PDA

View Full Version : Just for fun, how would you do this?



The Pressman
2010-08-06, 01:26 PM
To apply the illuminating quality to a crowbar, would you use weapon, after making it masterwork, with a total of 802 gp?

Siosilvar
2010-08-06, 01:29 PM
Can't put weapon enhancements on a weapon unless it's at least +1.

How would I do it? I'd cast continual light for 60 gp (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices).

The Pressman
2010-08-06, 01:49 PM
Continual light is gone. I assume continual flame will do the job?

Siosilvar
2010-08-06, 01:57 PM
Continual light is gone. I assume continual flame will do the job?

Err, yeah. It's the exact same spell, just renamed.

The Pressman
2010-08-06, 01:58 PM
Actually, I was looking at something of that, and there's a big difference. Continual Flame acts like a torch without fire/heat/combustion, whereas continual light produces a 60ft circle of daylight-quality light.

Siosilvar
2010-08-06, 02:03 PM
Contuinual Light is a 2nd-level magic-user spell that creates a 6" radius globe of light. It's also a 3rd-level cleric spell that can be cast out to 12" away and be reversed.

Converting scale inches to feet... yeah, 60 foot radius.

I wonder why the change?

The Pressman
2010-08-06, 02:10 PM
I was reading, and some say it was because Cont. Light was too powerful.

Kylarra
2010-08-06, 02:20 PM
Secondary nitpick is that it'd cost an additional 50gp for the material component. :smalltongue:

Also 30% of magic weapons just glow anyway so...:smalltongue:

Siosilvar
2010-08-06, 02:37 PM
Also 30% of magic weapons just glow anyway so...:smalltongue:

Which raises the question as to why Illuminating is even a weapon property, because many weapons already do that. Are you supposed to add 500gp to the cost of those weapons?

Not to mention Illuminating does the exact same thing as hiring someone to cast continual flame does, but at about five times the cost.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-06, 02:57 PM
Continual 'Flame' has, ever since 3.0, been one of my really irritating little nitpick changes. Not so much the mechanical changes, but the whole idea of making it actually have non-hot flames, instead of just having the item glow.

I refuse to acknowledge the fluff and name changes. I call it Continual Light, and I steadfastly refuse to accept that my Continual Light whatever has some nonsensical flickering flame effect instead of just glowing with the appropriate level of illumination.

And yeah, the illumination property I found kind of odd, considering the whole 'lots of magical weapons glow' thing. But then I typically ignore the 'lots of magical weapons glow' thing when I DM, and a hell of a lot of DM's I've played with do so also. It's doubleplus silly when you realize that if you cannot control it, that would actually be a highly undesirable effect to have on a weapon. Sneaking is something many, many people that use weapons will want to do at some point, with a weapon ready. Kind of reminds me of something I read about the goblin/orc killing swords in Middle Earth. "These weapons glow brightly when orcs are nearby, making it much easier for them to find you."

If the illuminating property allowed you to control when the weapon glows, then it might be worth 500 GP. If you just want a thing that is always glowing? Cast Continual Light, it's cheaper.

Lysander
2010-08-06, 08:51 PM
Continual Flame won't last long for an adventurer who frequently faces Dispel Magic. If it's part of the magic items function it can't be dispelled.

The Pressman
2010-08-07, 12:46 AM
Can you use continual flame be used to ignite objects? Or is it just a fire which is magical but not an ionizing plasma?

Vangor
2010-08-07, 01:05 AM
Effect: Magical, heatless flame

The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen.

Not actual fire.

The Pressman
2010-08-07, 01:10 AM
Drat. And here I was hoping for a smokeless torch that could still be used to light things on fire.:smallfrown:

devinkowalczyk
2010-08-07, 01:19 AM
3.5 i believe there isa 0 lvl cantrip that deals 1 point of fire damage. There might even be a first level spell that allows you to light things on fire up to a certain size.
4e definately has a ritual that lets you control fire up to 8 hours


yea
, bummer on the continual flame not being hot. but torches on fire do like 1d3 dmage anyway.

The Pressman
2010-08-07, 01:27 AM
Was hoping for something that wouldn't even make sense. I was hoping that it would still be cold yet have the ability to light things on fire. Pie-in-the-sky, but yeah.

The Pressman
2010-08-07, 01:28 AM
Hold on, that spell entry mentioned oxygen. SCIENCE IS BACK, BABY!

Devils_Advocate
2010-08-07, 11:02 AM
I was hoping that it would still be cold yet have the ability to light things on fire.
Well... the spell description does say that a heatless flame is created, so you could argue that it sets things on fire because that's a general property of flames and the spell description doesn't specify otherwise. I would argue back, however, that it's the heat from a flame that starts fires, and a flame's propensity to start fires is not a separate property. Thus the spell simply creates something resembling a flame in motion, brilliance, intensity, and shape (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flame). That the spell has the [Light] rather than the [Fire] descriptor and the flame doesn't consume oxygen also support the position that the flame created is not an actual fire (but just looks like one).

Interesting rules trivia: Since spells that produce actual sound and light are Evocation, we can infer that normal Illusion spells (as opposed to the weird partially real Shadow subschool effects) don't even do that much. Illusions only affect the minds of creatures that perceive them, even when they "aren't mind-affecting", which of course makes "mind-affecting" a misnomer. (Similarly, even "mindless" creatures have 2 out of 3 "mental" ability scores. The rules have a bit of a love/hate relationship with normal English definitions.)

And since a continual flame does produce actual light, it should heat things up as much as ordinary visible light does, for what that's worth. Like, you could probably start a fire with a continual flame and a magnifying glass, if for some reason you wanted to.


Hold on, that spell entry mentioned oxygen. SCIENCE IS BACK, BABY!
Given that d20 has "alchemy" rather than "chemistry", it would be kinda neat if the flame were instead described as not producing phlogiston. But I suppose that fewer readers would understand that.

derfenrirwolv
2010-08-07, 01:30 PM
Continual Flame won't last long for an adventurer who frequently faces Dispel Magic. If it's part of the magic items function it can't be dispelled.

By that point in your adventuring career you can afford to put 5 or six Continual flame rocks in your haversack as backups.

iDM
2010-08-07, 03:16 PM
It says in the item description of an Everburning Torch that they are torches that have Continual Flame cast upon them. It also says that the Everburning Torch can be put in a pack and removed for later use. Not sure if that would make sense if the torch lit the pack on fire, so no, I dong think Continual Flames can light stuff on fire.

Marnath
2010-08-07, 03:45 PM
By the way Helmuth, the mods here really dislike double posting. If you have something to add to your post you need to use the edit button that's next to quote.

The Pressman
2010-08-07, 03:49 PM
By the way Helmuth, the mods here really dislike double posting. If you have something to add to your post you need to use the edit button that's next to quote.

I realize that now. And I would like to apologize. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Anyways, I came up with a better solution. I'll simply use watchlamp. No weight, and you can turn it off. Same cost as the iluminating quality, and it's nit dispellable.