RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions

Are multiple flaming enhancements on the same weapon legal?

Rules Questions

Search Thread

Search this Thread:

Would it be possible to create a +1 flaming weapon that had the flaming enhancement applied 3 times (thus an equivalent to a +4 weapon) and added +3d6 fire damage on a hit?

I don't see anything that directly addresses this in the rules and it does appear that you could create a +1 flaming frost shock weapon (doing +3d6 energy damage) which would seem to be mechanically more effective than +3d6 fire (since resistance would only reduce 1d6 of a multi-energy weapon).

Any thoughts?
Finarin Panjoro wrote:

Would it be possible to create a +1 flaming weapon that had the flaming enhancement applied 3 times (thus an equivalent to a +4 weapon) and added +3d6 fire damage on a hit?

I don't see anything that directly addresses this in the rules and it does appear that you could create a +1 flaming frost shock weapon (doing +3d6 energy damage) which would seem to be mechanically more effective than +3d6 fire (since resistance would only reduce 1d6 of a multi-energy weapon).

Any thoughts?

Multiple bonuses of the same type don't stack. You could have a flaming/frost/electricty weapon, but not a fireX3 weapon.

Dm discression of course, but that's my 2C.
Grand Lodge

We've always played that a flaming weapon could be upgraded to a flaming burst weapon, but that's all you could do to upgrade a single element.
Finarin Panjoro wrote:

Would it be possible to create a +1 flaming weapon that had the flaming enhancement applied 3 times (thus an equivalent to a +4 weapon) and added +3d6 fire damage on a hit?

I don't see anything that directly addresses this in the rules and it does appear that you could create a +1 flaming frost shock weapon (doing +3d6 energy damage) which would seem to be mechanically more effective than +3d6 fire (since resistance would only reduce 1d6 of a multi-energy weapon).

Any thoughts?

RAW: No, you can't. The magic weapons chapter writes "Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once." (I think it has been errata'ed and added in 3. printing).

But whatever the generel rule is, allowing won't be a problem. At certain points it is an advantage to have 3d6 fire, when an opponent has several resistances, an in others a drawback, when an opponent has a high fire resistance or immunity.
Flavorwise I like it a lot better than makin a weapon with many different elemental enhancements.

HaraldKlak,
Yep, you're right by RAW cannot be done. I missed that one crucial sentence in the magic weapons section about special abilities. Thanks.

I concur though that flavorwise it's a much more appealing idea than a flaming frost shock weapon so I may house rule this one.
Finarin Panjoro wrote:

HaraldKlak,

Yep, you're right by RAW cannot be done. I missed that one crucial sentence in the magic weapons section about special abilities. Thanks.

I concur though that flavorwise it's a much more appealing idea than a flaming frost shock weapon so I may house rule this one.

If I were a player of yours, I would hope you do houserule it. I've always hated that part of the rules.

Perhaps you could house rule in homebrew enhancements rather then bypass the existing rules? IE Flaming (1d6) can be upgraded to Improved Flaming (2d6) and Greater Flaming (3d6). Because aside from the damage ones there are some good reasons multiple enhancements of the same kind dont stack (IE a x3 keen weapon). Either way you are going to create exceptions, and its just a matter of how you want to handle it.

For an enhancement like flaming, I don't think it would be ridiculously unbalancing to allow them to stack. Fire resistance is one of the more common resistances/immunities out there.

I'm not so sure that the energy immunities are really balanced out there, though. Acid and sonic still seem under-represted in immunities to me. Allowing them to stack up might be problematic if you want to balance your magical weapons a bit more tightly.

Ultimately, an unbalanced campaign can make weapons with stacked up versions of the same energy damage pretty unbalanced. Stacking up flaming in an arctic campaign where there is lots of vulnerability to heat, too good. Stacking up on electrical damage when going on an expedition to the Abyss where demons are immune, too weak.

