Do Flaming weapons give off light and heat when activated?


Rules Questions


Flaming wrote:
"Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."

It says that the weapon is sheathed in fire. Does that fire give light like a torch or heat? Can you use a flaming weapon to start a campfire?

I tried searching everywhere and couldn't find a ruling on this. Thanks guys!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A lot of things aren't explicitly laid out, and are left to the GM to rule if they come up. It makes perfect sense to me that a flaming weapon gives off both light and heat.


It says the fire doesnt harm the wielder. Safe to assume that means it can harm other things. I'd say it can start a fire.


As a point of reference hitting something with a torch only does 1 fire damage, significantly less than a flaming weapon can. Seems to be reasonable that a flaming weapon could do anything that a torch could at the very least.


baggageboy wrote:
As a point of reference hitting something with a torch only does 1 fire damage, significantly less than a flaming weapon can. Seems to be reasonable that a flaming weapon could do anything that a torch could at the very least.

Why not include a phrase like "a flaming weapon gives off light like a torch"? Isn't that the usual way that that type of effect is indicated?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That type of language is common. There may be many reasons it doesn't include similar language. It may not be intended, or it may be assumed to be understood, likely it's a copy paste of the 3.5 text. Either way, RAW there's nothing saying one way or the other, so you're in GM purview territory.

Note: I am not a super rules person, there are others who are much more versed than I am.


A good chunk of magic weapons normally give off light like a torch, but that rule is almost always ignored (I have never seen an AP or module mention a random magic weapon glows or not unless it had glowlyness below or beyond the "normal" torch equivalent). Flaming is kind of useless (any fire resistance, the most common type, shuts it down at least 5/6 times), so I don't really see a problem in letting it function as a tindertwig. Be warned that allowing it to do such is a double edged sword, as you don't want to light everything on fire.

Dark Archive

In my games, no. If the item doesn't say it, it doesn't do it. Same reason a frost weapon can't freeze water, a shocking weapon can't have it's effect travel across metal, and an acid weapon can't be "milked" for acid flasks. These are magical elemental effects and arent truly the elements themselves. They look like the element, and deal damage when they hit something like the element but that's where the similarities end. This is why you can bring such weapons underwater without their effects being snuffed out, diluted, cause massive roiling bubbles or whatever, it's not truly fire, frost, etc, just looks like it.

That's my take on it though, and how I handle it at my table. It's definitely a table variation thing though.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

In my games, no. If the item doesn't say it, it doesn't do it...

That's my take on it though, and how I handle it at my table. It's definitely a table variation thing though.

I know the devs leave a lot of things to interpretation, but this was my take as well. I'm surprised that there hasn't been an FAQ or Errata on this considering the relatively extensive impact of one ruling vs another.

What prompted the initial question was a Flaming arrow shot into a Web spell. The archer wanted the arrow to burn a 5' hole through the Web, while I didn't (and still don't) think that it would do so. I've still been unable to find anything that rules definitively on that, and the issue of what the Flaming quality actually does seems to be at the core of the question.


I don't see the flames of a flaming weapon as just red or yellow paint on the blade, which is what non-illuminating flames would be.

If the archer could get the arrow to stop in the right 5' square (as opposed to just passing through - 'A flaming weapon can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs.' - which would make it higher than AC 5 IMO) then one 5' square would go up in smoke. If the archer wants a 5' wide tunnel through the web then they're asking too much.


avr wrote:

I don't see the flames of a flaming weapon as just red or yellow paint on the blade, which is what non-illuminating flames would be.

If the archer could get the arrow to stop in the right 5' square (as opposed to just passing through - 'A flaming weapon can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs.' - which would make it higher than AC 5 IMO) then one 5' square would go up in smoke. If the archer wants a 5' wide tunnel through the web then they're asking too much.

He rolled a successful attack against a creature 10' into a Web spell. I gave him the 5' square the creature was in (although I don't know that RAW strictly gives him that even) but not the tunnel.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quote:
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire

You really need to have the rules explain what is "fire"?


