If the activation is on command or if no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
Sooo, yeah...
Command Word activation taking a standard action when speaking a single word is a free action?Dumb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Harnessing the awesome power of an ancient magical item, permitting the stuff of your very soul to be the conduit for the energy to flow, as your mind becomes the foci sharpening the raw mana into a real world use, finally aching to be released by a mere flick of your tongue...
Is a tad different than saying "huzzah" in casual conversation.
A different way to look at this would be: Are you really suggesting that someone with multiple command word activated magical items should be able to cast them as much as they want because you found an entry that sort of kinda relates? Then, after they've released 6 spells (I'm pretty sure canon PF has no restriction on free actions) it is time for them to perform their regular actions.
Many command word items can be changed to "use activated" and have no change in their function or action economy cost. However, use-activated also covers items that trigger automatically when used:
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. a character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
(...)
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself.
I believe the distinction between use-activated and command word, and an inclusion of command word as a separate category of items, is primarily there for gameplay reasons.
For instance a shield that casts Scorching Ray as a command word (standard action) item and as a use-activated (whenever the shield is used to deflect a blow in combat) item would be significantly different in terms of power, utility, and value.
All that said, you could rule that command word items are free action to activate and eyeball each item as it pops up and rule if it is a use-activated item (using the standard action option instead of the "simply be used" option, or a 'free action' command word item). As far as house rules go I've seen stranger things.
Harnessing the awesome power of an ancient magical item, permitting the stuff of your very soul to be the conduit for the energy to flow, as your mind becomes the foci sharpening the raw mana into a real world use, finally aching to be released by a mere flick of your tongue...
Is a tad different than saying "huzzah" in casual conversation.
A different way to look at this would be: Are you really suggesting that someone with multiple command word activated magical items should be able to cast them as much as they want because you found an entry that sort of kinda relates? Then, after they've released 6 spells (I'm pretty sure canon PF has no restriction on free actions) it is time for them to perform their regular actions.
See, here's my issue: What you describe above better fits "use-activation" than it does "command word."
A command word can go off even if you accidentally speak it's trigger in casual conversation - hardly any mental focusing going on there.
Link to a previous thread on this topic.
I kind of like the idea that it just takes time for the ability to activate, except that doesn't actually work as it'd still leave you with time to do something during your turn.
There are more examples of this. Note for example the power word spell series:
PW: Blind
"Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
You utter a single word of power"
So it's not like this is unique (or even new - at least the power word series has a few editions on their neck). I say it comes down to the word being very specific, powerful and has to be used in the right way, so you must focus before you do it - just like the power word series.
It might not make perfect sense but there it is.
And I second Kudaku's explanation of the difference between that and use-activated.
I think the main issue is naming and describing it as a "command word" - it should really be like "action activation" or "ritual activation" or whatever. And explicitly including any kind of activation acts that aren't part of using the item in a normal fashion.
Okay, so it may be four words rather than one but on the other hand it's 40 seconds instead of 6 so that makes it even.
In my games, that's a ring of Mage Armor.
Consider the implication that the linked thread touches on:
You must use a standard action to activate flaming weapons/ammunition with a command word.
You can activate 50 pieces of ammunition with one use of the word, but wouldn't doing so cause that flaming enchantment to destroy your quiver?
In all my years of gaming, I've never seen a GM require a standard action to activate a flaming/shocking/etc weapon. Has anyone else?
----
Also, again, compare the difference in description between "command word" and "use-activation":
Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation.
vs.
However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
I can absolutely accept that mentally willing an item to work might take enough concentration to justify spending a standard action on. One of the two descriptions above mentions just that - it's not Command Word Activation.
Consider the implication that the linked thread touches on:
You must use a standard action to activate flaming weapons/ammunition with a command word.
You can activate 50 pieces of ammunition with one use of the word, but wouldn't doing so cause that flaming enchantment to destroy your quiver?In all my years of gaming, I've never seen a GM require a standard action to activate a flaming/shocking/etc weapon. Has anyone else?
Yes, I require standard action activation. However, it's pretty rare for them to want them deactivated. And no, it won't destroy a quiver; a quiver for flaming arrows would usually be made with impregnated wood. Wood has a hardness of 5, and flaming deals 1d6 damage which is then halved for elemental damage vs objects; they can't hurt it at all.
But I mean, yeah, the way it is written is a bit silly. I fully agree. So you either have two options:
- Change the rule to allow command word items to be activated as a free action, and redesign all command word items to be balanced for the action type change, at the risk of heavily upsetting game balance
- Marginally change the flavor of command word from "single word" to "some kind of activation that takes a standard action".
I believe that phrasing (on elemental weapons) is primarily there to avoid players buying +1 flaming & frost & shocking & corrosive weapons, and to give players an option to turn off an elemental weapon if attacking with the element is a bad idea (Corrosive vs Clay Golem) -the way the rules are phrased you could have a weapon with multiple elemental enhancements but you'd have to choose which effect you wanted to have active. Note that the "Command language" is specific only to the "elemental" enhancements, whereas for instance Holy is simply always active and can be freely combined with other enhancements.
In my games I assume that the effect is active whenever the weapon is drawn without requiring a specific action to activate it unless the player has a weapon with multiple elemental effects that he can choose from. In that case I'd ask him which one he wants to use by default, and require the action if he wishes to change elements.
You can buy +1 flaming/frost/shocking/corrosive weapons. It's a decent choice sometimes, if you have steady access to GMW and/or have an unusually high attack bonus. Especially it can be useful for mid-level full BAB classes in my experience.
The "turn off with another command" or however it's worded is for turning off the sword, other it would have been needed to be specified much clearer. The wording is a bit strange, but I think that's the only explanation that doesn't have very weird effects and/or inconsistencies.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I phrased my previous post poorly:
You can indeed have +1 flaming/frost/shock/corrosive weapons. However, near as I can tell, you can only have one "element", one d6 active at a time.
