|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
So weapons get the delightful flaming/frost/shocking/etc enhancement for a +1 bonus cost.
The next level of that, the flaming burst/icy burst/shocking burst/etc enhancement is a +2 bonus cost.
If I have a +1 frost waraxe (total enhancement of +2) and want to add icy burst, how does that work exactly?
Do I now have a +1 frost icy burst waraxe, that does +1d6 cold (from frost) and +1d6 cold (from icy burst) and then extra damage on a crit for a total bonus of +4? (+1 regular, +1 frost, +2 icy burst). This would clearly have an enhancement cost of 32k gold
Or do I have a +1 icy burst waraxe, that does just the 1d6 cold from icy burst and then extra damage on a crit, for a total bonus of +3 (+1 regular, +2 icy burst). This would clearly have an enhancement cost of 16k gold.
In other words, is the icy burst a +1 upgrade from the frost, or does it ADD?
Coldly yours, Estragon al'Godot
Or do I have a +1 icy burst waraxe, that does just the 1d6 cold from icy burst and then extra damage on a crit, for a total bonus of +3 (+1 regular, +2 icy burst). This would clearly have an enhancement cost of 16k gold.
In other words, is the icy burst a +1 upgrade from the frost, or does it ADD?
I have always seen it as a +1 upgrade from the frost weapon.
RAW-wise, if they were seperate, the +1d6 from the two special abilities would stack, since they are from identical abilities (as icy burst specifically mentions that it functions as a frost weapon).
Leaving RAW aside, I would mind you making a +1 frost icy burst weapons, for a +2d6 extra damage. Rather that than the rule-wise legal +1 flaming icy burst weapon.
is the icy burst a +1 upgrade from the frost, or does it ADD?
Coldly yours, Estragon al'Godot
I would say either. I'm not sure if it's allowed, but I've always let players if they want have a weapon with xd6 fire or frost etc if they like. It gives a cool mental image of a roaring inferno weapon and I don't see how it would tip anything in their favor, they're just as likely to fight something immune to fire as vulnerable to it, and more likely to fight something resistant to it than not, and I think that applies to all the elements, which it's perfectly legal to mix.
|
I now have a +1 frost icy burst waraxe, that does +1d6 cold (from frost) and +1d6 cold (from icy burst) and then extra damage on a crit for a total bonus of +4.That one.
This has always been my interpretation as well.
I have always seen it as a +1 upgrade from the frost weapon.RAW-wise, if they were seperate, the +1d6 from the two special abilities would stack, since they are from identical abilities (as icy burst specifically mentions that it functions as a frost weapon).
Leaving RAW aside, I would mind you making a +1 frost icy burst weapons, for a +2d6 extra damage. Rather that than the rule-wise legal +1 flaming icy burst weapon.
Actually, RAW-wise, it's not clear. Everyone I've ever gamed with has done it with them stacking (actually, most people never bothered putting any burst enhancements on their weapons). That said, I can definitely see how one could read it the other way.
I know in 3.0 that "Flametongue" was a Flaming and Flaming Burst weapon, which implied they stacked. The weapon was changed in 3.5 and Pathfinder, which may imply that they don't stack, or it might imply that a generic "+1 +1 +2 weapon" with nothing special about it was a waste of space (or both). There are no examples or clarifications provided anywhere that I know of, so at this point the RAW is no longer clear on this case.
Either interpretation is fine, as long as everyone at your table agrees.
It'd be nice to have a developer comment/clarification here, but I imagine this is fairly low on their priority list.
EDIT: I was going to make a smart-mouth comment about how this was about as high a priority as the old "Blind Burrowing Earth Elementals" problem, but apparently Earth Elementals have tremorsense now. Clever.
Yar.
Really?
Huh.
I always though it was the other way around... namely
I have a +1 icy burst waraxe, that does just the 1d6 cold from icy burst and then extra damage on a crit, for a total bonus of +3 (+1 regular, +2 icy burst). This would clearly have an enhancement cost of 16k gold.
This.
To quote the ability:
Flaming Burst[/url]]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, 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.
This clearly (to me) stats that a flaming burst is a flaming weapon that also bursts on a crit. It does not say +1d6 as a flaming weapon. It says "...A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes ..." and "... In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability, a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit." That is, it is an upgrade from the flaming ability, thus replacing that abilty.
To use the OP example, it would be a +1 Frost upgraded to a +1 Icy Burst (+3 total). It would not be a +1 Frost Icy Burst (+4 total). The weapon sounds really strange if it became a +1 Flaming Flaming Burst. o_O
Just my thoughts.
~P
This last post is correct.
Flaming Burst adds 'burst' to a flaming weapon. It does +d6 Fire damage on all attacks, and then, if you crit, does +d10's of burst damage.
NO,you don't get +2d6 Flaming AND the Burst.
===Aelryinth
|
|
Both the previous posters are prefectly valid in suggesting their interpretation, but it's not really the Rules As Written unless there's something to cite.