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quote:
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire
You really need to have the rules explain what is "fire"?

As Crazy Alchemist noted above, typically, the rules DO explain when additional effects are produced.

"Produces light like a torch and can set flammable objects on fire with a touch attack," would be useful information to a character (or GM) carrying a flaming weapon. I don't mean to overthink things, but it would be helpful to know if there is an official answer, as even in this thread (as well as several others I've come across), there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what exactly "Flaming" does.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


You really need to have the rules explain what is "fire"?

Actually, yes. This is a permissive rules set. You can only do what the rules say you can. Anything else requires GM adjudication. The weapon is "sheathed in fire" but since being "sheathed in fire" is an undefined concept within the rules, it is up to the item to define it. Which it does. And since producing light isn't mentioned in that definition, then by RAW the item does not produce light.

However, a GM could certainly houserule that however they'd like, but that's all it'd be: a houserule.

Dark Archive

FadetoBlack wrote:


What prompted the initial question was a Flaming arrow shot into a Web spell. The archer wanted the arrow to burn a 5' hole through the Web, while I didn't (and still don't) think that it would do so. I've still been unable to find anything that rules definitively on that, and the issue of what the Flaming quality actually does seems to be at the core of the question.

If that's your situation, then that part IS defined by RAW, and your Archer is correct. It states that "any fire" can set the webs alight. A flaming weapon does fire damage when it hits something. If your Archer is actually attacking the webs (rather than a creature IN the webs), then that flaming arrow will deal 1d6 fire damage to the section of web he was attacking, which as stated in the webs description, will burn away that section of the web.

You'd have to do some pretty interesting logical gymnastics to try and explain to your players how dealing fire damage to something doesn't fall within the domain of "any fire".

Now if your Archer tried to use the flaming arrow as a torch to set the webs alight without actually using up the arrow, THEN you'd be correct, he can't do that because flaming weapons, as defined, only deal fire damage to targets they hit. But if he's using the arrow as you described, and actually shooting the web, then absolutely your player is correct by RAW.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
FadetoBlack wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Quote:
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire
You really need to have the rules explain what is "fire"?

As Crazy Alchemist noted above, typically, the rules DO explain when additional effects are produced.

"Produces light like a torch and can set flammable objects on fire with a touch attack," would be useful information to a character (or GM) carrying a flaming weapon. I don't mean to overthink things, but it would be helpful to know if there is an official answer, as even in this thread (as well as several others I've come across), there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what exactly "Flaming" does.

Well, actually the reply to your question is in the Web spell:

Quote:
The strands of a web spell are flammable. A flaming weapon can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames.

From the bolded part we get that:

1) a flaming weapon affect a web spell;
2) any fire (and a flaming weapon is "sheathed in fire") will set them alight;
3) any fire will set alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round.

The only doubt is if hitting a creature will affect the web. As I see it, you must target the web, not the creature.

I am pretty sure that the old books 3-3.5 had the illumination radius of a flaming weapon, but probably it was lost in the passage to the D20 SRD. Effectively Paizo rules require an explanation about the kind of light produced. It is considered part of a spell or it is "natural" light from a fire. That will make a difference when meeting the darkness spells.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


You really need to have the rules explain what is "fire"?
Actually, yes. This is a permissive rules set. You can only do what the rules say you can.

Not this old canard again.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
FadetoBlack wrote:


What prompted the initial question was a Flaming arrow shot into a Web spell. The archer wanted the arrow to burn a 5' hole through the Web, while I didn't (and still don't) think that it would do so. I've still been unable to find anything that rules definitively on that, and the issue of what the Flaming quality actually does seems to be at the core of the question.

If that's your situation, then that part IS defined by RAW, and your Archer is correct. It states that "any fire" can set the webs alight. A flaming weapon does fire damage when it hits something. If your Archer is actually attacking the webs (rather than a creature IN the webs), then that flaming arrow will deal 1d6 fire damage to the section of web he was attacking, which as stated in the webs description, will burn away that section of the web.

