| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note,
If a player came to me and wanted a weapon that could be flame or frost, but only one at at time, I'd probably rule something like this...
Elemental : A weapon with this property can manifest any elemental property, but only one at a time may be active. For example, a longsword with this property could be a +1 Elemental (Flaming), or a +1 Elemental (Acidic), or a +1 Elemental (Sonic). The user speaks a command word to change the elemental type. This is a +2 enhancement.
Elemental Burst : This weapon acts like a normal Elemental weapon, but on a critical hit, also gains the appropriate Burst quality. Thus, a +1 Elemental Burst (Flaming Burst), or Elemental Burst (Shocking Burst). This is a +3 enhancement.
If a player wanted an enhancement that shifted between two (or more) elements depending on time of day, or light conditions, then I'd just charge the normal +1 or +2 (normal vs burst).
A sword that was flame by day and ice by night would be a +1 enhancement only. This is because the wielder can't control it or change it.
|
This is exactly how it's supposed to work and why fighters do not continually stack damaging powers like this.
The rules for activating and unactivating a weapon's energy damage is not in the game to force users of those weapons to spend an extra action to get ready above the action of drawing a weapon. The rules are mostly there for the cases where you want to turn OFF the effect, such as if you're entering an encounter where having visibly magic weapons might be a disadvantage.Otherwise, the game assumes that the energy damage effect is left on all the time. It's not like those weapons will run out of power if they're left on all the time, after all.
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.As to the multiple abilities with one word, you have to go back to the 3.5 FAQ on that one, but it lists that you can set the same word for multiple abilities, but then they activate all or none (I believe the FAQ also said you could set multiple words on an item, to activate each power individually, one at a time, or all at once, as you needed).
The FAQ also confirmed that while the flaming/frosting/etc didn't hurt the wielder, if he put it down, it would harm the environment while unattended. So don't put your flaming sword under your pillow unless it's in a sheath or you turned off the flaming. :)
Okay the only thing this brings up, is that a single command, say flaming activates a specific ability that remains on. Notice use of a very important qualifer or, or is not in fact and. It specifically says that if you have flaming on, and then you use a command for another ability, it quenches flaming. Using the same command word for multiple abilities on one weapon is never mentioned in PATHFINDER rules, and the only thing I remember from 3.5 is that you could do flaming and frost at the same time on a DOUBLE WEAPON.
Okay the only thing this brings up, is that a single command, say flaming activates a specific ability that remains on. Notice use of a very important qualifer or, or is not in fact and. It specifically says that if you have flaming on, and then you use a command for another ability, it quenches flaming. Using the same command word for multiple abilities on one weapon is never mentioned in PATHFINDER rules, and the only thing I remember from 3.5 is that you could do flaming and frost at the same time on a DOUBLE WEAPON.
Question : The new descriptions for the flaming, frost, and shock weapon special abilities say that these weapons’ energy effects work only on command. Why was this changed in the revision? Does that mean that their wielders must use a standard action to activate them for each attack? Or do the energy effects last awhile? If so, how long do they last? What’s the chance that you burn (or freeze or shock) yourself when holding onto an activated weapon? Can you put away an activated weapon without damaging the scabbard where you store it? What happens if you have ammunition with these effects? Do you have to activate each piece of ammunition separately? What happens if you have a flaming, frost, and shock weapon? Logically, such a weapon couldn’t exist, but what if it did? Would you have to activate each property separately? Finally, how does all this affect flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst weapons? Do you have to activate these weapons’ flame, frost, and shock properties for the burst powers to work?Answer : The flaming, frost, and shock weapon special abilities always have been command activated; the revision just clarified that. Activating an energy power requires a standard action, but once you activate energy power, the power works until you use another action to deactivate it. You can activate or deactivate one of these powers on up to 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, provided that all the ammunition is in your possession, all the ammunition is the same kind, and all the ammunition has the same power. Any attack you make with an activated weapon deals energy damage to your foe if you hit—you don’t have to do anything special to deal energy damage with it. A burst weapon’s burst power is use activated and it works even when the weapon’s energy power is not activated (see the last sentence in each power’s description). The energy from a flaming, frost, shock, flaming burst, icy burst, or shocking burst weapon never harms you while you’re wielding or carrying the activated weapon (see the power descriptions), and it will not harm your equipment. If you lose or set down an activated weapon, the energy it produces will harm other objects it touches, so it is best to deactivate it first. There’s nothing illogical about a flaming, frost, shock weapon (at least not within any framework that allows weapons to generate energy in the first place), and there’s no rule against such weapons (think of the weapon as having fiery, frosty, shocking flames). The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired.