Kolokotroni,
That seems like a very reasonable solution to me and avoids a lot of the problematic issues you point out. It also keeps a high-level paladin from quintuple flaming his bonded weapon when up against flame vulnerable creatures (since the improved and greater versions wouldn't be on his bonded weapon list).

Bill Dunn,
True campaign context is a big factor in whether this is balanced or not.

This brings up the question-- can you add both the flaming and the flaming burst property to a weapon?

RAW Flaming and Flaming Burst should stack giving you 2d6 + crit die. It only says that it functions like Flaming, nothing saying it would conflict with the bonus or override it.

Also mathematically, Flaming Bust is kind of shoddy for being a +2 enhancement - 1d10 = E[5.5] *0.25 = E[1.375] with maxed crit an expected 4.875 damage. Without a crit build it's a silly choice.

But as mentioned, you could just go flaming/shocking/frost + holy|unholy to get an additional 5d6 various elemental damage. It would potentially face damage reduction, but that's going to cost you 64K~150K for an expected 17.5 damage. That's a lot of gold for many campaigns.

Like other people said, while the above is legal, it doesn't make as much sense or give the same feel. Assuming you're not talking about an arctic campaign with a player wanting 5d6 fire damage or explicitly exploiting the campaign, I would allow it. Again, you can already do almost the exact same thing anyways, but this would seem more...realistic.

Also remember that there are tons of other amazing options that can easily net more benefit than E[3.5] damage: Bane, Brilliant, Defending, Disruptive, Ghost Touch, Keen, Mighty Cleaving, Speed, Vorpal, and Bleeding. Vorpal can one shot stuff at 5% frequency! Disruptive can one shot undead stuff 25~75% of the time too!
Phage wrote:
RAW Flaming and Flaming Burst should stack giving you 2d6 + crit die. It only says that it functions like Flaming, nothing saying it would conflict with the bonus or override it.

This is not correct, either by RAW or RAI. The Flaming Burst enchantment supersedes the Flaming enchantment.

Mynameisjake wrote:
Phage wrote:
RAW Flaming and Flaming Burst should stack giving you 2d6 + crit die. It only says that it functions like Flaming, nothing saying it would conflict with the bonus or override it.
This is not correct, either by RAW or RAI. The Flaming Burst enchantment supersedes the Flaming enchantment.

I wouldn't be so quick to throw around the term RAI here (or anywhere actually) it's been discussed recently with strong evidence both ways.

Personally I (as a house rule) would be inclined to 'nay say' a stack of flaming and flaming burst, FB seems to supercede. Then again I also have an issue with flaming frost weapons too - they just seem...cheezy.

You could ask the DM to reduce the Enchantment modifier for the Epic “Fiery Blast” from +6 to +5, though it would still be very expensive, though not all that unbalanced compared to other abilities. I think that would grant you exactly what you wanted albeit for a much higher cost.
Grand Lodge
Mynameisjake wrote:
Phage wrote:
RAW Flaming and Flaming Burst should stack giving you 2d6 + crit die. It only says that it functions like Flaming, nothing saying it would conflict with the bonus or override it.
This is not correct, either by RAW or RAI. The Flaming Burst enchantment supersedes the Flaming enchantment.

Umm RAI is debated pretty harshly...but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your RAI is somehow RAW (and not just in this debate, but pretty much everything else). The RAW is that you can not apply special abilities more then once. Flaming is NOT flaming burst. There is no errata or FAQ or mention that flaming burst supersedes flaming as is the case with the <normal>, improved, greater enhancements which specifically says "as <normal>". The bursts has the wording functions LIKE...not the specific "as". By RAW if the bursts were superceding the elemental damage, the wording should be "as flaming except on crit does X extra damage". Not like.

Cold Napalm wrote:


...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your RAI is somehow RAW (and not just in this debate, but pretty much everything else).

Would you be so kind as to back up this rather insulting statement with some actual evidence?