You'd have to do some pretty interesting logical gymnastics to try and explain to your players how dealing fire damage to something doesn't fall within the domain of "any fire".

Now if your Archer tried to use the flaming arrow as a torch to set the webs alight without actually using up the arrow, THEN you'd be correct, he can't do that because flaming weapons, as defined, only deal fire damage to targets they hit. But if he's using the arrow as you described, and actually shooting the web, then absolutely your player is correct by RAW.

He was targeting a creature within the web and wanted to get a side effect of having the web burned away in every square the arrow passed through on the way.


"Magic Weapons...

...Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions."

I sure wish they had actually defined that in the descriptions. I mean, it's a flaming weapon. It is a weapon wreathed in flame. It gives off light and heat. That much is obvious to me, RAW or no.

Dark Archive

So the problem with it actually giving off heat is that, while it says the flames don't hurt you, it says nothing about your gear. Since we are dealing flaming arrows, then storing all those flaming arrows in your quiver is absolutely going to set your quiver on fire.
"But Mr. Crazy Alchemist, flaming weapons can be turned on and off"
You are absolutely right, Voice in My Head, however seeing how that is a standard action to do so, I severely doubt players want to have to draw their flaming arrow, spend a standard action to ignite it, the NEXT TURN fire the damn thing.
Sure you can houserule to ignore that standard action, or houserule to ignore the fact that if you are choosing to interpret them as giving off heat then it needs to be igniting your gear. But the simplest solution is to just interpret it as not giving off heat since it doesn't say it does. That way you aren't needing to houserule anything, and it solves many of the questionable dilemma above, or the inevitable future dilemma that will occur from such a ruling.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quote:
The fire does not harm the wielder.

If you want we can start the infinite discussion about "wielder" too, but normally when something doesn't harm a person, its gear is protected too.

If that isn't true in your word, the rings of energy resistance will be way less useful.

"This ring continually protects the wearer from damage from one type of energy—acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic (chosen by the creator of the item; determine randomly if found as part of a treasure hoard). Each time the wearer would normally take such damage, subtract the ring’s resistance value from the damage dealt."

If it is only "the wearer" your equipment will suffer a lot of damage, ring included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
the simplest solution is to just interpret it as not giving off heat since it doesn't say it does. That way you aren't needing to houserule anything, and it solves many of the questionable dilemma above, or the inevitable future dilemma that will occur from such a ruling.

I think the simplest solution is the one that would be assumed by most players less concerned with exacting mechanical precision:

"Does a flaming weapon give off light and heat?"

"Uh...it's on fire, right? So...yes."

"Does it set your clothes and stuff on fire?"

"What? That's not how any magic fire-sword I've ever seen in any movie or read about in any book works. Plus, that doesn't really make much sense to me."

At a certain point, book keeping like this feels worse that pointless. It seems like it's taking the point from things around it.

I'd let the guy kindle the arrows as they flew from the string. And not because I'd have to concede that they set his quiver ablaze (I think the argument of what counts as a "wielder", above, is valid), but because that seems less absurd than walking around with a campfire on your hip.


Dont think anyone really uses the standard action to activate clause of flaming.

But its flaming not searing. I'd say that's on fire. And fire bad.


It's the edge cases that get weird.

P: "Does it set this kindling on fire?"

G: "Well, yeah."

P: "What if I'm holding the kindling?"

G: "Er, no, I guess?"

P: "But I wanna light my cigarette with it!"

G: *sigh*

Playable, but weird.

Cavall wrote:
Dont think anyone really uses the standard action to activate clause of flaming.

Of course. But since you can sheathe a flaming sword while it's still flaming without damaging anything, my players have always just left it enabled all the time. I guess it might be relevant for a flaming spear or flaming cestus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

P: "Does it set this kindling on fire?"

