| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I mean by paying the difference between the two enchantments.
Flaming burst is described as performing as a "flaming weapon" but adds additional damage on a critical hit.
If this is legal, I assume you could do the same with any weapon with one of the energy enchantments.
I don't see why not. As you said, it is already doing the "flaming" so you are adding the burst. I've never had an issue with this, and neither have any of my DMs.
Adding New AbilitiesSometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
That type of upgrade is perfectly fine for my games, too.
The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium also supported this method of handling the elemental enchantments and their burst versions.
This should be changed in the next version of Pathfinder. Burst should be a +1 and require the weapon to have flaming, shock, etc. Would be much simpler.
Thanks, that's what I figured.
No, not legal because they are two separate enchantments. It is very reasonable to allow this, but it is not rules legal.
|
No, not legal because they are two separate enchantments. It is very reasonable to allow this, but it is not rules legal.
Agreed. Per-RAW there is no different from doing this as "upgrading" a flaming weapon to a holy weapon.. as they are completely different enchantments.
Now, that being said, I could see allowing this upgrade (and others that are the same style, just greater power) as a house rule.
I understand the strict reading of the RAW could be interpreted as not allowing this. However, since the description of "flaming burst" actually references "flaming" instead of restating what "flaming" does, I think the RAW could be interpreted as allowing an upgrade as well. That reading would not allow upgrading "flaming" to "holy."
|
|
I understand the strict reading of the RAW could be interpreted as not allowing this. However, since the description of "flaming burst" actually references "flaming" instead of restating what "flaming" does, I think the RAW could be interpreted as allowing an upgrade as well. That reading would not allow upgrading "flaming" to "holy."
Nothing in the RAW says that you can remove one enhancement to add another. The upgrade rules are for adding powers to weapons only. This would create a +1 flaming, flaming burst weapon, as they are separate enhancements.
But as I said, for similar enhancements like flaming/flaming burst, I could see a perfectly logical house rule to allow that upgrade, since a flaming, flaming burst weapon is silly to me.
Agreed: it's technically not RAW, but I would allow that in my game.
By paying the price difference isn't and adding flaming burst isn't it mechanically the same thing?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the RAW argument is that flaming and flaming burst are independent enchantments, then can't I have a +1 flaming flaming burst weapon that deals +2d6 fire damage per hit?
|
|
If the RAW argument is that flaming and flaming burst are independent enchantments, then can't I have a +1 flaming flaming burst weapon that deals +2d6 fire damage per hit?
By RAW, there is nothing I can see that would stop that, since they are separate enchantments, doing instant effects (like being hit by two fireball at the same time).(other then the GM saying that it was silly. )
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I believe "RAW" don't say you fall prone when unconscious, so I have a somewhat negative view of people who insist anything that's not "RAW" isn't possible. Or conversely, saying that anything that's not in the "RAW" is allowed.
In this case, one enhancement completely supersedes the other. It's obvious you can move from one to the other using the existing rules for adding properties to an item. The item upgrade rules take up less than 1/4 page, they're not an exhaustive list of what can be made into what.
I concur with Happler. As the rules are defined flaming is not the same as Flaming Burst, nor is Flaming Burst an upgraded version of Flaming, they appear to be separate enchantments - although that may not be what was intended.
This is a side note, but similiar so bear with me here... you could have a Flaming Bow that shoots arrows enchanted by the Flame Arrow Spell. You'd do +2d6 fire damage since Flame Arrow does not attempt to stack the flaming property. That is, you're shooting an arrow that is "more on fire" than you normally shoot.
Thus, I could see Flaming, Flaming Burst weapon being in existence.
Could you upgrade a Flaming Longsword to a Corrosive Burst Longsword? Because right now, with the rules as they are, this question is the equivalent of the one being asked by the OP.
As with any question, GMs could handwave this strange legal dance we've found ourselves in, but it's nice to have the rules in place to guide decisions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are being too pedantic. YES. I would allow, and so would every DM that I know.
