Why are weapon energy effects "command word activated"?


Rules Questions

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Has anyone ever seen in the novels Drizzt ever using a command word to activate Icingdeath? It has been a LONG time since I have read the books, but I don't recall him ever having to say a word to activate it, and I also do not rercall him ever freezing his rear becasue of it. It has likly been 'on' long before Drizzt ever picked it up, and since he probably never went to a wizard to have him identify the weapon, he never learned the command word. Lets not forget the staple of fantasy, the flaming sword. I do not recall any movie or book that has a weilder using a command word to make his sword 'flame on.' By this and many many other litarary or cinematic examples, which the game is based on after all, there should be no issues, after all it is the big M word MAGIC. Sure, if a guy stuck a sword into some oil, lit it on fire and then stuck it in his sheath, it would result in some bad singing, at the least, but when you get magic involved, its ALL good.

NOW, a cursed sword that does all that would be cool, thats what cursed magic is supose to be for, a messed up magic item. There is even some games out there that say that magic always has something inhertnelty negative about it, but when talking mainstream dungeons and dragons and Pathfinder, I think it is safe to say that non-cursed magic items in general have no negatives; they do what they are suppose to do with out causing all these hassels.


azhrei_fje wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
First, I see Frost as being exactly the same as Icy Burst with regard to turning it on/off and any rulings about how much it does or does not mess up the wielder or his gear to leave it on.
Hmm, I don't. I see the functions that activate only on a confirmed crit as being use-activated and not command word-activated. Big difference.

See, the Flaming Burst states that it "functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit."

So, it is exactly the same as a flaming weapon with regard to requiring a command word to activate/deactivate it, and with regard to harming the wielder or not harming him. That extra bit about bonus damage on a critical hit is the only difference, and that part isn't really relevant to the OP's question.

The other elemental weapons and burst weapons share the same wording.

Hence my statement above.

azhrei_fje wrote:
Quote:
1. These weapons do not harm the wielder. [...] I think it's clear that the people making these items don't want them burning down their homes, workshops, or personal gear [...]
Um, wouldn't the creator simply tell the brainless fighter, "Don't forget to turn it off by saying 'grizzle-gump-fer-dash' when you're done!"

Maybe, but there are sooooo many ways it might get activated. Especially with regards to flaming, it's a death trap waiting to happen when any apprentice spellcaster spends 3 rounds using his unlimited Detect Magic cantrip to figure out how to turn it on. Maybe even while the owner is sleeping inside his locked room at the inn and the sneaky little apprentice is whispering the command word (that he figured out earlier in the tavern) through the door.

No, it's just every so much safer if these weapons need to be wielded to be activated.

Heck, it even says as much right there in the text - the effect doesn't harm the "wielder". Sure, it's just an inference that this might mean there is no effect when the weapon isn't wielded, but it is a fairly reasonable inference.

azhrei_fje wrote:
It's interesting that you reject the "indirect" concept here, yet apparently abide by it in the case of invisibility. Why is that?

I have no idea what you mean. In all cases I quoted, I suggested that the item cannot be activated unless it is also wielded.

azhrei_fje wrote:
Quote:
2. [...] Cold is a lot safer, but it will still kill your horse or make your chair brittle enough to break or make your friends standing near you very upset that you're freezing them.
All that without any statement in the RAW that they don't affect the wielder's gear?

I thought I made it abundantly clear (since I stated multiple times that I wasn't citing RAW) that I was arguing the logical side of weapon creation/usage.

Nobody wants a weapon that kills their horses, burns their friends, freezes thier kittens, burns down the neighborhood seamstress shop, or drips acid all over the tavern floor and chairs.

Sure, they can turn it off.

A locomotive can be turned off too - but because it's awfully dangerous, train designers built locomotives with dead-man switches so the locomotive could only be activated while the train engineer was deliberately "wielding" the dead-man switch.

Likewise with dangerous magical items.