G: "Well, yeah."

P: "What if I'm holding the kindling?"

In situations like that, I think it's fair to ask "what are you trying to do?"

Better yet, if you can get to a point where your players are comfortable enough to make minor assumptions on their own without consulting you every step of the way, you can have the above conversation run more like this:

P: "I light my cigarette with my flaming sword."

G: "Awesome."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed.

Dark Archive

True, but really, lighting your cigarette with your flaming sword has no mechanical benefit. It takes nothing for a GM to say "Cool" to that. It's the edge cases with mechanical effects that I'm wary of for things like this.
I mentioned a couple above:

- Using your shocking weapon to electrocute everyone standing on the metal platform.
- Milking your Corrosive weapon for acid vials.
- Using your freezing weapon to create an ice path as you walk over a body of water.

These are all things I've had players try to do, and many more. And while a GM is well within their rights to allow or disallow things like that (I allowed some and not others), the fact is that simply leaving it up to logical assumption is actually pretty dangerous as a GM. What one player might consider an obvious assumption of how a magical weapon would react to the world around him, another player or even yourself, could have an entirely different assumption.

Every table is different, and rules based on assumptions is just a recipe for table arguments. Players do not like it when a GM tells them they can't do something that they assumed they'd be able to do.

This is why I find it best to stick to RAW as a blanket ruling, then allow or disallow on a case by case basis. Keeps all the players at your table grounded in a consistent rules set that lets them know exactly what they can and can not do without even needing to ask, but still allows plenty of room for the Rule of Cool to bend the rules a bit for added enjoyment when a player asks if he can do something and won't piss them off if you decide to say no.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quixote wrote:
At a certain point, book keeping like this feels worse than pointless. It seems like it's taking the point from things around it.

I am saving this line for use during project planning meetings.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

- Using your shocking weapon to electrocute everyone standing on the metal platform.

- Milking your Corrosive weapon for acid vials.
- Using your freezing weapon to create an ice path as you walk over a body of water.

...the fact is that simply leaving it up to logical assumption is actually pretty dangerous as a GM...rules based on assumptions is just a recipe for table arguments. Players do not like it when a GM tells them they can't do something that they assumed they'd be able to do.

I think the logical arguments for those three examples are:

-it doesn't "electrocute" a single target when you hit them with it. Those guys might feel a weird tingle, but that's about it.

-the acid has an instantaneous duration.

-water effective has a lot of hp, so freezing it will take a very, very long time.

It may be dangerous, but I have never once had a problem with it. Nor have I had to deal with arguments at the table; my word is final and that is that. I don't have to with my veteran group, but but I don't allow rulebooks at my table with new groups. Have notes for what you need, trust my memory and judgement for the rest.
You need a group of players you can trust. None of this cutthroat "how much can I get away with" garbage. Anyone who thinks they're going to "win" my game or outshine the other players can find another game.
I can, however, see how playing with people you don't know intimately would make this difficult.

Dark Archive

Quixote wrote:

I think the logical arguments for those three examples are:

-it doesn't "electrocute" a single target when you hit them with it. Those guys might feel a weird tingle, but that's about it.

-the acid has an instantaneous duration.

-water effective has a lot of hp, so freezing it will take a very, very long time.

So this is actually an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make. There is variation on interpreting what is a "logical assumption". To you that was the obvious logical assumption, but to me, I found something else to be obvious.

Sure you can put the GM Foot down and say, "my word is final, deal with it". But if you tell your players that electricity acts exactly how you would logically assume it does, and then turn around and tell them that, no, they cant affect everyone standing on that metal platform with 1d6 lightning damage by touching their shocking weapon to it, then you are likely going to have some disgruntled players on your hands because to them you are being annoyingly inconsistent. They might keep silent about it, because your foot is down, but they will still be disgruntled, and a disgruntled player isn't having fun.