As for the issue at hand, re: flaming stacking with flaming burst, I would point you to the MIC:

Quote:

Table 6–2: Variant Synergy Abilities (Weapons)

Weapon............Prerequisite.......Base Price
Property..........Property...........Modifier

Flaming burst.....Flaming............+1 bonus
Icy burst.........Frost..............+1 bonus
Shocking burst....Shock..............+1 bonus

For those who will immediately disregard anything from 3.5 that disallows their particular munchkin strategy, the description of Flaming Burst makes it equally clear:

Quote:

Flaming Burst: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming

weapon....

Not "like" a Flaming weapon, nor "similar" to a Flaming weapon, but "as a flaming weapon."

This fact is reiterated later in the description when it quite clearly states:

Quote:
In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above)

1. It's already been established that by RAW multiple applications of the Flaming ability do not, in fact, stack.

2. Flaming Burst very specifically states that it grants the Flaming ability (note the "see above" in the description).

So, yes, both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be.

Edit: And who do you have to sell your soul to to get a table to come out right?

I'm happy with that explanation.

Your reference to the synergy system of the Magic Item Compendium serves to show how perfectly clear this issue should be. The MIC simply has the most clear wording of an unchanged enchantment. It's exactly as it has been since i picked up 3.0 10 years ago.

I will specifically use corrosive and acidic burst, the equivalents of flaming and flaming burst. Corrosive and A.burst are each +1 bonuses. Corosive shows that it adds +1d6 acid damage. A.burst shows, without the unclear wording, that it adds +1d10 acid on a critical (more for higher crit modifiers).

What A.burst does not have, is any silly wording, such as "an A.burst weeping functions as a corrosive weapon"

Let's us now compare F.burst, as written in PF, to corrosive and A.burst from MIC.

F.burst is a +2 enchantment with two functions. First, it always deals 1d6 elemental (fire) damage on a hit, as the flaming property. Second, it always deals 1d10 elemental (fire) damage on a critical hit.

Compare to ---

Corrosive - +1 bonus: always deals 1d6 elemental (acid) damage on a hit.
A.burst - +1 bonus: always deals 1d10 elemental (acid) damage on a critical hit.

Seriously, what's the problem? Can we not see that the F.burst at +2 is simply two enchantments rolled into one? The only problem i see here is that MIC (and synergy system) is most likely not OGL, and there for could not be used by Paizo for clarity.
Mynameisjake wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your RAI is somehow RAW (and not just in this debate, but pretty much everything else).

Would you be so kind as to back up this rather insulting statement with some actual evidence?

As for the issue at hand, re: flaming stacking with flaming burst, I would point you to the MIC:

Quote:

Table 6–2: Variant Synergy Abilities (Weapons)

Weapon............Prerequisite.......Base Price
Property..........Property...........Modifier

Flaming burst.....Flaming............+1 bonus
Icy burst.........Frost..............+1 bonus
Shocking burst....Shock..............+1 bonus

For those who will immediately disregard anything from 3.5 that disallows their particular munchkin strategy, the description of Flaming Burst makes it equally clear:

Quote:

Flaming Burst: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming

weapon....

Not "like" a Flaming weapon, nor "similar" to a Flaming weapon, but "as a flaming weapon."

This fact is reiterated later in the description when it quite clearly states:

Quote:
In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above)

1. It's already been established that by RAW multiple applications of the Flaming ability do not, in fact, stack.

2. Flaming Burst very specifically states that it grants the Flaming ability (note the "see above" in the description).

So, yes, both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be.

Edit: And who do you have to sell your soul to to get a table to come out right?

Look, I'm not even disagreeing that this is the RAI. IM just saying that's not really a term you can apply with 100% certainty in any situation. It loses its meaning if you jsut throw it around like that. The fact is the RAI is never clear, and without specific say so never can be by definition. You don't know so don't say you do.

RAW, it is illegal.