IMO.

azhrei_fje wrote:
Quote:
3. Also not RAW (or, maybe it is RAW and I just don't know where to look for it), but I don't think items can function unattended. [...]

IMO your examples are meaningless. A ring of invisibility is activated and targets the wearer with the magic, so a ring that is removed becomes visible per the invisibility spell description. Ditto the staff of fire that cannot be activated except by a spellcaster.

But here we have a weapon that by RAW can be activated and NEVER turned off. Would you leave it leaning up against the wall in a corner of your bedroom? I think not!

You know, if flames are bursting out of your sword and running along your arms, you would certainly remember to deactivate it.

But if it is merely a cold stick, like a staff, and you are immune to that particular cold, you might very well forget to turn it off.

It would probably be at least as easy as leaving your car's headlights on, maybe easier since those halogen lights are extraordinarily bright.

People leave their headlights on all the time. I bet people might forget to turn off their weapons, especially those that look and feel pretty much normal to them.

Awfully tragic if you lean your spear up against the wall while you get a drink in a tavern and along comes the barmaid who accidentally brushes up against it and drops dead from a good roll on that d6 of elemental damage she just took.

azhrei_fje wrote:
You can assume it turns itself off after 3 rounds of inactivity (or some other arbitrary boundary), but that means a player that wants his PC to have it always on will simply state, "I go around activating the weapon every 3 rounds." Of course, if activating the weapon creates noise (speaking the command word at a minimum, but maybe a little *woosh* sound as it powers up, not unlike a light saber but lower pitched?!) then the PC won't want to be turning it on all of the time because of the noise.

I personally assume no such thing.

I assume it stays active while the wielder is wielding it. That can be a round, a minute, an hour, a whole day if he wants to.

Once he puts it down, drops it, sheaths it, stores it, puts it away, or loses posession of it in any way, it deactivates. Of course, he can turn it off, too, at any time.

As far as thrown weapons and ammunition, the deactivation is at the end of the turn. If your initiative is 16, and you throw your frost sword on the ground, at the end of your turn it deactivates. Some orc picks it up on 15, it's not actively frosting at that point. Likewise if you throw your frost dagger or fire your frost bow on 16, the dagger and arrow only remain actively frosty until the end of your turn. If you hold onto your activated frost sword and the orc disarms you on 15, then it remains frost-activated until the end of the orc's turn, and then when the kobold picks it up on 14, it's not activated.

azhrei_fje wrote:
In addition, I've seen on ENworld comments that multiple effects can be keyed to the same command word. Some GMs argue for it, others against. Again, no answer via RAW. I'd be okay with that; the player using such an item with multiple abilities might be out of luck if they encounter a creature healed by one of the abilities. >D

Yep, it's a double-edged sword here (no pun intended).

Using different key-words means you can control what you're using. No point activating the fire when you're fighting a fire elemental.

But using just one key-word means only one action to activate everything - this can be a real time-saver.

azhrei_fje wrote:
Let's assume you go with the idea that once turned on, it just stays on and doesn't hurt the wielder/carrier nor any of their gear. Would a frost weapon have the potential to freeze potions? Is that considered "harm"? Could your water ration freeze?

If you say yes, then you must also say yes to a flaming weapon boiling your potions and water. And if you say yes to that, then it will also burn your backpack and everything in it. And if you say yes to that, then it must also burn up your clothes and leave you standing there naked, with no other equipment than your flaming sword.

As I've said before, I don't think anyone would make such a weapon (unless it's cursed) and I don't think anyone would buy such a weapon.

azhrei_fje wrote:
If an energy weapon is "on" and then the weapon is dropped (or disarmed), there is now no wielder for the weapon. Does anyone who picks it up take energy damage from it? Why or why not?

For me, no. It turns off when it is dropped because it is no longer being wielded.

