| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this may seem like a weird question. but its got me wondering, the ruling states that the fire does not harm the wielder. does that mean the wielder doesn't have a choice? a person with a sword could stab themselves if they wanted to, but within the mechanics of the game. is it impossible to inflict burning damage to yourself if you stab yourself with a flaming weapon?
the reason I ask was because I was thinking about a sword and board character. the board was a flaming wyrmsbreath weapon. and the sword was flaming. could the user stab himself with the flaming weapon to charge up the wyrmsbreath shield?
|
I think it has more to do with you not taking any damage from holding a searing hot piece of metal that would be melting your hand in RL.
As for the reason, I suppose so, just depends on if your DM would let you use normal damage or treat it as a coup de grace or however self-inflicted hits and damage is run in your games.
Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.
The answer is yes you can stab yourself with a flaming weapon if you want to, and no this won't charge the shield because you're deliberately bypassing your own defenses to hurt yourself.
why does bypassing your own defences matter? the rules state when the wielder takes damage of the specified energy type. it doesn't say that it can't be self inflicted.
Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.
so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
I think it has more to do with you not taking any damage from holding a searing hot piece of metal that would be melting your hand in RL.
As for the reason, I suppose so, just depends on if your DM would let you use normal damage or treat it as a coup de grace or however self-inflicted hits and damage is run in your games.
are there not any rules already built into the game for self-inflicted injuries? I mean I doubt anyone would force you to make it a coup de grace, since theres a difference between wanting to hurt yourself and slice your own head off lol.
Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
I think it's part of the enchantment so you don't set your own hair and clothes on fire as you swing the weapon around. Call it a safety feature.
I think it's part of the enchantment so you don't set your own hair and clothes on fire as you swing the weapon around. Call it a safety feature.Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
yeah, I understand the intention. but do you think the enchantment makes it impossible to burn yourself with it even if you want to?
yeah, I understand the intention. but do you think the enchantment makes it impossible to burn yourself with it even if you want to?I think it's part of the enchantment so you don't set your own hair and clothes on fire as you swing the weapon around. Call it a safety feature.Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
I think it does what it says it does. "The fire does not harm the wielder." That's straight forward and I think it makes sense for the reasons I said. If you want to burn yourself, hand the weapon to someone else.
I think it does what it says it does. "The fire does not harm the wielder." That's straight forward and I think it makes sense for the reasons I said. If you want to burn yourself, hand the weapon to someone else.yeah, I understand the intention. but do you think the enchantment makes it impossible to burn yourself with it even if you want to?I think it's part of the enchantment so you don't set your own hair and clothes on fire as you swing the weapon around. Call it a safety feature.Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
okay then, thats fair enough. figured it could have been a cool combo, Flaming knife and Wyrms Breath Shield tower shield lol
okay then, thats fair enough. figured it could have been a cool combo, Flaming knife and Wyrms Breath Shield tower shield lolI think it does what it says it does. "The fire does not harm the wielder." That's straight forward and I think it makes sense for the reasons I said. If you want to burn yourself, hand the weapon to someone else.yeah, I understand the intention. but do you think the enchantment makes it impossible to burn yourself with it even if you want to?I think it's part of the enchantment so you don't set your own hair and clothes on fire as you swing the weapon around. Call it a safety feature.Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
Buy a torch. Light it. Start day by holding wrong end of torch for 25 rounds. Take your 25 fire damage and 5 charges on your Wyrmsbreath shield. No need for knife.
Buy a torch. Light it. Start day by holding wrong end of torch for 25 rounds. Take your 25 fire damage and 5 charges on your Wyrmsbreath shield. No need for knife.okay then, thats fair enough. figured it could have been a cool combo, Flaming knife and Wyrms Breath Shield tower shield lolI think it does what it says it does. "The fire does not harm the wielder." That's straight forward and I think it makes sense for the reasons I said. If you want to burn yourself, hand the weapon to someone else.yeah, I understand the intention. but do you think the enchantment makes it impossible to burn yourself with it even if you want to?I think it's part of the enchantment so you don't set your own hair and clothes on fire as you swing the weapon around. Call it a safety feature.Part of the magic that makes the fire also protects the wielder from burning his hand, I'd say.so do you think that the wielder can't inflict burn damage to himself with the sword even if he wanted to?
yeah but you can't do it in combat, the idea I had was to stab yourself and fire your shield in one round as a full round action. a very high con build I know but I figured it could be pretty cool.
also I've only just realised its 1 charge for every 5 points of damage. for some reason I thought it was 1 charge for every 1 point of damage. oops haha.
Yeah, this is a tactic to do BEFORE you get into combat. Take damage, get charges and heal up. To get the most out of it, make the character an Ifrit with Fire in the Blood as they gain fast healing 2 for 1 round anytime they take fire damage. This lets you charge up your shield with your level in fire damage , heals that damage AND heals you your level in other damage. Win/win.
Yeah, this is a tactic to do BEFORE you get into combat. Take damage, get charges and heal up. To get the most out of it, make the character an Ifrit with Fire in the Blood as they gain fast healing 2 for 1 round anytime they take fire damage. This lets you charge up your shield with your level in fire damage , heals that damage AND heals you your level in other damage. Win/win.
I don't know too much about monster races but I'll look into the Ifrit. could be an awesome combo, thanks a lot ^^ though the fire resistance could be an issue. though wild heart would fix that. thanks again, this could actually work.
Yep, Wild Heart would be the way to go for that character. I normally keep Resistances but +4 initiative checks isn't a bad trade and it sets up your combo.
Yep, Wild Heart would be the way to go for that character. I normally keep Resistances but +4 initiative checks isn't a bad trade and it sets up your combo.
plus he could probably do with the initiative, I imagine he'd have a low dex if he has a shield. he might as well have full plate with a really high CON.
If you activate Flaming, by making an attack roll against yourself and you hit. Yes you can hurt yourself with a Flaming Weapon. If you miss or simply don't attack, then no.
You can hurt yourself with the weapon part, yes. But Flaming very specifically says it doesn't harm the wielder.
That was meant to mean just holding the weapon doesn't deal fire damage to you, but the way it is written says the flames can't hurt you period.
Why would it be cheese to damage yourself to power something? This is a common theme in fantasy literature. It even happens in D&D and Pathfinder. The Book of Vile Darkness book in D&D had lots of ways that hurt the user to gain other powers. The Core Rulebook has a magic feature that does damage to the user and the target at a lower gold cost than other similarly powered items.
As someone else in another thread pointed out, there are rules for starvation but none for eating. Does that mean you can't eat?
I don't know too much about monster races but I'll look into the Ifrit. could be an awesome combo, thanks a lot ^^ though the fire resistance could be an issue. though wild heart would fix that. thanks again, this could actually work.
Ifrit isn't a monster race, it's in the advanced race guide.
LazarX: When you can do the same thing cheaper and safer with a torch (or your average camp fire), I struggle to find any cheese in it.
After thinking about it for a bit, I'd be tempted to allow flaming and the like to be made without the safeties but natural 1's deal the fire damage to the wielder and they have to roll for 'catch on fire'. I'd also require a touch attack on yourself to avoid making a save for 'catch on fire' when you damaged yourself. And so that no one asks/comments, that would totally be a house rule. ;)
After thinking about it for a bit, I'd be tempted to allow flaming and the like to be made without the safeties but natural 1's deal the fire damage to the wielder and they have to roll for 'catch on fire'. I'd also require a touch attack on yourself to avoid making a save for 'catch on fire' when you damaged yourself. And so that no one asks/comments, that would totally be a house rule. ;)
Bad idea, just like any critical failure thing. It means higher level characters (the ones that should be least likely to critically fail) have a greater chance to have something bad happen, as they roll more attacks per round.
After thinking about it for a bit, I'd be tempted to allow flaming and the like to be made without the safeties but natural 1's deal the fire damage to the wielder and they have to roll for 'catch on fire'. I'd also require a touch attack on yourself to avoid making a save for 'catch on fire' when you damaged yourself. And so that no one asks/comments, that would totally be a house rule. ;)Bad idea, just like any critical failure thing. It means higher level characters (the ones that should be least likely to critically fail) have a greater chance to have something bad happen, as they roll more attacks per round.
I think it a good idea for the reasons you think it bad. There is a reason it has safety features built in and if you remove them, bad things can happen. This is especially true when swing it around as fast as you can. Juggling 5 chainsaws is more dangerous than 2 and making 5 attacks with a weapon is more dangerous than 1. It's also proportionally less of your hp per failure per level up as each failure is less of your total damage so more of them aren't more dangerous.
And as I pointed out, this would only be for people that asked to remove the safeties. It'd be up to them to figure out if it was good or bad for them. Resistance to that damage + a high reflex save could make them almost impossible to damage/affect.
The answer is yes you can stab yourself with a flaming weapon if you want to, and no this won't charge the shield because you're deliberately bypassing your own defenses to hurt yourself.why does bypassing your own defences matter? the rules state when the wielder takes damage of the specified energy type. it doesn't say that it can't be self inflicted.It doesn't say that it can, either and that's what matters. A popular defense of cheese moves like this are in the form of "there isn't a rule that says you can't", while forgetting that that is the complete opposite of how the game is built.
As a GM, I consider a cheese move, and you'd have to find a rules backing for it to even begin a discussion. This does not mean that I won't override RAW when it comes to moves or mechanics high enough on the Linberger scale.
thats not how rules work, if it doesn't say you can't do it. then you can do it. and whats wrong with cheese? seriously? whats wrong with creativity? whats wrong with having interesting character flavour that works mechanically as well?
Really the rules don't work either way. The rules don't say that if you wish really, really hard, the wish will come true even if you can't cast spells.
The rules are taken as a whole and anything directly outside of them must be adjudicated. The hope is that the rules in place will be enough of a guide to allow you to fill the void.
But just as with real life, people will have a difference of opinion as to what works and what does not.