isn't, the mechanics are. I would much prefer (and in my games I have houseruled it this way) that you have to build up one element, and can't pick a second.

Note that there's actually room to claim it's not valid. For instance:

Shock: Upon command, a shock weapon is sheathed in crackling electricity that deals an extra 1d6 points of electricity damage on a successful hit. The electricity does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

You could claim that the bolded part disables it if you give it the command for fire, or ice, or whatever, because it gets disabled when you give another command.

This wording is crappy, and I'm pretty sure a dev chimed in near PF launch and said that it's fully intended to be able to stick ice and fire on the same weapon (or any of these things). I like that there's so much support for this being stupid, however- the devs don't want to reduce or eliminate something from 3.5 unless it's actually bad for the game, and they probably figure (rightly) that the actual rules allowing this won't dissuade DMs who it bothers from eliminating it. It's not like it's OP or anything.

Liberty's Edge

Raestlin wrote:
mand. I would really like to see a Developer post on this, a Pathfinder developer not a 3 dollar an hour WOTC intern.

Oh, didn't realize this was brought up already. I'm essentially certain that a PF dev chimed in about this waaaaaaay back when. It's certainly considered legal in society play.

But feel free to take it out of your game. I do so in mine.

Shadow Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Jason can probably give you the best answer on that, but I suspect it relates to:

1) Monk using flurry is supposed to correspond to TWF fighter.
2) TWF fighter has to have two magic weapons.
3) Thus the monk's cost is double the cost for one weapon.

Keep in mind also that the amulet of mighty fists doesn't need to have a +1 base enhancement bonus before you put other abilities on it. So when TWF fighter is paying for two +1 flaming frost shock weapons (+4 total bonus, 32,300 gp each, 64,600 gp total), the monk only has to get a +3-equivalent amulet of mighty fists (45,000 gp).

And the monk doesn't have to buy armor to keep his AC up, so that frees up more income compared to the fighter.

Anyway, I suspect those are some of the reasons.

You can have frost flaming, the abilities can all be activated.

I guess this matter is closed, in the thread I posted this from he shows the dice stacking. I was incorrect, good show to everyone that posted corrections to some of my factual errors and got this thread on track. I wanted a Dev answer and I got one, thanks to everyone that took the time on this one.


addy grete wrote:
Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming special abilities?

Ignoring all the rules lawyering for a moment, lets look at it in terms of game balance.

Level 20 Fighter Vs Level 20 wizard.
Fighter gets, at most, 7 attacks with 2 weapon fighting. We will assume that they all hit. Fighter has no special elemental strengths or weaknesses. fighter is assumed to have str 20
Wizard gets two spells. (one is quickened) We'll choose Quicken Cone of Cold and Polar Ray. Wizard has no special elemental strengths or weaknesses.
All rolls to strike are assumed to hit.

Fighter full attacks with two +5 light maces, each with shocking, flaming, frost, & acidic. That's 5d6 * 7 = 35d6 + 70.
average damage = 192
max damage = 280

Wizard gets 15d6 + 20d6 = 35d6.
average damage = 122
max damage = 210

Wow, look at all that extra damage the fighter is doing! Why do people complain that fighters can't keep up at higher levels? 25% more damage!

Now, lets look at it the other way.
Fighter full attacks with two +5 flaming (all other elemental types are either turned off upon activating flaming or are not compatible with flaming) light maces. That's 2d6 * 7 = 14d6 + 70.
Average damage = 119
max damage = 154

Wizard still gets 35d6.
average damage still 122
max damage still = 210

Well, there's an unexpected result. This time, the averages are very close, but max damage goes to the wizard by about 25%.

This would suggest that for combat balance, the second interpretation is the correct one.

If it were my game, and it wasn't going into epic levels, then I would rule that you can't get two elemental energy types on the same weapon. If the game was going epic though, I would rule the opposite as it keeps fighters dealing damage with casters far longer. Then again, pretty much all of my games go into epic levels... YMMV :)

All that being said however, as was pointed out, the first is considered legal by the devs and in tourney play, so unless you are going to house rule it, it's legal by the rules.


I'm glad we've established that it is perfectly fine to have multiple elemental damage sources on a weapon.

Nostagar wrote:
Ignoring all the rules lawyering for a moment, lets look at it in terms of game balance.

Your view of game balance needs to go a little further.

For a warrior to attain the weapons you speak of he has to spend at least 324,000 GP PLUS any armor or other items that they have. And have to wait for the items to get crafted and find available spellcasters. This is generally not possible until roughly level 17.

And a wizard has to wake up..

it is actually a lot harder to obtain such weapons than people are suggesting. I'm not sure why people judge things in a vaccuum.

What targets are you attacking? Is concealment involved? Have you accounted that the fighter's last iterative attacks may not actually hit? The fighter can't move if he wants to full attack, did you account for this damage dip in your calculations?