The ability says "the wielder is not harmed" by the effect. I will take that to include the unwritten clause that the effect requires a wielder, for reasons I stated in my original post and in this post as well - not including this safety feature is a death trap.

azhrei_fje wrote:
Last, what would you do to the price of an ability that requires a command word (such as frost) to make it use-activated instead? This would seem to solve the whole problem, although you don't get any of the cool fluff to describe the scene now... :)

The price of "Command Word" is 90% of the price of "Use Activated" (see Table 15-29 on page 550), so that's how I would alter the price.

A +1 frost longbow costs 8,375 gold per RAW. 375 of that is the bow, 8,000 of that is the enchanment. Multiply by 10 and divide by 9 and you get 8,889 gold for th enchantment, but I hate awkward numbers like that, so I would probably round to 8,900 (or even 9,000 if I were feeling puckish). Add the price of the bow and the cost is 9,274 (or 9,275 or puckishly 9,375).

Now it requires no command words, it doesn't freeze you or your friends or your kittens or your potions, and every arrow "used" (fired) from the bow gets the +1 frost enchantment. If it were a sword, it would be +1 frost while it is "used" in your hand, and it would only be +1 while it is sheathed or dropped or sitting on your table or leaning against your wall, etc.


Simple house rule:

Activating/deactivating energy weapons is a free mental action once per round.


I have a few points:

1) You should probably tell your player that he doesn't need to put Frost and Icy Burst on the same weapon. Icy Burst IS Frost + the bonus Crit damage.

PRD wrote:
Icy Burst: An icy burst weapon functions as a frost weapon that also explodes with frost upon striking a successful critical hit. The frost does not harm the wielder. In addition to the extra damage from the frost ability, an icy burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of cold damage on a successful critical hit. If the weapon's critical multiplier is ×3, add an extra 2d10 points of cold damage instead, and if the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d10 points.

2) It says right in the description the elemental damage doesn't harm the wielder, seems pretty straight forward to me. As for whether or not a Flaming weapon would catch a room on fire: Personally I would agree with DM_Blake, the weapon needs to be wielded to be active, that can even be inferred from what James Jacobs posted about it being suppressed while in its sheath, if a weapon becomes suppressed when it is sheathed, why wouldn't it also become suppressed when it is dropped or laid down. If you don't accept that I would say: It doesn't say that your enemy catches on fire when you hit him (doing fire damage is not the same as catching on fire), why would it catch your room on fire while you sleep?

As an addition to this point: When your party comes across a magic weapon (Flaming) is that weapon on fire when the find it? If so there is probably no need for them to identify it. If not then you are breaking your own rules. The weapon was most likely in use before the Dragon killed its wielder and added it to his horde. Therefore, if it doesn't turn itself off when not being actively wielded it should still be burning.

3) The point of having magical weapons is to enhance your character and have fun wielding an elementally charged weapon. Why would you intentionally add rulings to the weapon that are not in the rules which will make them so cumbersome to your players that they aren't even worth having.

4) Several reasons were touched on why you might want to turn the elemental energy on your weapon off. Fighting a Fire Elemental with a Flaming Long sword is a good reason to want an off switch. Sneaking up behind someone with your Short Sword in hand would be another. Unless all NPC's are so stupid or so blind that they can’t see the really bright almost torch like light approaching.

5) The majority of the debate should have been over after this post, it is an official ruling:

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

6) As for ranged weapons, they impart their enchantments to the ammunition. A Flaming Bow doesn't sheath itself in fire, it shoots a Flaming Arrow. This was explicitly stated in the rules in the 3.5 DMG although I can't find it right now in the PRD. If you would rather ignore that and visualize that you have a Flaming bow, go for it. The Flame still isn't going to hurt the guy holding the bow so why would it catch him on fire when he throws it over his shoulder? Better yet, if a Flaming sword is suppressed when sheathed, why wouldn’t a Flaming bow also be suppressed when put away (IE: Not wielded). Which is further support for the, if a Flaming weapon isn't wielded it doesn't stay flaming argument.