Much easier to say that shocking weapons do precisely what it says it does. No more, no less. Then if a player asks if they can shock everyone on the metal platform you can say "no, the weapon doesn't say it can do that" and no one is disgruntled because you are absolutely right, it doesn't say that. But if you want to RoC it and say they can then they get to feel like they did something badass and clever, rather than made to feel like you just told them they couldn't do something they were lead to believe they could.

But in the end, you are right, it's really going to depend on the table you're at. How intimately they know each other, whether they are rules lawyer players or imagineer players, etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Actually, from what I recall of my physics lesson, it is improbable that someone standing on a metal platform will be shocked by it.
The charge will disperse in the terrain leaving the person unharmed. Electricity moves along the route of lesser resistance and normally the resistance between the platform and the terrain is lower than that between the platform, a person, air and nearest grounding point.

Besides that, the damage is 1d6, now instead of hitting a single target, from a single point of contact and grounding the charge through it, you are dispersing the charge on a wide area. Why it should do any level of damage?

Your players are working with comic book science assumptions, so why they want to complain when they get magic games science replies?

It is possible to make a trap that does what they want, but that requires some form of isolation between the metal platform and the ground.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually, from what I recall of my physics lesson, it is improbable that someone standing on a metal platform will be shocked by it.

The charge will disperse in the terrain leaving the person unharmed. Electricity moves along the route of lesser resistance and normally the resistance between the platform and the terrain is lower than that between the platform, a person, air and nearest grounding point.

Besides that, the damage is 1d6, now instead of hitting a single target, from a single point of contact and grounding the charge through it, you are dispersing the charge on a wide area. Why it should do any level of damage?

Your players are working with comic book science assumptions, so why they want to complain when they get magic games science replies?

It is possible to make a trap that does what they want, but that requires some form of isolation between the metal platform and the ground.

Sure, but did you see how much explaining you had to do there? And can you imagine how much more explaining and discussion would be involved if a player at your table disagreed, nevermind which of you was actually right? I don't want to be doing that at the table. I'd much rather prevent the potential disagreements in the first place than bandy about worrying over how accurately we need to be simulating real world physics in a game of make belief. The game is complex enough.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Sure you can put the GM Foot down and say, "my word is final, deal with it". But if you tell your players that electricity acts exactly how you would logically assume it does, and then turn around and tell them that, no, they cant affect everyone standing on that metal platform with 1d6 lightning damage by touching their shocking weapon to it, then you are likely going to have some disgruntled players on your hands because to them you are being annoyingly inconsistent. They might keep silent about it, because your foot is down, but they will still be disgruntled, and a disgruntled player isn't having fun.

I suppose I should be clear: the argument I present at the table is something akin to "you're asking a lot of a +1 weapon enchantment." And that has never in my memory been argued.

Allow for what should obviously be true, stopping short of mechanical benefits that begin to go beyond what you paid for.

And it may be likely that someone else would have disgruntled players on their hands, but it has not been a problem for me. I don't have people sulking in silence at my table because I told them no. The people I roll with have enough sense to see that saying no is an important part of my role within the game.
I have dealt with a small handful of players like that in the past, of course. And you're right, they did not have as much fun. And after the game was over, they were not invited to another, as much for their sake as mine.
but they weren't disgruntled because I was being "annoyingly inconsistent" (see argument above). They were upset that I caught them trying to get more milage out of their character choices and stopped them.

Dark Archive

Quixote wrote:


Allow for what should obviously be true, stopping short of mechanical benefits that begin to go beyond what you paid for.

I agree. This is actually the point I've been trying to make from the beginning.

So now we circle back to the OP's actual predicament. He had a player who was attempting to set fire to a web by firing a flaming arrow at a creature inside of it, thereby damaging the creature as normal while also setting fire to the web at the same time. How is setting fire to the web, a thing he was not targeting, not an ancillary mechanical benefit the player is trying extract from the weapon which is designed to only deal damage to a single target?