As to it not being mentioned in PATHFINDER rules, Pathfinder is inherited from 3.5. Unless something was changed between the two systems, they work the same. Nothing was changed about command words between the two systems, ergo, they work the same as they always have.
It could be ruled that "until another command is given" means that activating the next elemental type deactivates any currently active effects. This would work if you favor not mixing the types.I wouldn't say could be ruled, that is how it is. Each ability has a command that activates it, you choose that when you make the ability or when you find it out from an existing item. Maybe an artifact or whatever has multiple elemental stacking types, but the way the rules are written the command looks to be tied to each ability.
Not really. Activating another ability doesn't deactivate the first. It just means that you can deactivate it with "another command", i.e. speaking the words for turn-off. So if you have a "frostbrand" weapon, you can activate both fire and ice with one command word each, and then both are on. Then, you can deactivate both (or only one) with one command word each.
Ridiculous dice stacking? I increase all of those things based on the enhancement bonus of the weapon. (Natural, no GMW allowed)
A +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. +5 flaming burst deals 5d6 plus 5d10 on a crit. +5 wounding sword deals 5 bleed.
I didn't know activating flaming etc. on a weapon was a standard action o.O
Speaking a few sentences is a free action. Uttering a single word is a standard action? I always assumed you would utter the command word while you draw the sword.
Anyway. We allow any combination of elements/alignments on weapons, equipment and such in our games.
Personally I can see a flaming, freezing weapon like this.
The body itself is freezingly cold, while it is sheathed in hot flames (don't forget a flame is coolest at the bottom/center and hottest just above the top).
So when you hit someone, their body is burned before you even touch him with your weapon (which creates nasty blisters) then the freezing cold metal (or other material) touches the opponent dealing physical damage. The blisters, which are wet, stick to the metal like a tongue on a pole in winter and you rip of the skin/flesh as you withdraw the weapon.
So the order for the damage types would be: fire, physical, cold.
I dunno about you but it sounds extra painful and will surely result in hard to treat wounds.
...and the dwarves knew it as Glimdraung, the Frostburner. And in the language of the elves, it was called Par Hileaiathia, the Winter Star.
But then it fell into the hands of halflings, and after they saw what it did to goblins, they dubbed it the Baked Alaska Blade, and that is the name that has stuck....
Awesome!
Ridiculous dice stacking? I increase all of those things based on the enhancement bonus of the weapon. (Natural, no GMW allowed)
A +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. +5 flaming burst deals 5d6 plus 5d10 on a crit. +5 wounding sword deals 5 bleed.
How?
|
|
Ridiculous dice stacking? I increase all of those things based on the enhancement bonus of the weapon. (Natural, no GMW allowed)
A +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. +5 flaming burst deals 5d6 plus 5d10 on a crit. +5 wounding sword deals 5 bleed.
Thats.... thats not the case at all. That is 100% wrong. A +5 flaming sword is +5 to hit, +5 to damage, with 1d6 fire damage.
Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How?Ridiculous dice stacking? I increase all of those things based on the enhancement bonus of the weapon. (Natural, no GMW allowed)
A +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. +5 flaming burst deals 5d6 plus 5d10 on a crit. +5 wounding sword deals 5 bleed.
By house ruling (see part I bolded)
(don't forget a flame is coolest at the bottom/center and hottest just above the top)
Actually, the blue part of a candle flame (at the base) is the hottest part of the flame - it's just a smaller area. That's why when you want to put a finger through a flame, you run it through the upper (yellow) part and never the blue part.
Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.
Would you say that activating any other magic item with a command word also deactivates your sword? Winged boots, for example, are command-based. If I say "Fly", does my sword no longer flame or frost?
|
|
Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.Would you say that activating any other magic item with a command word also deactivates your sword? Winged boots, for example, are command-based. If I say "Fly", does my sword no longer flame or frost?