Something beyond "stock description that hasn't changed since 3.0, when there was a printed weapon that suggested they did stack".
The text hasn't changed. There was a weapon that suggested the effects stacked. Its properties were altered in 3.5 for reasons unknown. The random weapon tables do not indicate that one should re-roll if a weapon ends up with both +1d6 and +1d6+crit, they just include a generic "discard conflicts" comment. Numerous posters have responded with no clear consensus on which interpretation is correct.
To my knowledge, there's no other information available. It's not clear. It's probably the case that they don't stack, given the way it's presented, but it's not clear.
Do it whichever way is more fun for your group.
|
This last post is correct.
Flaming Burst adds 'burst' to a flaming weapon. It does +d6 Fire damage on all attacks, and then, if you crit, does +d10's of burst damage.
NO,you don't get +2d6 Flaming AND the Burst.
I agree with Aelryinth. In my previous post, I somehow read that it was flaming and icy burst, not two elements of the same type.
I'd say you either can upgrade from flaming to [/i]firey burst[/i] (for a +1 increase in cost to a total of +2) OR the two properties stack (for a total of +3 cost), giving you +2d6 fire damage +burst. Either way seems to be a valid interpretation, and there's actually nothing broken about using both as valid - you can freely enchant up the scale for the difference in cost, the same way you enchant up the flat enhancement bonus:
+1: +1d6 element
+2: +1d6 element + burst
+3: +2d6 element + burst
If you can have a shocking flaming icy burst weapon, why can't you have a shocking frost icy burst weapon?
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The interpretation that my group goes with is that the (element) burst is an +1 bonus upgrade to any (element) weapon ability. and is only listed in the tables as +2 for completeness.
Example:
a +1 sword with frost would be a +2 weapon that deals +1d6 cold damage.
A +1 sword with frost plus frost burst would be a +3 weapon that deals +1d6 cold damage as well as +1d10 upon confirming a critical.
Edit: hit the FAQ button.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree in that the burst property is supposed to replace the 'lesser' version, otherwise I do not see a problem to stacking them as long as you pay +2 cost for the burst property separate.
I actually kinda like my home made magical weapons just a little bit different, a flaming fiery burst guisarm +3 is just nicer flavorwise than just stacking energy damages of different types on it.
You can no more stack them than you can stack flaming with flaming. Bonuses from the same source don't stack.
Frost Flaming Acidic and Shocking are all bonuses of different types (different elemental types) and stack.
Flaming and Flaming Burst, on the other hand, are the same source. Flaming burst says it's flaming plus something. If you could stack the two, you could buy flaming twice and stack it. Same effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar!
I’m going to add some more fuel to this thread. This is all linked and page referenced quotes from the PRD (published by Paizo, not to be confused with the SRD, a great site and resource, but still fan based).
I've already quoted an example of the Elemental Burst property, found on pages 470-472 of the CRB, linked to the PRD of the same property.
Honestly, this doesn't really add anything to either side.
Enhance Arrows, Arcane Archer, CRB page 375-376]At 1st level, every nonmagical arrow an arcane archer nocks and lets fly becomes magical, gaining a +1 enhancement bonus. Unlike magic weapons created by normal means, the archer need not spend gold pieces to accomplish this task. However, an archer's magic arrows only function for him.
In addition, the arcane archer's arrows gain a number of additional qualities as he gains additional levels. The elemental, elemental burst, and aligned qualities can be changed once per day, when the arcane archer prepares spells or, in the case of spontaneous spellcasters, after 8 hours of rest.
At 3rd level, every non-magical arrow fired by an arcane archer gains one of the following elemental themed weapon qualities: flaming, frost, or shock.
At 5th level, every non-magical arrow fired by an arcane archer gains the distance weapon quality.
At 7th level, every non-magical arrow fired by an arcane archer gains one of the following elemental burst weapon qualities: flaming burst, icy burst, or shocking burst. This ability replaces the ability gained at 3rd level.
At 9th level, every non-magical arrow fired by an arcane archer gains one of the following aligned weapon qualities: anarchic, axiomatic, holy, or unholy. The arcane archer cannot choose an ability that is the opposite of his alignment (for example, a lawful good arcane archer could not choose anarchic or unholy as his weapon quality).
The bonuses granted by a magic bow apply as normal to arrows that have been enhanced with this ability. Only the larger enhancement bonus applies. Duplicate abilities do not stack.
"This ability replaces the ability gained at 3rd level" suggests to me that Elemental Burst properties are meant to replace, not stack with, basic Elemental properties. But that's just me.
Flames of the Faithful, Inquisitor spell level 2, APG page 222-223[/url]]With a touch, you cause a glowing rune to appear on a single weapon, granting that weapon the flaming property (and allowing it to cause an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit). If you are using the judgment class feature, your weapon gains the flaming burst property instead.
The spell functions only for weapons that you wield. If the weapon leaves your hand for any reason, the spell effect ends. The effects of this spell do not stack with any existing flaming or flaming burst weapon property that the target weapon may already possess.