Also, I'm happy for you and your table, but saying that it's not a problem at your own table is about as effective of an argument as saying that the town you live in having no gun problems is an effective argument against gun laws. Every town's different, every table's different.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
- Milking your Corrosive weapon for acid vials.

I still don't get this one at all. If it were possible to "milk" it for acid, then simply leaving one active for long enough would create a lake of acid. Yet it seems like it should be obvious to most people that this wouldn't be the case.

The exploit I'd be expecting would be to use the acid sword's ephemeral but refreshing source of acid to react with basic substances to acquire salts that would otherwise be dangerous or difficult to acquire.

Although on the subject of ill-defined sources of permanently created acid, there are a few Conjuration (Creation) spells with Instantaneous durations that didn't get the Acid Splash treatment and declared to not leave acid behind.

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
- Using your freezing weapon to create an ice path as you walk over a body of water.

Well, whether a constant source of cold damage can freeze things and if so at what rate is certainly as fair of a question as what kind of heat is put out by however much fire damage, at least.

That's not going to be limited to the weapon special abilities, either.


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

I agree. This is actually the point I've been trying to make from the beginning.

So now we circle back to the OP's actual predicament. He had a player who was attempting to set fire to a web by firing a flaming arrow at a creature inside of it, thereby damaging the creature as normal while also setting fire to the web at the same time. How is setting fire to the web, a thing he was not targeting, not an ancillary mechanical benefit the player is trying extract from the weapon which is designed to only deal damage to a single target?

Well, the original post asked "does a flaming weapon generate lithe and heat? Can you start a campfire with it?" To which I would say "yes and yes."

As for later on, when they mentioned the web and burning arrows, I think things become a little less clear. It seems to me that "a flaming weapon can slash away webs" would indicate a standard action for each 5ft square, or maybe one square per attack on the web. Logically, it seems unlikelike that the flames on a flaming arrow are in contact with any one part of the web long enough to burn a 5ft tunnel through webs.
I think burning a 5ft. hole in the web and doing 2d4 damage to the creature caught in it is fair enough (though iI'd imagine a creature would be granted cover by the 50ft of webs between it and you. Spider silk is tough stuff).

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Also, I'm happy for you and your table, but saying that it's not a problem at your own table is about as effective of an argument as saying that the town you live in having no gun problems is an effective argument against gun laws. Every town's different, every table's different.

I was simply responding to your comments; it was unclear to me whether you were speaking to *I*, an individual,or if you were speaking to *I*, the general reader. The second is cautionary advice based on your experience abs judgement, where the first is an assumption ands judgement on my approach, specifically.

I feel like I would chafe under a "can't do it unless it explicitly says so" philosophy in a hobby that encourages, even demands, on-the-spot improvisation so often. But then, I've met those players who necessitate either the adoption of such philosophies or that player's removal from the group.

Dark Archive

I think we can chalk this up to a difference in playstyles really.

I prefer to play on a grounded ruleset that tells me and my fellow players exactly what we can do, and the GM's job is to fill in the cracks where the rules aren't covered. The GM is a moderator, rather than a god.

Whereas you prefer to play with a softer ruleset where the written rules are usually adhered to but ultimately it's the GM's job to tell you what you can do. The GM is a god, rather than merely a moderator.

Neither playstyle is worse or better. Just different. I wouldn't want to play at your table and you wouldn't want to play at mine. Nothing wrong with that though :)


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

I think we can chalk this up to a difference in playstyles really.

I prefer to play on a grounded ruleset that tells me and my fellow players exactly what we can do, and the GM's job is to fill in the cracks where the rules aren't covered. The GM is a moderator, rather than a god.

