Sure. It gets expensive though - a +1 corrosive flaming weapon costs about 18 300 gp, the same as a +3 weapon.
People usually go for the straight +x enhancements first because the bonus to hit is worth more than a slightly bigger bonus to damage (if you don't hit your damage doesn't matter). If you hit very reliably then bonus damage may be better - eg a Gunslinger targets Touch AC and has a full BAB so they can afford to just stack on damage.
Honestly though that much optimization may not matter in you game (it probably doesn't matter as much as most of us think in our games either), so if you like the idea of a +1 Corrosive, Flaming, Frost, Shocking weapon then go for it.
|
One option is to add different damage types, and then top up the enhancement pluses with Greater Magic Weapon.
I find that players tend to favor straight bonuses over multiple +1 enchantments... and for good reason.
Every once in a while, they will adopt an NPC weapon because of its enchantments, and upgrade it... I will slap multiple enchantments on NPC weapons, that way it's still technically a +1, but it does fun stuff.
But by the time players start upgrading their characters' weapons, they tend to pick one and stick with it, regardless of what they find laying around.
I find the opposite is true. It seems most players get their main weapon a +1 bonus...and then cherry pick the most beneficial special abilities...
I found this to be true in 3rd and 3.5, and when people didn't do the math.
+1 to hit is worth, for various math-reasons I cannot think of at the moment, about +2 to damage.So having a +1 to hit and to damage is like having +3 to damage.
+1d6 averages to be +3.5 damage, but is subject to resistances and immunities.
So you're really getting +0.5 damage in ideal situations, and -3 damage in others.
Holy is a much better bet than flaming, frost, etc. since it's so much more reliable. Keen and bane are better in the right scenarios; better than +1d6 elemental damage or a static bonus to attack and damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah there are 2 other benefits of the straight +x enhancement bonuses.
1. They're better for crits - the damage is multiplied on a crit, and the +1 to hit helps you confirm crits (Keen would obviously help with this too).
2. They help you overcome DR. Getting to a +3 weapon means you overcome the most common types of DR (besides Slashing/Piercing/Bashing), and getting to +5 means you overcome DR:Alignment (Holy usually does this last part just as well).
Bane is obviously amazing if you know you'll be facing a certain type of enemy more often, and there are class-based enchantments that are often better than the +x enhancement (Furious/Inspired/etc).
Honestly I don't think either way is wrong - a +1 Flaming sword certainly sounds more fun than a +2 sword, but if you like the extra +1 then go for it.
Honestly I don't think either way is wrong - a +1 Flaming sword certainly sounds more fun than a +2 sword, but if you like the extra +1 then go for it.
Sorry that was a really weird way to phrase it at the end there.
What I meant was: The +x bonus is usually the mathematically superior option, but it doesn't sound as fun. It's unlikely to break the game either way (or even change things meaningfully enough to be noticed), so go with whichever option you prefer.
For characters that primarily use weapons in "typical" campaigns (mostly evil foes), the "optimal" weapon is usually +3 or +4 holy (probably adamantine). Ranged weapons will often also have one or more of adaptive, conserving, distance, and/or seeking. Melee weapons will often have one or more of ghost touch, keen, spell storing, and/or throwing+returning. Depending on the character or the campaign, as well as the particular weapon, other qualities such as agile, bane, bloodsong, conductive, cunning, defending, furious, grayflame, impact, ki focus/ki intensifying, menacing, and/or transformative may be considered.
can you put multiple +1 bonuses on a weapon (flaming, corrosive etc) and have them all active or can u only have one active at a time?
You can have any number of weapon properties, as long as two absolute laws are not violated:
1. You MUST have an enhancement bonus (an actual plus) on the weapon;
2. The total "cost" of the enhancement bonus and properties shall not exceed +10.
There are also specific rules, such as "you can't have conflicting alignment properties such as lawful or chaotic" or "disruption can only go on bludgeoning weapons."
That said, several of the properties are command-toggle - including the elemental properties. Command activation is a standard action, which means that you may require several rounds to fully activate a complicated weapon (at least, if your GM isn't ignoring RAW here.)
Command activation is a standard action, which means that you may require several rounds to fully activate a complicated weapon (at least, if your GM isn't ignoring RAW here.)
True. I imagine that's one of those rules that often goes by the wayside.
One of my players ran a character for a one-shot that had some kind of +2 keen, spell storing, flaming, frost, shocking, thundering, corrosive monstrosity. It was pretty amusing. Each round he activated one of the elemental properties, the weapon wreathed itself in different colored lights. When he was finally ready to go, he ended up with a shimmering, muddy-brown aura.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, several of the properties are command-toggle - including the elemental properties. Command activation is a standard action, which means that you may require several rounds to fully activate a complicated weapon (at least, if your GM isn't ignoring RAW here.)