No because the sword doesn't recognize the command for the boots. Say you have three command words, Fire for your sword, Frost for your sword, and Fly for your boots. Fire or Frost are commands for the sword, and alternately wreathe the sword in flame or chilling cold. If Frost is active and you say Fire, the sword gets a new command which ends the Frost effect. If Fire is active and you say Fly, the boots activate from the command and you fly, nothing happens to the sword as its not a command for the sword.
No because the sword doesn't recognize the command for the boots. Say you have three command words, Fire for your sword, Frost for your sword, and Fly for your boots. Fire or Frost are commands for the sword, and alternately wreathe the sword in flame or chilling cold. If Frost is active and you say Fire, the sword gets a new command which ends the Frost effect. If Fire is active and you say Fly, the boots activate from the command and you fly, nothing happens to the sword as its not a command for the sword.
I agree with what you are saying. What you are missing is that you are not limited on command words.
Fire : Activates fire on the sword
Frost : Activates frost on the sword
Frostburn : Activates fire and frost on the sword
If you have Fire up and say Frost, frost comes up and fire goes away. If you then say Frostburn, frost goes away and both frost and fire come up. I'll repeat the part of the 3.5 FAQ I posted earlier.
The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired.
I didn't know activating flaming etc. on a weapon was a standard action o.O
Speaking a few sentences is a free action. Uttering a single word is a standard action?
Yes . It's because of balance. And because it's magic. It's more than just speaking a word. You have to put your will behind it.
So you can say a few words as a free action. Let's say 10.
So I get 10 items that unleash powerful stuff at command. As a free action, I speak all their command words, and where before stood an unprepared opponent now stands an invulnerable juggernaut who will just wipe you out.
Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.
So flaming swords and and the Leadership feat don't work together? You command your cohort to charge and your sword winks out?
By house ruling (see part I bolded)How?Ridiculous dice stacking? I increase all of those things based on the enhancement bonus of the weapon. (Natural, no GMW allowed)
A +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. +5 flaming burst deals 5d6 plus 5d10 on a crit. +5 wounding sword deals 5 bleed.
Thank you, Matthew.
|
|
I didn't know activating flaming etc. on a weapon was a standard action o.O
Speaking a few sentences is a free action. Uttering a single word is a standard action?Yes . It's because of balance. And because it's magic. It's more than just speaking a word. You have to put your will behind it.
So you can say a few words as a free action. Let's say 10.
So I get 10 items that unleash powerful stuff at command. As a free action, I speak all their command words, and where before stood an unprepared opponent now stands an invulnerable juggernaut who will just wipe you out.
Its not a standard action, its a swift action. I posted the source in the Core Rulebook earlier in this thread.
Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.
So flaming swords and and the Leadership feat don't work together? You command your cohort to charge and your sword winks out?
I believe I answered this earlier, activating a command on an item ends any current commands ON THAT ITEM. Yelling charge at a cohort is a free action, its not activating a magic item. Even if yelling at a cohort was activating a magic item, its a different item that you are activating and its not ending effects on other items.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually Rae, you didn't.
Table 8-2 (pg 183 of the PDF) has "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" as a standard action.
And on page 184, under "Activate a magic item" "Unless otherwise
noted, activating a magic item is a standard action."
Text and table agree. Also please find for me a citation that activating a weapon property is a swift action.
There's also no text indicating you can only have one energy function at a time.
Edit: Changed 'free' to 'swift'
I believe I answered this earlier, activating a command on an item ends any current commands ON THAT ITEM. Yelling charge at a cohort is a free action, its not activating a magic item. Even if yelling at a cohort was activating a magic item, its a different item that you are activating and its not ending effects on other items.
Still not buying it. The original source never mentions that it refers to other commands on the same items. At best, it's open to interpretation.
In context, I'm quite sure it refers to the command word to deactivate it, not to the activation command for other abilities.
Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.Would you say that activating any other magic item with a command word also deactivates your sword? Winged boots, for example, are command-based. If I say "Fly", does my sword no longer flame or frost?No because the sword doesn't recognize the command for the boots. Say you have three command words, Fire for your sword, Frost for your sword, and Fly for your boots. Fire or Frost are commands for the sword, and alternately wreathe the sword in flame or chilling cold. If Frost is active and you say Fire, the sword gets a new command which ends the Frost effect. If Fire is active and you say Fly, the boots activate from the command and you fly, nothing happens to the sword as its not a command for the sword.