Even when the grounded ruleset explicitly encourages the GM to improvise and extend the rules for different situations?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quixote wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Sure you can put the GM Foot down and say, "my word is final, deal with it". But if you tell your players that electricity acts exactly how you would logically assume it does, and then turn around and tell them that, no, they cant affect everyone standing on that metal platform with 1d6 lightning damage by touching their shocking weapon to it, then you are likely going to have some disgruntled players on your hands because to them you are being annoyingly inconsistent. They might keep silent about it, because your foot is down, but they will still be disgruntled, and a disgruntled player isn't having fun.

I suppose I should be clear: the argument I present at the table is something akin to "you're asking a lot of a +1 weapon enchantment." And that has never in my memory been argued.

Allow for what should obviously be true, stopping short of mechanical benefits that begin to go beyond what you paid for.

And it may be likely that someone else would have disgruntled players on their hands, but it has not been a problem for me. I don't have people sulking in silence at my table because I told them no. The people I roll with have enough sense to see that saying no is an important part of my role within the game.
I have dealt with a small handful of players like that in the past, of course. And you're right, they did not have as much fun. And after the game was over, they were not invited to another, as much for their sake as mine.
but they weren't disgruntled because I was being "annoyingly inconsistent" (see argument above). They were upset that I caught them trying to get more milage out of their character choices and stopped them.

This is what happens at the game table.

The discussion about the physics and magic physics is something you do while eating pizza after playing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
blahpers wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

I think we can chalk this up to a difference in playstyles really.

I prefer to play on a grounded ruleset that tells me and my fellow players exactly what we can do, and the GM's job is to fill in the cracks where the rules aren't covered. The GM is a moderator, rather than a god.

Even when the grounded ruleset explicitly encourages the GM to improvise and extend the rules for different situations?

And where there are plenty of holes?

There is another thread currently on the first page of this forum, where someone asked if a the Corrupting touch of a Ghost (that cause damage by aging) will affect a Devil.
RAW, it will, as the Devil has no immunity to magical aging. There are only a few creatures that are immune to magical aging.
RAI? I doubt it will affect non-Native Outsiders, Elementals, Constructs or Undead.

So, TCA, would you use RAW or RAI?


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quote:
The fire does not harm the wielder.

If you want we can start the infinite discussion about "wielder" too, but normally when something doesn't harm a person, its gear is protected too.

If that isn't true in your word, the rings of energy resistance will be way less useful.

"This ring continually protects the wearer from damage from one type of energy—acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic (chosen by the creator of the item; determine randomly if found as part of a treasure hoard). Each time the wearer would normally take such damage, subtract the ring’s resistance value from the damage dealt."

If it is only "the wearer" your equipment will suffer a lot of damage, ring included.

this sounds like an awesome cursed item.


Diego Rossi wrote:

... stuff and nested quotes ...

So, TCA, would you use RAW or RAI?

I'd look at whoever asked with 'a look' of "really?" say it effects them just fine ... adds a few decades to an immortal beings lifespan. Net effect, of course, is just about zero.

Next up numbers of Angels on a pinhead.


This thread has given me the idea to introduce a 'strange horseless carriage that's activated by the exact voltage of a shocking longsword' in one of my campaigns...

And dwarven communities thriving due to frost-warhammer-refrigerated meat/dairy lockers would be neat too... :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Going the other direction could be fun too. "It looks like someone has taken the cooling rod out of a dwarven freezer and bolted it to an axe handle."


All those wizards whom have bound elementals are going to be upset that they only needed to get a few +1 weapons to perform the same feats.


Depending upon how you do it, the bound elementals might have more style and/or panache. They also could be significantly cheaper than the number of such items that might be necessary for some purposes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A flaming weapon should be a + weapon plus the flaming ability, deal 1d6 points of fire damage, last for a very long time and cost 8301 gp for the cheapest version.
A torch cost 1 cp, deal 1 hp of fire damage and last 1 hour.
Four torches have about the same heating power of a flaming weapon.

With the cost of 1 flaming weapon, you can buy firewood for 23 years. It is not really cost-effective to use a flaming weapon unless you want something that will work for some century.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do Flaming weapons give off light and heat when activated? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.