In my game, I houserule that a flaming enchantment deals 1d6 per + of the weapon. (innate + only, no greater magic weapon stuff) So a +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. A +5 flaming burst would deal 5d6 plus 5d10 on a critical.
Grand Lodge
Mynameisjake wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your RAI is somehow RAW (and not just in this debate, but pretty much everything else).

Would you be so kind as to back up this rather insulting statement with some actual evidence?

As for the issue at hand, re: flaming stacking with flaming burst, I would point you to the MIC:

Quote:

Table 6–2: Variant Synergy Abilities (Weapons)

Weapon............Prerequisite.......Base Price
Property..........Property...........Modifier

Flaming burst.....Flaming............+1 bonus
Icy burst.........Frost..............+1 bonus
Shocking burst....Shock..............+1 bonus

For those who will immediately disregard anything from 3.5 that disallows their particular munchkin strategy, the description of Flaming Burst makes it equally clear:

Quote:

Flaming Burst: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming

weapon....

Not "like" a Flaming weapon, nor "similar" to a Flaming weapon, but "as a flaming weapon."

This fact is reiterated later in the description when it quite clearly states:

Quote:
In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above)

1. It's already been established that by RAW multiple applications of the Flaming ability do not, in fact, stack.

2. Flaming Burst very specifically states that it grants the Flaming ability (note the "see above" in the description).

So, yes, both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be.

Edit: And who do you have to sell your soul to to get a table to come out right?

Okay what the hell, I looked up the PRD and it uses as, not like. Okay that would make it like the slick etc line. So yes RAW from PRD says your right. Gonna have to see what my core book says when I get it back next monday...but I could have sworn reading the burst used like and not as.

As for the MIC...yeah I ignored rather large chunks of that book that wasn't neat little extra bit trinkets. I find it funny your advocating that book for being anti-munchkin because the rule sets used in that book to break games was pretty astounding. Even the powergaming, rules tweeking people in out group were not happy with a vast majortity of the rules of that book and it's rather explicit system for making magic items that could lend to some REALLY broken thing. And yes the core book's rule one of making a custom item is still there, but really that system was pretty much a bald face ignore rule one...and any non savy DM with a power gamer and that book was in for a world of hurt. MIC was one of my favorite and most hated books of 3.5...all at the same time.

In anycase, stacking flaming and flaming burst is hardly broken. Yeah you do 2d6 fire per hit and some piddly extra on a crit. Or you can do 1d6 lightning, 1d6 acid and 1d6 fire per hit. You do know that the shocking, corrosive, flaming weapon is numerically superior to a flaming, flaming burst weapon right?
Davick wrote:


Look, I'm not even disagreeing that this is the RAI. IM just saying that's not really a term you can apply with 100% certainty in any situation.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "...both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be."

Davick wrote:
It loses its meaning if you jsut throw it around like that.

Throw it around like what? This is one discussion on one thread. Keep your straw man arguments and thinly veiled insults to yourself.

Davick wrote:
The fact is the RAI is never clear, and without specific say so never can be by definition. You don't know so don't say you do.

Even in life or death issues in criminal trials the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "with 100% certainty handed down by God." Both the RAW and the RAI on this issue from at least 2 editions are perfectly clear.

So, yeah, I do know, and I will say so.

If you could not get Flaming and Flaming Burst on the same ability, why would Paizo add a redundant bonus?

Why would they take DnD's +1 Flaming Burst and turn it into a +2 with the Flaming feature included?

If Paizo wanted Flaming Burst to only be added with a Flaming bonus, or require a +2 bonus, why not just add a prerequisite of Flaming and only give Flaming Burst the crit damage? Then you would clearly not be able to stack a flaming effect and there would be no ambiguity. Having two selectable enhancements that offer similar bonuses without explicit erratas stating they don't stack will obviously generate debate.

Also, since this is RAW and we're being pedantic - no where in the description of Flaming is it ever referred to as "flaming ability", only flaming or flaming weapon. Flaming Burst references that it partially functions like Flaming, it references Flaming and Flaming Weapon for its rules twice, however, it never says they are the same.