Many enemies at the 20th level have energy resistance of more than 5. Was this accounted for?


Take a dagger incribe the runes of flame on one half and the runes of frost on the other when its plunged through somebody they are hit by both done.

Its very easy to explain why a blade could contain enchantments of opposing elements just takes a lil imagination .


Stynkk wrote:

Your view of game balance needs to go a little further.

For a warrior to attain the weapons you speak of he has to spend at least 324,000 GP PLUS any armor or other items that they have. And have to wait for the items to get crafted and find available spellcasters. This is generally not possible until roughly level 17.

And a wizard has to wake up..

it is actually a lot harder to obtain such weapons than people are suggesting. I'm not sure why people judge things in a vacuum.

What targets are you attacking? Is concealment involved? Have you accounted that the fighter's last iterative attacks may not actually hit? The fighter can't move if he wants to full attack, did you account for this damage dip in your calculations?

Many enemies at the 20th level have energy resistance of more than 5. Was this accounted for?

All of the necessary assumptions were stated. In those assumptions, I stated that all attacks are assumed to have hit so that we could spend our time looking at damage rather than likelihood of hitting.

**edit: sorry, i just double checked, and I did not state that the target had no special elemental bonuses or penalties, only that the attackers didn't.**

How the weapons/spells were obtained is irrelevant to figuring out what the average and maximum damage potential dealt by the weapon/spell, as are the target and any other considerations.

We examine things in a vacuum to eliminate unnecessary variables. How much damage a given target takes is dependent on the target. Each target is different, there for, we eliminate that variable and examine only how much damage is dealt by the weapon/spell, not how much damage the target takes. Likewise, everything both before and after the attacks in question occurs is irrelevant to the comparison, and also removed from the equation to prevent unnecessary distraction from the salient facts. These are considered laboratory conditions, not game world conditions.

Obviously the wizard isn't going to throw cold spells at an ice elemental, and the fighter isn't going to use frost weapons either. We leave these kinds of considerations for the encounter itself.


Nostagar wrote:
How the weapons/spells were obtained is irrelevant to figuring out what the average and maximum damage potential dealt by the weapon/spell, as are the target and any other considerations.

No it's not. You're comparing a character who has invested over 400,000 gp on improving his damage via two multielemental weapons to a character who has invested 0 gp on improving his damage, finding that the first does somewhat more damage, and declaring multi-elemental weapons unbalanced on that basis. It's not a valid comparison. Give the wizard the same amount of investment in damage increasing items (I suggest greater metamagic rods of maximizing, empowering, and such) and then do the comparison.

Dark Archive

mdt wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:


It's the +1 Keen,Flaming Burst,Icy Burst,Shock Burst,Acid Burst military pick that you want to concern yourself about. One hit out of every 10 does an extra 12d10 (or 66 pts) of various energies. But again, that's the most expensive magical weapon ever.
Not really. First off, it doesn't get an extra 12d10 one out of 10 hits, it threatens. You still have to confirm. And, it's only a +1 weapon, so that hurts on the confirmation rolls, since you're theoretically a 20th level character with this weapon, but using a +1 weapon, which means you're behind the curve on the to-hit with it.

@Chris Mortika

True the enchantments only cost 200000gp on this. I chose the scimitar instead the Pick or even better the Scythe mainly because it will threaten more often, so a 4d10 damage boost (provided that no resistances or immunities exist) is a better choice.
It is supposed to be a CL20 weapon that's why it's so expensive after all.

@mdt
Plus in the hands of a fighter with weapon mastery it should deal +8d10 "elemental" damage and it will always confirm, so over +1 enhancement isn't totally necessary (for a fighter).
As for DR if you feel uneasy with it make it from adamantine (bypasses all DR except DR/Alignment)


Regrs wrote:


As for DR if you feel uneasy with it make it from adamantine (bypasses all DR except DR/Alignment)

Last I checked, Adamantine bypassed DR/adamantine and hardness, not any other type of DR.


Based on the fact that it has Magical effects the weapon is assumed to be of +1 quality minimum therefore bypasses DR/Magic as well as DR/Adamantine

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lurk3r wrote:

Any Magic: the Gathering fans in the house?

Also, if you are going to tell a player that their +1 flaming, frost sword is only one or the other at any given time, you should probably give them a discount. If it were my character, I'd be annoyed at having to pay full price for an ability that only worked half of the time. I'd say just don't allow it if you don't like it (though, as a GM, I would allow it).

One having the option of flaming or frost on one weapon is a handy thing to have, so no... no discount. I'm annoyed at the price I pay for groceries but I put up with it because I'm fond of eating. I also tell my players that they have to research (or beg/borrow/steal) a formula for every magic item they wish to create. I'm a horrible GM.

101 to 150 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.