"...your weapon gains the flaming burst property instead." Instead being the word of the day. "The effects of this spell do not stack with any existing flaming or flaming burst weapon property that the target weapon may already possess."
This may be a case of specific trumping general... or it may be a case or precedent, RAI for an unclear rule being put into RAW. *shrugs*
Also, in all of the CRB, APG, Bestiary 1 & 2, and the GMG, there are plenty of instances of Elemental weapons, and Elemental Burst weapons, but absolutely no instances of Elemental-(same)Elemental Burst weapons.
The exact text for the 3.0 version of the flametongue is this (copying from my copy of the book, as I only have linked to d20srd.org, which is 3.5)
This +1 flaming longsword (+1d6 points of fire damage with each hit) is also a flaming burst weapon (+1d10 points of bonus fire damage on a critical hit; see flaming burst, above).
That is it. It does list its price at 32315, which is a +4 weapon. Though when I was playing 3.0, no one ever took burst because it only listed the extra +1d10 on a crit plus the flaming ability, which was not worth an extra +2 enhancement cost when the same ability does not stack. heck, this description specifically tells me exactly what the bonuses are: +1d6 on every hit, +1d10 on crits. That is it.
My understanding of the 3.5 errata was that the reduction in the flametongues price to a +3 weapon and making elemental bursts overlap with instead of being a weak and unattractive stack to regular elemental properties to be intentional (and honestly made the burst property much more attractive to my group).
Perhaps I'm wrong. If the RAI turns out to be that they do stack, and you can chose between stacking them or making an upgrade from elemental to elemental burst (that is, turn a +1 flaming weapon into either a +1 flaming burst (+3 total) weapon or a +1 flaming flaming burst (+4 total) weapon), then I will happily make the change. But looking at pathfinder rules as written only, I just don't see them stacking. I do believe that the are both included in the table as separate entities simply for completeness' sake.
~P
Also: mdt: +1
|
|
All of these are good arguments, and I have made them in my head, which is why I came here to ask.
The real clarification I need is for the pricing. If they do not stack, then I certainly hope that adding 1d10 cold dmg only on crits does not cost an ADDITIONAL +2 enhancement cost. That is completely not worth it.
If I can make the upgrade for an add'l +1 cost, then I might do it.
All of these are good arguments, and I have made them in my head, which is why I came here to ask.
The real clarification I need is for the pricing. If they do not stack, then I certainly hope that adding 1d10 cold dmg only on crits does not cost an ADDITIONAL +2 enhancement cost. That is completely not worth it.
If I can make the upgrade for an add'l +1 cost, then I might do it.
Nope, it would be an upgrade, a +1 Frost longsword (+2) would become a +1 Icy Burst longsword (+3) weapon, same as if you took a +1 longsword and added Icy Burst directly. Both would be +3 weapons and cost appropriately.
Here, however, is something that comes with no caveat regarding stacking. So you can have flaming arrows shot from a flaming bow that do +2d6 fire damage, should you flaming desire it!
Flame Arrow
School transmutation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a drop of oil and a small piece of flint)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target fifty projectiles, all of which must be together at the time of casting
Duration 10 min./level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell allows you to turn ammunition (such as arrows, crossbow bolts, shuriken, and sling stones) into fiery projectiles. Each piece of ammunition deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage to any target it hits. A flaming projectile can easily ignite a flammable object or structure, but it won't ignite a creature it strikes.
Here, however, is something that comes with no caveat regarding stacking. So you can have flaming arrows shot from a flaming bow that do +2d6 fire damage, should you flaming desire it!
** spoiler omitted **
Two different sources. :)
Two different sources. :)Here, however, is something that comes with no caveat regarding stacking. So you can have flaming arrows shot from a flaming bow that do +2d6 fire damage, should you flaming desire it!
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, if Flames of the Faithful makes the weapon flaming instead of just adding fire bonus damage, you would figure Flame Arrows would do the same thing. I just find it quirky that with all the examples Pirate gave, there is at least this spell that sticks out as still giving essentially the flaming property, but technically stacking.
I have a feeling that it probably should be errata'd, but it seems good for now!
The WotC 3.5 Magic Item Compendium has a bunch of "xxx Burst" weapon properties, which are all listed as having a "synergy" with the "xxx" counterpart, and you need to have the lesser ability in order to add the "Burst" ability.
For instance, you have "Corrosive Burst" which works as a synergy with "Corrosive". It functions "as Corrosive" with some bonuses.
Page 224-225 discusses these synergy properties, and lists additional properties from the DMG that could be reworked the same way, such as "Flaming" and "Flaming Burst". Adding "Flaming Burst" would then add +1 to the price of a "Flaming" weapon.
It also goes on to say:
"This doesn't really change the end price of the armor or weapon, but it creates an inexpensive starting point and obvious upgrade path to reach what would otherwise be an exceptionally expensive end point. Typically, these synergy abilities supersede or simply replace the prerequisite property."
Which clearly indicates that the two abilities wouldn't stack. Either way, it would be a DM/GM call which option to use.