But really none of the above changes the fact that Flaming Burst is garbage and should never be taken:
Crit chance maxes at 25%
Your initial hits can miss even if they crit(non-natural 20s)
Your crits can miss
A lot of mobs are immune to crit damage
High crit weapons are only 2x damage on a crit

Assuming you hit all your crits, you should expect (1+10)/2*0.25 or 1.375 added damage over Flaming alone. If you adjust for accuracy, you might get less than a single damage out of it. Even if you're reliably hitting, you could just get a standard +1 bonus to your attack and damage and be statistically ahead, especially if that added to hit would allow you to help negate the increasing negatives on Power Attack.

If Paizo wants Flaming Burst not to stack with Flaming they should errata so. If they really want to prevent confusion, just change Flaming Burst to a +1 enhancement and only keep the critical elemental damage without the base 1d6 fire. As it stands right now, I have not seen any explicit rules stating that the two do not stack, no matter how much RAI and previous DnD rules would imply.
Cold Napalm wrote:
Mynameisjake wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your RAI is somehow RAW (and not just in this debate, but pretty much everything else).

Would you be so kind as to back up this rather insulting statement with some actual evidence?

As for the issue at hand, re: flaming stacking with flaming burst, I would point you to the MIC:

Quote:

Table 6–2: Variant Synergy Abilities (Weapons)

Weapon............Prerequisite.......Base Price
Property..........Property...........Modifier

Flaming burst.....Flaming............+1 bonus
Icy burst.........Frost..............+1 bonus
Shocking burst....Shock..............+1 bonus

For those who will immediately disregard anything from 3.5 that disallows their particular munchkin strategy, the description of Flaming Burst makes it equally clear:

Quote:

Flaming Burst: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming

weapon....

Not "like" a Flaming weapon, nor "similar" to a Flaming weapon, but "as a flaming weapon."

This fact is reiterated later in the description when it quite clearly states:

Quote:
In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above)

1. It's already been established that by RAW multiple applications of the Flaming ability do not, in fact, stack.

2. Flaming Burst very specifically states that it grants the Flaming ability (note the "see above" in the description).

So, yes, both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be.

Edit: And who do you have to sell your soul to to get a table to come out right?

Okay what the hell, I looked up the PRD and it uses as, not like. Okay that would make it like the slick etc line. So yes RAW from PRD says your right. Gonna have to see what my core book says when I get it back next monday...but I could have sworn reading the burst used like and not as.

As for the MIC...yeah I ignored rather large chunks of that book that wasn't neat...

My book uses "as". I prefer the idea of multiple flaming than flaming/frosting/shocking.

Mynameisjake wrote:
Davick wrote:


Look, I'm not even disagreeing that this is the RAI. IM just saying that's not really a term you can apply with 100% certainty in any situation.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "...both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be."

Davick wrote:
It loses its meaning if you jsut throw it around like that.

Throw it around like what? This is one discussion on one thread. Keep your straw man arguments and thinly veiled insults to yourself.

Davick wrote:
The fact is the RAI is never clear, and without specific say so never can be by definition. You don't know so don't say you do.

Even in life or death issues in criminal trials the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "with 100% certainty handed down by God." Both the RAW and the RAI on this issue from at least 2 editions are perfectly clear.

So, yeah, I do know, and I will say so.

I see no straw man in what I said and any insults you perceive are entirely of your own making. I even said that I agree it probably is the RAI, but I won't say that I know it is, and I don't think anyone can say that it IS the RAI without confirmation. A trial has an established set of rules to determine guilt to beyond a reasonable doubt, and the term RAI has an established definition that says it can only be stated by those who made the rules with their intentions, and can only at best be speculated on by others. I believe your metaphor there borders more on straw man than anything I said.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Remember that you can have a +1 weapon with +9 worth of abilities in Pathfinder.