Why should the sword's flaming property recognize the word for frost? I have "Fire" and "Endfire" which deal with the flaming property, "Frost" and "Endfrost" for the frost property, etc. I say "Fire" and the sword fires until I issue another command: "Endfire". Whether I issue a "Frost" command, an "Endfrost" command, or I tell my boots to "Fly" is entirely irrelevant. It fires from when I give it the "Fire" command to when I give it the "Endfire" command.
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.
The flaming property can be read "One command does this. Another command undoes it." This is only in respect to flaming. If it was part of the generic magic weapon description, it would be different, but it's specifically part of the flaming property. It means the same thing as saying "The wielder can activate or deactivate this ability with a command word" (quote from the Arrow Catching shield property).
|
|
Actually Rae, you didn't.
Table 8-2 (pg 183 of the PDF) has "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" as a standard action.
And on page 184, under "Activate a magic item" "Unless otherwise
noted, activating a magic item is a standard action."Text and table agree. Also please find for me a citation that activating a weapon property is a swift action.
There's also no text indicating you can only have one energy function at a time.
Edit: Changed 'free' to 'swift'
From the Combat Section of the Players Handbook wrote:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Its from page 1 where I posted it. Using magic items generally is a standard action, as you are using them for an action, such as a Ring of the Ram projecting a blast of force or throwing a handful of Dust of Appearance. Commanding a weapon to be engulfed in flame seems like more of the swift action type.
|
|
At this point I think we are running into a wall. The same words are meaning two different things to two different groups.
I think we need a developer like Sean K Reynolds to answer this question.
So far I see only two reasonable interpretations.
1)Activating a command ability ends any other command ability on the weapon. This is my interpretation from how its written and seems to me to fit a more balanced mechanic.
2)Activating a command ability DOES NOT end any other command abilities currently on that weapon. However each ability must be activated on its own and ended on its own command. This is Bobson's interpretation and while it seems more unbalanced to me, it has merit.
Some people in this thread advocate the multiple sublinked command words that all lead to varying combinations of on and off abilities. I do not think that is correct but maybe a dev can clear this up.
Actually Rae, you didn't.
Table 8-2 (pg 183 of the PDF) has "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" as a standard action.
And on page 184, under "Activate a magic item" "Unless otherwise
noted, activating a magic item is a standard action."Text and table agree. Also please find for me a citation that activating a weapon property is a swift action.
There's also no text indicating you can only have one energy function at a time.
Edit: Changed 'free' to 'swift'
From the Combat Section of the Players Handbook wrote:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Its from page 1 where I posted it. Using magic items generally is a standard action, as you are using them for an action, such as a Ring of the Ram projecting a blast of force or throwing a handful of Dust of Appearance. Commanding a weapon to be engulfed in flame seems like more of the swift action type.
No. Some items are activated with a swift action. But the items always say that.
If there is no reference, it's a standard action. Hence the name. "Standard" action.
Apparently nobody bothered to even read my posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you for confirming you cannot find where activating an energy property on a magic weapon is a swift action.
"Unless otherwise noted, activating a magic item is a standard action."
[emphasis mine]
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.
There's no text otherwise noting it is a swift action.
Apparently nobody bothered to even read my posts.Or they simply don't care about 3.5 rulings when they're not playing 3.5. That's my opinion on the 3.5 ruling at least.
Really? We're playing Pathfinder, which was marketed by Paizo itself as 3.75 for awhile. It's based on the 3.5 OGL, and this section of the rules was not modified in any way by Paizo yet you consider it to have no bearing at all?
Really?
Really?
Seriously?
|
Actually Rae, you didn't.
Table 8-2 (pg 183 of the PDF) has "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" as a standard action.
And on page 184, under "Activate a magic item" "Unless otherwise
noted, activating a magic item is a standard action."Text and table agree. Also please find for me a citation that activating a weapon property is a swift action.
There's also no text indicating you can only have one energy function at a time.
Edit: Changed 'free' to 'swift'
From the Combat Section of the Players Handbook wrote:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Its from page 1 where I posted it. Using magic items generally is a standard action, as you are using them for an action, such as a Ring of the Ram projecting a blast of force or throwing a handful of Dust of Appearance. Commanding a weapon to be engulfed in flame seems like more of the swift action type.
The specific overrides the general.
From the PRD on Magic weapons and activating them:
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities.