Master Arminas
|
|
You guys are being too pedantic. YES. I would allow, and so would every DM that I know.
Master Arminas
Too pedantic in a rules question forum? :P
As I said, per-RAW says one thing, but I also said that I would house rule it different in my games.
If you wanted to talk about if it would be an okay house rule to allow the upgrade, that would go into the house rules questions part of the forums.
|
|
I believe "RAW" don't say you fall prone when unconscious, so I have a somewhat negative view of people who insist anything that's not "RAW" isn't possible. Or conversely, saying that anything that's not in the "RAW" is allowed.
In this case, one enhancement completely supersedes the other. It's obvious you can move from one to the other using the existing rules for adding properties to an item. The item upgrade rules take up less than 1/4 page, they're not an exhaustive list of what can be made into what.
So, you would not allow there to be a 2d6 flaming weapon that bursts when there is a crit? (which is currently allowed by the rule set).
They are two different sources of instant damage, which the rules say stack just fine.
I also never said that it was not possible to do the upgrade, just not written into the current rule-set.
If flaming burst was a +1 weapon enchantment that required the flaming enchantment, then the upgrade would be allowed in the rules as written. But, since they are two different weapon enchantments with two different costs (+1 and +2 in this case), you could either stack them, house rule that it is okay, or re-write the upgrade rules to allow removing one enchantment to replace it with another.
You guys are being too pedantic. YES. I would allow, and so would every DM that I know.
Master Arminas
+1.
The description makes it pretty clear that a flaming burst weapon is a flaming weapon with an added ability in the event of critical hits. They are not separate enchantments - one is simply an extension of the other. There is nothing RAW that would suggest you can't simply upgrade it.
As for stacking flaming and flaming burst....that's entering the realms of the ridiculous. Is your weapon "sheathed in flame" with two different flames? Given the description for flaming burst specifically states "functions as a flaming weapon" the "flame" components of both weapons are the same mechanically.
And if the "flame" functions were different why then couldn't you put multiple flaming enhancements on your weapon? You can twist rules and descriptions in all sorts of ways because the designers didn't want to have to publish the Core Rulebook as a 15 volume monstrosity just to cover off every possible twist, loophole, perceived gap, whatever people could come up with.
Thanks for all the responses. Based on the split between those who say "RAW forbids it" and those who say "RAW allows it" I'll conclude that it's an edge case that most, virtually all, GMs would immediately accept as a logical application of the enhancement upgrade rules.
Now, let's see how this thread can turn into a 4e vs PF thread... :-)
You guys are being too pedantic. YES. I would allow, and so would every DM that I know.
Master Arminas
Too pedantic in a rules question forum? :P
As I said, per-RAW says one thing, but I also said that I would house rule it different in my games.
If you wanted to talk about if it would be an okay house rule to allow the upgrade, that would go into the house rules questions part of the forums.
Yes. As Fromper already said above, PFS allows for this specific type of upgrade for Society play; and they hold to a stricter standard of RAW than any group I have ever seen--even excluding common sense, in my own opinion, in places.
Master Arminas
Thanks for all the responses. Based on the split between those who say "RAW forbids it" and those who say "RAW allows it" I'll conclude that it's an edge case that most, virtually all, GMs would immediately accept as a logical application of the enhancement upgrade rules.
I agree, most GMs would accept this but the pieces don't line up to make the case purely on the rules as written.
|
|
You guys are being too pedantic. YES. I would allow, and so would every DM that I know.
Master Arminas
Too pedantic in a rules question forum? :P
As I said, per-RAW says one thing, but I also said that I would house rule it different in my games.
If you wanted to talk about if it would be an okay house rule to allow the upgrade, that would go into the house rules questions part of the forums.
Yes. As Fromper already said above, PFS allows for this specific type of upgrade for Society play; and they hold to a stricter standard of RAW than any group I have ever seen--even excluding common sense, in my own opinion, in places.
Master Arminas
Except where it comes to crafting (or lack there of and the rules in place around that).