I can just imagine a 20th-level rogue running around with a +1 flaming x9 weapon trying to get 1d8 + Str + 1 + 9d6 + 10d6 damage.

Or worse, someone with a +1 flaming, flaming burst, frost, icy burst, shock, shocking burst weapon (that's +10) for +6d6 on normal hits and an additional +3d10 on crits.

This of course, assumes everything stacks, which is under debate. :P
Ravingdork wrote:

Remember that you can have a +1 weapon with +9 worth of abilities in Pathfinder.

I can just imagine a 20th-level rogue running around with a +1 flaming x9 weapon trying to get 1d8 + Str + 1 + 9d6 + 10d6 damage.

Or worse, someone with a +1 flaming, flaming burst, frost, icy burst, shock, shocking burst weapon (that's +10) for +6d6 on normal hits and an additional +3d10 on crits.

This of course, assumes everything stacks, which is under debate. :P

And is hosed anytime he runs into fire resistance. 9d6 fire is an average of 31.5. Nearly the same amount of fire resistance produced by a 2nd level spell, 11th caster level called resist energy.

Not to mention that for 200,000, he just screwed himself out of +4 points of attack bonus, which his 20 rogue levels already have shafted him of 5. Being at least 9 and likely 14+ points behind the fighter is going to make for a real interesting combat.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Remember that you can have a +1 weapon with +9 worth of abilities in Pathfinder.

I can just imagine a 20th-level rogue running around with a +1 flaming x9 weapon trying to get 1d8 + Str + 1 + 9d6 + 10d6 damage.

Or worse, someone with a +1 flaming, flaming burst, frost, icy burst, shock, shocking burst weapon (that's +10) for +6d6 on normal hits and an additional +3d10 on crits.

This of course, assumes everything stacks, which is under debate. :P

And is hosed anytime he runs into fire resistance. 9d6 fire is an average of 31.5. Nearly the same amount of fire resistance produced by a 2nd level spell, 11th caster level called resist energy.

Not to mention that for 200,000, he just screwed himself out of +4 points of attack bonus, which his 20 rogue levels already have shafted him of 5. Being at least 9 and likely 14+ points behind the fighter is going to make for a real interesting combat.

It's okay being behind a fighter's attack bonus. They often have far more than they need (which is why they can afford to sink it into things like Combat Expertise, Power Attack, or Dazing Assault). However, I do agree that a rogue with such a weapon would most likely be screwing himself due to the loss of the attack bonus.

Really it comes down to why rules exist: they offer a communal baseline of expectations and balanced limitations.

If you are a new DM, you likely lack the experience to make judgments as to whether or not deviations will be balanced.

If you are a weathered DM, you likely do have the experience to make balanced judgment calls and shouldn't be afraid to think outside the box.

-

DMs have the final say. They are taking the time to run your game, to generate all its content and implementation, and you should be respectful of whatever they decide.

If they nix your proposed deviation because they are uncomfortable with the idea, that is their decision. It might be because they don't understand the game well enough to determine if it would be exploitative or it could be because they do understand the game and know it would be exploitative (even if you believe otherwise).

On the flip side, DMs have the responsibility of making an enjoyable game for their players. If you're a terrible DM that lacks the ability to create level appropriate encounters, TPKing your groups, people will probably stop playing with you. If you are pedantically rigid to the rules without consideration, people will probably stop playing with you. If you make too many concessions so that the game is too easy, people may also stop playing with you.

Regardless of the actual RAW and RAI, stacking Flaming and Flame Burst, or even multiple Flamings, or whatever other enhancement: your DM needs to decide if it would be too powerful for the expected campaign or not. If you're rarely encountering any mobs with elemental damage reduction, then it would be for flavor purposes. If stacking the same element would provide an exploitative advantage due to common mob resistances, make a judgment call.