Sidebar question:

Does anyone allow an elemental weapon, a creature with the burn ability or even a torch to be use it with a TOUCH ATTACK to deal only the energy damage?

I'm tempted to allow it but maybe as an improvised weapon for elemental weapons and regular touch attack for natural weapons with abilities.

What do you guys think?

As for the command word thing, I use the command word as STD Action but since it doesn't harm the wielder (I assume is gear his safe like a wearer making a save) but I still make it noticeable so you might want to turn it off before some social situation or for discretion.


@azhrei_fje

Maybe the reason is for ballance.
The rule used to exist since the 3rd ed. You just have to "lose" your first action if you want to be stronger the rest of the combat....
You can find whatever excuse you want to cover it by roleplaying means.

Otherwise your magic gear doesnt harm you.

Maybe the developers have answers to this.


Malikor wrote:
Has anyone ever seen in the novels Drizzt ever using a command word to activate Icingdeath? It has been a LONG time since I have read the books, but I don't recall him ever having to say a word to activate it, and I also do not rercall him ever freezing his rear becasue of it. It has likly been 'on' long before Drizzt ever picked it up, and since he probably never went to a wizard to have him identify the weapon, he never learned the command word.

Maybe the "DM" in Drizzt novels use a differnt system for elemental weapons. Because Drizzt doesnt use a command word to activate the weapon but he CANT deactivate it either. ANd i dont think thats because he cant find a fellow wizard to identify the weapon. :P


Gyftomancer wrote:
Maybe the "DM" in Drizzt novels use a differnt system for elemental weapons. Because Drizzt doesnt use a command word to activate the weapon but he CANT deactivate it either. ANd i dont think thats because he cant find a fellow wizard to identify the weapon. :P

I was just trying to point out, that this game is not 'real' and magic can do funkey things, such as allow a weapon to be flaming in the first place. And that literature and movies, which came out long before the game to be honest, and is what a lot of the game is based on, doesn't deal with the nasty complications of the flaming sword being put in its sheath still on fire, becasue its magic. Afterall, if you wanna go realistic with fire, then a fire ball should not be able to be used underwater period, rather than needing to make a spellcraft check. And lighting, oh boy. It should do some wild things underwater.

Now yes, if your trying to be 'realisitic' about magic, maybe it will singe and burn your house down, but personaly, that makes magic less magic and more scienceish.

Oh, and to the one who asked if people let people use a touch attack to do just the elemental damage. I have let it happen, and I have had not problems with it. It usualy only comes up once in a while. I also let them light things on fire, and freeze things or whatnot (though trying to freeze a whole pond, let alone a lake) might be beyond the capability of a frost sword, under normal circumstances.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
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.

[Emphasis added]

PRD wrote:
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.

[Emphasis added]

Oh noes! It shuts itself off when activated!

Seriously, though, I've always ruled that it didn't affect the environment at all except on some kind of an attack roll (or automatic hit, like a coup de grace). Anything else just seems, well, problematic. Can't you just see primitive environmentalists telling everyone to make sure they don't leave their flaming swords on, as it contributes to global warming? Does the acid from an acid sword drip and ruin the carpet?

I feel it is easiest and best to treat them as cosmetic effects, with maybe a hint of flavorful description (it feels slightly warm/cold/tingly/vibrate-y to the touch) and that, if someone did extensive scientific testing for affect, they would find out has no actual change on temperature(up)/temperature(down)/pH balance/movement without some type of attack. It's like a magical placebo effect or something. Or a safety. An internal safety, like on a Glock. It only fires if you pull the trigger...but assumes that if you pull the trigger, you meant it.

I guess the command word is more like an external safety. And a method of disguising it from anyone too lazy to spend their time constantly casting/concentrating on "detect magic." I also feel like the need to activate it with a command word every battle is pointless, especially on multi-ability weapons, so I'll just stick with the description provided by Mr. Jacobs...mostly. I figure if it leaves your hand, it may seem to deactivate, but likely didn't. Wielding it again makes those flames/whatever reappear. As for unidentified magic items...I figure it's not horrible to say that magic items deactivate after a month or so, maybe, with that potentially up to the designer. Not something someone would notice, if they ever practiced at all. I've never liked the idea that all magic items were, essentially, identical, because I don't feel it's within the intent of the system. It feels like the designer of the weapon should have some say in the non-rule effects. If you can't suppress its light (remember 30% of magic weapons glow like a torch, all the time) maybe you can't suppress its flames. Or maybe you can. Maybe someone designed it so it could only be activated all-or-nothing, not each ability individually. Each one has little quirks that don't necessarily mean anything in-game, but adds flavor.

I once had a character cast everburning torch on his full plate, just for effect. Good times.

Dark Archive

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Malachi Tarchannen wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but a very funny example of how I (as DM) addressed this issue.

This item in question was a decanter of endless water, which after much deliberation, I agreed to let the party affix to the end of their makeshift raft for propulsion (geyser mode). (It was just so ingenious an idea that I let it work...) Anyway, they were attacked while rafting from below by a behemoth crocodile, which destroyed the raft and sent the decanter into the water.

Now, because I ruled that it's on until the owner possesses it and utters the command word to turn if off, the decanter jetted erratically all throughout that lake and eventually out of sight.

Months later, they went back to look for it and after a bit of magical scuba-diving, found that it had lodged itself deep into a crevace, and was still endlessly jetting a fissure of water into the lake (which had risen several inches in level by then). The owner had a real challenge reaching his prize item, since he had to swim against the current of a geyser.

I don't believe they've used it that way since. :)

+1

+2. I think that is how the item works, and how I would have handled it; unless I'm completely wrong, 'Night Below' boxed set even had a side-trek in which a swamp was expanding because a 'Ring of Elemental Command' or a 'Decantless or Endless Water' (can't recall which, and I'm too lazy to dig out box) had been activated and was continuously pouring water from the Plane of Water.

Dark Archive

RicoTheBold wrote:
I feel it is easiest and best to treat them as cosmetic effects, with maybe a hint of flavorful description (it feels slightly warm/cold/tingly/vibrate-y to the touch) and that, if someone did extensive scientific testing for affect, they would find out has no actual change on temperature(up)/temperature(down)/pH balance/movement without some type of attack. It's like a magical placebo effect or something. Or a safety. An internal safety, like on a Glock. It only fires if you pull the trigger...but assumes that if you pull the trigger, you meant it.

This; it feels slightly cold/warm/acidic to touch, but that's all until it is used to attack something. If a weapon would harm its surroundings (e.g. burn anything it touches), which wizard would ever want to create such an item in their lab? The fact that it doesn't harm the wielder tells me that simply touching isn't enough; you need to strike purposefully to harm someone (and maybe the weapon only "responds" to the wielder's violent intentions and emotions, i.e. functions when used in combat).

Quote:
I guess the command word is more like an external safety. And a method of disguising it from anyone too lazy to spend their time constantly casting/concentrating on "detect magic." I also feel like the need to activate it with a command word every battle is pointless, especially on multi-ability...

Yea, I definitely would mur... er, I mean, I know some Chelaxian dwarves who definitely would murder for an obviously magical weapon! ;)

@OP: It's clear that the player who asked about this is seeking a mechanical advantage (reminds me a bit of the case in which a player said "I'll keep readying even outside combat, so I never need to roll Initiative!" and another with "I *never* said I stopped using Spot and Listen..." back in 3.0), and I wouldn't even discuss this issue.

Tell him/her that whenever the character does anything that requires the use of hands (eating, drinking, donning armor, etc.) the power goes off. If the player persists, use long descriptions of "mundane" chores and have NPCs react to his eccentric behaviour ("Er, sir, you look kind of aggressive to me, and waving a strung bow in your hand is not allowed inside the town!").

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Why are weapon energy effects "command word activated"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.