So, if you have to turn on the fire on a flaming weapon, that is a standard action. Note, there is no rule saying that you have to have the flaming or frost be able to turn on and off at all. You could just have it be always on from the time you draw the sword.
You're the one who was shocked people weren't reading your posts. I was simply letting you know one possible reason that might be.Beyond that, you state that this section of the rules were not modified by Paizo. Be that as it may your quote is not from the rules but from an FAQ. Would you argue that the FAQ for 3.5 is exactly the same as Pathfinder?
If the rules have not changed, and there has been no more recent FAQ/Comment by a Developer, then yes, I consider it to be exactly the same for PF, because the rules are exactly the same. Saying it isn't is like saying the 3.0 FAQ was of no use for 3.5 where no changes were made to the rules or FAQ updates made, which is silly.
|
|
The specific overrides the general.
From the PRD on Magic weapons and activating them:
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities.So,...
I stand corrected Happler, thanks for quoting the source. I missed that somehow.
Other than you know the fact that they're made by totally different companies and have different names.IMO: If the rules don't exist to support it in Pathfinder, it is simply not supported. Would you expect your 3.5 FAQ to fly at a PFS game?
The mind boggles.
Oh, and as to PFS, since PFS doesn't follow the core rules, I think that's a poor argument. It's kind of like saying 'Hey, my house brew doesn't follow the rules, do you expect me to believe you?'.
|
|
If the rules have not changed, and there has been no more recent FAQ/Comment by a Developer, then yes, I consider it to be exactly the same for PF, because the rules are exactly the same. Saying it isn't is like saying the 3.0 FAQ was of no use for 3.5 where no changes were made to the rules or FAQ updates made, which is silly.
You're the one who was shocked people weren't reading your posts. I was simply letting you know one possible reason that might be.Beyond that, you state that this section of the rules were not modified by Paizo. Be that as it may your quote is not from the rules but from an FAQ. Would you argue that the FAQ for 3.5 is exactly the same as Pathfinder?
Other than you know the fact that they're made by totally different companies and have different names.
IMO: If the rules don't exist to support it in Pathfinder, it is simply not supported. Would you expect your 3.5 FAQ to fly at a PFS game?
Actualy, most probably...on the other hand, PFS is not really a good measuring stick.
Actualy, most probably...on the other hand, PFS is not really a good measuring stick.
I'm just going to mark Shadowcat as one of those posters who will only accept SKR or JJ or JB posting directly as the word of god, and who will ignore everything else posted. So no reason to waste my time anymore.
|
|
I stand corrected Happler, thanks for quoting the source. I missed that somehow.[dryly] You're welcome. [/dryly]
You quoted a general rule much as I had, Happler quoted a specific rule that overrode the general rule I had posted.
That is the difference between his posts and yours. Not trying to be a dick but that's why I disagreed with you and agreed with him.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I stand corrected Happler, thanks for quoting the source. I missed that somehow.[dryly] You're welcome. [/dryly]You quoted a general rule much as I had, Happler quoted a specific rule that overrode the general rule I had posted.
That is the difference between his posts and yours. Not trying to be a dick but that's why I disagreed with you and agreed with him.
Yes, the general rule, which says "Unless otherwise noted." Since it's not noted anywhere in the item description that it's anything other than a standard action, it's a standard action QED.
At this point I think we are running into a wall. The same words are meaning two different things to two different groups.
I think we need a developer like Sean K Reynolds to answer this question.
So far I see only two reasonable interpretations.
1)Activating a command ability ends any other command ability on the weapon. This is my interpretation from how its written and seems to me to fit a more balanced mechanic.
2)Activating a command ability DOES NOT end any other command abilities currently on that weapon. However each ability must be activated on its own and ended on its own command. This is Bobson's interpretation and while it seems more unbalanced to me, it has merit.
Some people in this thread advocate the multiple sublinked command words that all lead to varying combinations of on and off abilities. I do not think that is correct but maybe a dev can clear this up.
I don't think you're using "balanced" correctly. Balance is a mechanical term, which means two (or more) things are roughly equal for their costs. Your arguments have been mostly based on one way of reading the rules (which is perfectly valid) and the logic of a weapon that's both freezing and burning (which is also perfectly valid). However, those are not balance arguments.