Also, if you were to allow stacking multiple buffs, a pair of +1 Vicious +9 weapons would give you 18d6 damage (9d6 to yourself), assuming you had multiple sources of DR to negate that [32.5], you would be dealing ridiculous damage with iterative attacks. If you were doing a specific mob family campaign, like undead, a +9 Bane weapon would be dealing +19+18d6 damage without any damage to the user. These would be multiples more advantageous than a +9 Flaming's 9d6. Of course, Vorpal + Keen on a pair of Kukris currently can give a player 50% chance to decapitate anything from the time its equipable.
Kierato wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Mynameisjake wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your RAI is somehow RAW (and not just in this debate, but pretty much everything else).

Would you be so kind as to back up this rather insulting statement with some actual evidence?

As for the issue at hand, re: flaming stacking with flaming burst, I would point you to the MIC:

Quote:

Table 6–2: Variant Synergy Abilities (Weapons)

Weapon............Prerequisite.......Base Price
Property..........Property...........Modifier

Flaming burst.....Flaming............+1 bonus
Icy burst.........Frost..............+1 bonus
Shocking burst....Shock..............+1 bonus

For those who will immediately disregard anything from 3.5 that disallows their particular munchkin strategy, the description of Flaming Burst makes it equally clear:

Quote:

Flaming Burst: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming

weapon....

Not "like" a Flaming weapon, nor "similar" to a Flaming weapon, but "as a flaming weapon."

This fact is reiterated later in the description when it quite clearly states:

Quote:
In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above)

1. It's already been established that by RAW multiple applications of the Flaming ability do not, in fact, stack.

2. Flaming Burst very specifically states that it grants the Flaming ability (note the "see above" in the description).

So, yes, both RAW and RAI are as clear on the matter as they possibly can be.

Edit: And who do you have to sell your soul to to get a table to come out right?

Okay what the hell, I looked up the PRD and it uses as, not like. Okay that would make it like the slick etc line. So yes RAW from PRD says your right. Gonna have to see what my core book says when I get it back next monday...but I could have sworn reading the burst used like and not as.

As for the MIC...yeah I ignored rather large chunks of that book

...

I don't believe that you can simultaneously benefit from both flaming and frost abilities as they are both command word activated and only stay active until another command is given.

"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."

While you could have a +1 frost flaming weapon, it would only provide versatility ie cold or fire damage, and not additional damage. Alternatively if you had a +1 flaming burst icy burst weapon, it would benefit from both sets of elemental damage on a critical

Quote from the end of the Flaming burst description:

"Even if the flaming ability is not active, the weapon still
deals its extra fire damage on a successful critical hit. "

Kelly
Phage wrote:
Of course, Vorpal + Keen on a pair of Kukris currently can give a player 50% chance to decapitate anything from the time its equipable.

Vorpal is specifically natural 20's only.

Bobson wrote:
Phage wrote:
Of course, Vorpal + Keen on a pair of Kukris currently can give a player 50% chance to decapitate anything from the time its equipable.
Vorpal is specifically natural 20's only.

Oops, duh I even explicitly mentioned that previously. It would be an effective 5% per weapon, so if you paired it with Speed enhancement or Haste at level 20 you could be getting 9 swings with a 5% chance a pop, or roughly an effective 45% max chance per round to decapitate a mob.

Ravingdork wrote:
It's okay being behind a fighter's attack bonus. They often have far more than they need (which is why they can afford to sink it into things like Combat Expertise, Power Attack, or Dazing Assault). However, I do agree that a rogue with such a weapon would most likely be screwing himself due to the loss of the attack bonus.

I completely agree that it is ok to be behind a fighter's attack bonus. Fighters usually auto-hit on their first attack at 20th level. But I don't think a rogue can afford to be so far behind that his weapon enhancement doesn't impact things.

But again, a +5 flaming weapon in my game deals 5d6 fire damage for that +1 bonus. I'm not worried in the least about letting the PCs get ahold of them.
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Are multiple flaming enhancements on the same weapon legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions