| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Go forth and murderize Trolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible, as per RAW, to add fiery and acid enchantments on the same +1 weapon, making it an effective +3 enchanted weapon?You can add both, but not use them at the same time.
The enchants that add elemental damage to weapons need to be activated, and only one can be activated at a time.
See Flaming.
Where does it say that you can't use both at the same time?
|
Where does it say that you can't use both at the same time?Is it possible, as per RAW, to add fiery and acid enchantments on the same +1 weapon, making it an effective +3 enchanted weapon?You can add both, but not use them at the same time.
The enchants that add elemental damage to weapons need to be activated, and only one can be activated at a time.
See Flaming.
Nowhere, and it can stay activated forever, as the effect don't harm the wielder of the weapon, and that include his gear.
Where does it say that you can't use both at the same time?Is it possible, as per RAW, to add fiery and acid enchantments on the same +1 weapon, making it an effective +3 enchanted weapon?You can add both, but not use them at the same time.
The enchants that add elemental damage to weapons need to be activated, and only one can be activated at a time.
See Flaming.
"The effect remains until another command is given."
You need to make a command to activate any of the 1d6 energy damage enhancements. If you activate another energy enhancement, the quote above happens.
It doesn't specify a command to turn it off, it just says another command. Any command as per command word item use would turn it off. It's stupid and I wouldn't bother with being that raw at my table, but that's how it is unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been discussion about this before, and developers weighed in that you can have both activated at the same time.
The text in the flaming enchantment is stating that "another command" simply means a command to turn off the enchantment.
Yes, it can be worded better.
|
Giving them the same command word would still not allow you to activate them with the same action, and then it would be a new command (command word activations are standard action, and I would be surprised to find a GM to allow the use of multiple standard actions at once jusdt because you claim to use the same phrasing).
On the other hand if you think the command is bound to the enchant and not the weapon, then it should work.
Personally I'd interpret the command word to be targeted to the weapon, and any new command word to the weapon would cancel any effects with a wording like the one on flaming on the target.
Wait, is that true? Never thought I'd need a standard action to make my sword flaming...Huh, looks like you are correct on this. Kinda surprised that there aren't feats to lower the action requirement of magic weapons.
Wait, is that true? Never thought I'd need a standard action to make my sword flaming...Huh, looks like you are correct on this. Kinda surprised that there aren't feats to lower the action requirement of magic weapons.
Yes, it does take a standard action to activate. But it stays activated - sheathing the weapon does not turn it off. So you only have to activate it once and it will stay activated until you choose to shut it off.
This is very relevant regarding magic items like the Deliquescent Gloves, which give weapons you wield the corrosive weapon special ability. Depending on how you read it this could mean you need to spend a standard action after drawing your weapon. This would be especially devastating for classes which can't simply carry their weapon all the time, time the warlock archetype for example.
Or is it safe to assume the granted ability is turned on by default?
Where does it say that you can't use both at the same time?Nowhere, and it can stay activated forever, as the effect don't harm the wielder of the weapon, and that include his gear.
Awesome, just double checking.
There has been discussion about this before, and developers weighed in that you can have both activated at the same time.
The text in the flaming enchantment is stating that "another command" simply means a command to turn off the enchantment.
Yes, it can be worded better.
It might be posting a link to that if you can remember it (for future generations of players).
Also I completely agree it could be better, I understand the confusion here.
This is very relevant regarding magic items like the Deliquescent Gloves, which give weapons you wield the corrosive weapon special ability. Depending on how you read it this could mean you need to spend a standard action after drawing your weapon. This would be especially devastating for classes which can't simply carry their weapon all the time, time the warlock archetype for example.
Or is it safe to assume the granted ability is turned on by default?I would always check with my GM, prefereably at the start of the campaign, how things like that will be handled.
For example in a campaign we're running right now where I'm playing a magus (who can give a weapon flaming, frost etc with arcane pool), when I brought it up before creating my character we decided on a house rule that in such cases it is activated by the same action that creates it. But that is very clearly a houserule. Something like that wuold most likely be no problem to agree to for your example too (as long as you're not playing in PFS or another strictly RAW environment).
I'm pretty certain that is the RAW for a Magus, you're doing it correctly.
Not sure about the Deliquescent Gloves (never used them), but I assume it'd be the same (certainly how I'd rule if it were up to me).
This is very relevant regarding magic items like the Deliquescent Gloves, which give weapons you wield the corrosive weapon special ability. Depending on how you read it this could mean you need to spend a standard action after drawing your weapon. This would be especially devastating for classes which can't simply carry their weapon all the time, time the warlock archetype for example.
Or is it safe to assume the granted ability is turned on by default?
I would always check with my GM, prefereably at the start of the campaign, how things like that will be handled.
For example in a campaign we're running right now where I'm playing a magus (who can give a weapon flaming, frost etc with arcane pool), when I brought it up before creating my character we decided on a house rule that in such cases it is activated by the same action that creates it. But that is very clearly a houserule. Something like that wuold most likely be no problem to agree to for your example too (as long as you're not playing in PFS or another strictly RAW environment).
Note that it also takes a standard action to deactivate energy special abilities. So if a Magus
Just gonna bump this so Gisher knows his post didn't work properly
Wait, it doesn't specify what type of command causes the flaming property to deactivate, so if I order my lackey to heal me, my sword turns off?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, it doesn't specify what type of command causes the flaming property to deactivate, so if I order my lackey to heal me, my sword turns off?
That's right, you have to ask your lackey nicely. If you don't say "please" your sword will be unhappy with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
G~~!%$nit Gisher.
I know right!
Wait, it doesn't specify what type of command causes the flaming property to deactivate, so if I order my lackey to heal me, my sword turns off?That's right, you have to ask your lackey nicely. If you don't say "please" your sword will be unhappy with you.
Though courtesy to one's allies is important, I fear that some of our members have become to militant on this issue. Such is being built as weapons.
|
|
I just tell my players it's use activated so no one has to worry about people abusing the rules to kill others' fun.
Also, specifically about the magus comment, nowhere does it say that the ability doesn't start turned on. So while you may consider it a houserule, I consider it working as intended.
The problem is that sometime you don't want the ability to activate. As an example, you don't want your flaming ability to be active when you are fighting a iron golem.