Yes. You need multiple standard actions. Once. And then the effects can stay on forever.
That said, several of the properties are command-toggle - including the elemental properties. Command activation is a standard action, which means that you may require several rounds to fully activate a complicated weapon (at least, if your GM isn't ignoring RAW here.)Yes. You need multiple standard actions. Once. And then the effects can stay on forever.
Yup, your flaming weapon doesn't harm you (or by association your stuff), so you can leave the flame running while it's sheathed.
Aura moderate evocation CL 10th
Slot weapon quality; Price +1 bonus; Weight —Description
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.Construction Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor and fireball, flame blade, or flame strike; Price —
On one hand, I like difficult situations where you have to choose: extra damage and give away your position with your sparkly sword, or less damage and maintain your cover.
On the other hand, I see no reason to penalize a player for deviating from the flat bonus into something more interesting. Besides, unsheathing a sword made of lightning or lava is a cool image, too.
I know you technically can turn off the enchantment(s), but I never have... nor have I ever seen anyone else.
I most definitely have never required anyone at my table to waste a round in combat turning on enchantments. Probably because they never turned them off. And why would they?
Oh it's bedtime, goodnight Orc HornBow, you don't need to be Holy anymore... nothing evil ever happens at night.
...And why would they?
Because they're sneaking through a dark, monster-infested dungeon and they don't want to announce their presence with a flaming brand, I would assume.
But then, you could always just sheath your sword. I suppose there are probably a few outlier situations where you could stay hidden from distant enemies while you fight closer ones, but a light source could still give you away, but that seems like it's rare enough that it's not worth worrying about.And then there are all the weapons without sheaths. But swords are already better than other weapons without giving them this goofy advantage as well.
And then that's all assuming that your +2 flaming bastard sword doesn't emit light all the time, just from being magical in the first place.
Yeah. "Niche" doesn't even cover it.
I guess there are times when your enchantment might actually be detrimental.
Eg. If you're using a Shocking weapon and fighting a YAMARAJ you'll actually heal it with lightning damage. If you have time before the fight starts it's probably worth turning that off.
I'm sure there are other examples.
As I recall, Command Activation becomes an issue with builds that have the ability to temporarily add enchants to their weapons (like the Warpriest Sacred Weapon (Su) ability) as after they add the enchants they still technically need to spend an action to actually 'turn it on.'
What? I don't see Sacred Weapon, or anything similar, working like that, at all. Maybe I am too nice, though. I am pretty lenient when to comes to ignoring dumb $#!+ that just overcomplicates things and makes decent abilities borderline useless.
I could definitely be wrong, though.
DOES Sacred Weapon require a Swift and a Standard to actually produce a Flaming weapon?
I think technically by RAW yes, but there were some comments by the devs saying "no that's no what we meant" (I think it was for the Magus, but same thing).
I guess it's a standard action to activate/deactivate, but there's nothing that says whether it comes into being activated or not.
Eg. If a Dwarven smith creates a +1 Flaming warhammer is it already on fire as she crafts it? I don't see any reason why not, so the players' abilities could work the same way.
That said, several of the properties are command-toggle - including the elemental properties. Command activation is a standard action, which means that you may require several rounds to fully activate a complicated weapon (at least, if your GM isn't ignoring RAW here.)Yes. You need multiple standard actions. Once. And then the effects can stay on forever.
Ok, that's much saner. Thanks for the link! (:
Wow. Huh...
I figured that since the abilities specifically stated swift action, it would trump any general activation rules. It was much less of a deal for my Magus vs my friend's Warpriest, where Fervor is always competing for your swift actions making him choose between buffing oneself or their weapon. Still though, it was a swift to get it up ans running, allowing a full attack immediately aftwards, Flaming and all.
My Arcane Duelist Bard can do the same thing through a Performance... no activation required, I think.
Why would there be ANOTHER activation required? Your God's power doesn't flow through you without saying the magic word? Your mastery of arcane studies isn't there with the snap of a figure... you gotta snap twice, like your magics are broken? Come on.
As I recall, Command Activation becomes an issue with builds that have the ability to temporarily add enchants to their weapons (like the Warpriest Sacred Weapon (Su) ability) as after they add the enchants they still technically need to spend an action to actually 'turn it on.'
Because they're sneaking through a dark, monster-infested dungeon and they don't want to announce their presence with a flaming brand, I would assume.
Now there is a rule that probably everyone ignores: "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." CRB pg. 468
Now there is a rule that probably everyone ignores: "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." CRB pg. 468
Right. That's just what I was referencing with "assuming that your +2 flaming bastard sword doesn't emit light all the time, just from being magical in the first place"-- although I deliberately threw that rule away. Messes with the subtle ascetic I'm normally going for.