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.
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.
From what i can tell giving the command to activate the flaming effect would turn off the shock effect and vice versa. I'm not sure if that's RAI though.
Sooo, yeah...
Command Word activation taking a standard action when speaking a single word is a free action?
Dumb.
Pathfinder does not REPLICATE REAL WORLD combat and spellcasting (assuming spellcasting to be real in your mind; this thread is so inane as to generate doubt in my mind about what world you are living in).
It SIMULATES combat and FANTASY SPELLCASTING.
In short, it is arbitrary. It is a ruleset designed for balance. Thus, if the people who made the game say that shouting "duck!" is not the same as speaking a command word, it just is.
Until you can PROVE to us that magic and all its attendant command words, gestures, and whatnot are real. And then demonstrate your amazing ability to change the face of the planet by summoning fantastic powers with but a whisper.
File in the "Get Over It" folder.
I phrased my previous post poorly:
You can indeed have +1 flaming/frost/shock/corrosive weapons. However, near as I can tell, you can only have one "element", one d6 active at a time.
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.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.From what i can tell giving the command to activate the flaming effect would turn off the shock effect and vice versa. I'm not sure if that's RAI though.
I do not think that is a correct interpretation of the ability. I'm not an expert at english (it's not even my native language), but as far as I can see it, there are two main ways to interpret it:
1. "the effect remains until another (specific) command is given", that is, when you say hopscotch it starts burning when you say apple it stops. If the command word for shocking is whisky, then both can be active. This is how I interpret it.2. "the effect remains until another (non-specific) command is given", that is, when you say a command that isn't hopscotch it stops burning.
2.1 This however, means that either we have to assume that the command is limited to command words to activate magic abilities on the sword - which might not be an unreasonable assumption but isn't really implied in the rules.
2.2 Or we have to assume that _any_ command works; that is, if the fighter holds it's flaming blade and commands it's boots of flight to activate the blade stops burning.
2.3 It could even be interpreted in that case that any command doesn't even have to be uttered by the wielder of the blade, but I think it's fair to assume that isn't the case; command words are usually mainly activated by the wielder, so the omission could have been due to it being an unusual case (such as the climb rules omitting horses can't climb ropes).
Basically, I think position 1 is the most clear and consistent interpretation, and easiest to use, it's also the least restrictive without being unbalanced which makes it a more desirable interpretation for me since I like to enable my players xD. It requires no assumptions beyond the interpretation itself.
Your position seems to be 2.1, which while it makes sense and I wouldn't argue it at a game table makes a pretty large assumption that isn't written into the game.
I think we can both agree that 2.2 and especially 2.3 are undesirable interpretations and in all likelihood not RAI.
it's funny how fast this discussion made it's way into (although I think meaningful) off-topic and (less meaningful) "u mad bro?"-y comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I could have defended my position with a longer and more thoughtful response. But honestly, treating that sort of nonsense personal-attack post with anything other than rebuttal nonsense seemed like the wrong thing to do. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, Bruunwald could have been more polite about it - but his underlying point is a good one. Sometimes, the rules are what they are because otherwise, the game falls out of balance. When the rules are very clear on what you can and cannot do, we have to justify how it works in the game world, instead of the usual of making up rules to make the simulation do what we want it to.
In this case, I think that the best justification is the one several people have suggested - that the magic item won't activate without a particular focus or specific pronunciation, such that you have to pay attention to do it right.
The devs have ruled in on the issue of multiple elemental enhancements and said it's a specific command word to turn them off, not any command word, so you can have as many active as you want. They've also said there's nothing stopping you from having a flaming frost weapon except maybe your GM. Unfortunately I can't find their actual posts (someone else with the same problem).
IIRC, they said the point of the command words were so you could still use your +2 flaming sword against a fire elemental (for example) if you didn't have anything better. Just turn the flaming property off for that fight.
True, Bruunwald could have been more polite about it - but his underlying point is a good one. Sometimes, the rules are what they are because otherwise, the game falls out of balance. When the rules are very clear on what you can and cannot do, we have to justify how it works in the game world, instead of the usual of making up rules to make the simulation do what we want it to.
In this case, I think that the best justification is the one several people have suggested - that the magic item won't activate without a particular focus or specific pronunciation, such that you have to pay attention to do it right.
If no one ever argued that parts of the game could be better/more concise/etc then we would still be playing 1st Edition and "them's the breaks" would apply there as well. ;)
As for the suggestion, it's a fine one, but it is a homebrew one. The RAW allows for accidental activation based on the word chosen for the item.
Me, I don't really think my previous suggestion is so much homebrew, so much as making sense of the rules that are there. That being said, if we really want to focus on the accidental activation bit, then I guess that any time you accidentally say your trigger word, your attention is consumed for a moment by the magic item drawing on your focus, making you use a standard action. Sure, the RAW allows for accidental activation, but it's also pretty clear that it takes a standard action to activate, so here we are.
I suppose I'm unclear what you're arguing/advocating for at this point. You don't seem to have much in the way of a question or suggestion, that I can see. Just complaining?
|
In all my years of gaming, I've never seen a GM require a standard action to activate a flaming/shocking/etc weapon. Has anyone else?
My group doesn't bother with it.
IIRC, they said the point of the command words were so you could still use your +2 flaming sword against a fire elemental (for example) if you didn't have anything better. Just turn the flaming property off for that fight.
Since Flaming doesn't turn all the weapon's damage into fire damage, there's also no problem with leaving it on and just not adding the d6 from the fire. It's only a problem with creatures like shambling mounds that are bolstered by particular elemental damage types.
@Ilja
That makes sense :)
@Magimaster
Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)