From a balance standpoint, it is horribly unbalanced to make them exclusive so that only one works at a time. Here's why:
A +1 enchant does not have a fixed gold piece value. It instead increases the cost of the weapon by an exponential amount. Therefore, you can only compare it to other +enchants. There are a bunch of +1 enchants, but they basically fall into three categories:
- Weak but almost always useful (+1, Flaming, Frost, Shock, Keen, Ki Focus (for monks), etc)
- Strong but very situational (Ghost Touch, Bane, Mighty Cleaving (for cleavers), etc)
- Strong and generally useful, but require resources (Spell storing, Vicious)
If you make the assumption that Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are balanced (since they both require one feat), then +1 to hit = +2 damage (I think the math actually favors the +hit slightly more than that, but I'm not entirely sure, and it's not really relevant). Thus a +1 enchant is approximately equal to +3 damage. Flaming is +3.5 damage on average. Frost is +3.5 damage on average. Vicious is +7 damage on average, but requires healing. Bane is +13 damage on average, but only against a very limited set of targets.
A +2 enchantment should be approximately twice as effective as a +1. Holy/Unholy/etc are +7 damage with no drawback, but only against a large subset of targets (assuming you choose right for your campaign). The elemental bursts aren't any stronger than their +1 equivalents, except they add to crits which is harder to math out, but they add +5.5 damage per multipler when you do crit. A straight +2 enchant is +6 damage.
Given all this, a +1 flaming frost sword (total +3) should be equivalent to a +1 holy sword (total +3), and both to a simple +3 sword. Under my reading, the first sword would have an equivalent damage of +10 (+3+3.5+3.5), the second would have +10 (+3+7), and the third would be +9. Under your reading, the first would instead be only a +6.5, which means a +1 flaming sword (+2 equivalent) and a +1 flaming/frost/shocking/acidic sword (+5 equivalent) have the same equivalent damage. That is not balanced.
Note that I'm not saying that the rules need to be balanced. I'm just saying that you can't claim they don't stack for balance reasons.
|
|
I don't think you're using "balanced" correctly. Balance is a mechanical term, which means two (or more) things are roughly equal for their costs. Your arguments have been mostly based on one way of reading the rules (which is perfectly valid) and the logic of a weapon that's both freezing and burning (which is also perfectly valid). However, those are not balance arguments.
That is a valid interpretation coming from the idea that it was intended for you to have flaming frost shock weapons. I however think they intended you to NOT do that, which is why it stacks terribly if you go that route.
Lets compare two weapons:
a +1 flaming frost shock shortsword under your rules (Equivalent +4)
with a +2 flaming burst shortsword (Equivalent +4)
the +1 weapon deals 1d6 +3d6 (fire, frost, shock damage) on every hit
the +2 weapon deals 1d6 +1d6 fire damage (+1d10 fire on a crit)
the +1 weapon deals an average of 4+9 damage, total 13
the +2 deals an average of 5+3, total 8 (13 only on crit)
Do you see what I mean by unbalanced? The burst properties start to lose any value unless its on a high crit x4 weapon. Not only that, but the +1 three elemental sword means that a creature with an immunity to one element likely is weak against another mitigating the immunity while the +2 sword deals no additional damage.
[EDIT: Added additional to +2 sword deals no damage]
|
|
I don't think you're using "balanced" correctly. Balance is a mechanical term, which means two (or more) things are roughly equal for their costs. Your arguments have been mostly based on one way of reading the rules (which is perfectly valid) and the logic of a weapon that's both freezing and burning (which is also perfectly valid). However, those are not balance arguments.That is a valid interpretation coming from the idea that it was intended for you to have flaming frost shock weapons. I however think they intended you to NOT do that, which is why it stacks terribly if you go that route.
Lets compare two weapons:
a +1 flaming frost shock shortsword under your rules (Equivalent +4)
with a +2 flaming burst shortsword (Equivalent +4)the +1 weapon deals 1d6 +3d6 (fire, frost, shock damage) on every hit
the +2 weapon deals 1d6 +1d6 fire damage (+1d10 fire on a crit)the +1 weapon deals an average of 4+9 damage, total 13
the +2 deals an average of 5+3, total 8 (13 only on crit)Do you see what I mean by unbalanced? The burst properties start to lose any value unless its on a high crit x4 weapon. Not only that, but the +1 three elemental sword means that a creature with an immunity to one element likely is weak against another mitigating the immunity while the +2 sword deals no damage.
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
|
|
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.