The Burst Enchantment: 'prentice work?

[CharPixie]

Is there any redeeming aspect of the Burst enchantments? I mean, compared to the elemental damages, they completely suck. And if it was a choice between them and a simple, humble +1, even just for the sake of extra damage, I think the +1 would win out often.

Am I missing any utility to them, besides occasionally being able to best weak to moderate elemental resistances and adding more elemental damage in a campaign where different damages don't stack?

And if I'm not, how would one make it more useful again? Up the amount of damage per burst to 2d10 or even 3d10 (per multiplier)? Or even more?

[NEO|Phyte]

You know, I've been wondering why people always say that the burst enchantments suck.
Am I the only one that notices the part where the Burst weapons still do the noncrit 1d6, or is the crit-based damage boost simply not worth the additional +1 cost?

[MrNexx]

Did you miss that they include the elemental damages, as well as their burst feature?

EDIT: Luten Plunder: You'll pay for this, Simu-ninja!

[Telonius]

Couple it with Keen or the Improved Critical feat, and it doesn't suck as much, particularly with something like a Rapier. Still sucks, just not as much; I'd personally rather have a holy weapon, or a ghost touch / (insert energy type) weapon even with a rapier, for the same cost (or cheaper, if it's keen).

[Mewtarthio]

Enhancement. Not Enchantment (that is, until somebody develops the "Flaming Burst Charm Person" spell).

[CharPixie]

Enhancing your weapon? I'll stick to enchanting.

It still does the 1d6, which is great; perhaps too great. I refer more to the critical component of the deal; numbers-wise, it is 5.5 damage about 1/3 of the time for a person specializing in it.

[Toliudar]

I feel you're right. The "burst" abilities are a flavourful addition to found weapons, but hard to justify from a numbers perspective, unless you're REALLY optimizing for critical hits.

[Fax Celestis]

They were glory for a 3.0 Weaponmaster. Glory on a stick.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

It also helps you deal some "critical" damage to enemies immune to critical hits.
If you are highly optimized for 'critting' it will still help you in situations were you would not normally be able to benefit from scoring a critical hit.

[Fax Celestis]

The Literate Beholder has a point.

[Rigeld2]

I'm not 100% sure about that. For example, the Undead type states:

Not subject to critical hits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits)
Clicking on critical hits gives us the standard thing about critical hits.
Flaming Burst says:

A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits).
If someone isnt subject to something, can you ever get a successful effect on them?

note: I havnt ever thought about it one way or the other - just wondering if I'm the only one that reads it that way.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

No, I am sure you are not, but the Sage sees things differently. (Which of course does not mean that you are wrong regarding the literal RAW)




The flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst weapon powers require a critical hit to trigger the burst.
What happens when you attack a foe that isn’t subject to critical hits? Will the burst power work? A flaming burst,
icy burst, or shocking burst weapon also is a flaming, frost, or shock weapon, respectively. What happens when the
burst power is triggered? Does the burst damage augment or replace the damage from the energy power?


A burst power has its normal effect against foes that aren’t subject to critical hits. If you strike such a foe and your attack roll is good enough to threaten a critical hit, go ahead and roll to confirm the critical. If you confirm the critical, the burst power is activated, but the foe doesn’t take any extra weapon damage. For example, you have a +1 flaming burst longsword and you hit a wight with it, rolling a 19 (good enough for a threat with a longsword). The wight is an undead creature and not subject to critical hits, but you roll to confirm the critical anyway. If you confirm the critical, the wight takes normal damage from the sword (1d8+1 points if you’re a Medium character, plus your Strength modifier), not double damage as a critical hit. The sword’s burst power kicks in however, dealing an extra 1d10 points of fire damage to the wight.
Damage from a burst weapon is in addition to any damage from the weapon’s energy power. If the energy power is
activated, you deal 1d6 points of energy damage from the energy power, plus extra energy damage from the burst power (see the power descriptions). For example, a confirmed critical hit from a +1 flaming burst longsword deals 1d6+1d10 points of fire damage in addition to the weapon damage from the critical hit itself.

[Rigeld2]

Works for me. Thanks One-eye.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Beauty is in the ONE big eye of the beholder, but that does not mean that I do not have eye-stalks! :smalltongue:

[Ramza00]

Think about this combo.
Ranger archer with the 1st level spell hunter's mercy (Magic of Faerun) going against an opponent he knows is "evil." Has a good 10 specialized arrows ready for such an occurrence.

His arrow has these enchantments on it.

Blessed +1, BOED, as Paladin's Bless but always on, always confirm critical against evil creatures.
Holy +2 DMG, 2d6 holy damage against evil
Burst of some sort +2, As the normal version but does extra damage on critical. Longbow is x3 multipler, thus most likely 1d6+2d10.

Casts Hunter's Mercy, next arrow automatically his and threatens a critical. Blessed always make your arrows against evil creatures confirm critical.

Finally you can manyshot this for four arrows (but not greater manyshot).

[Rigeld2]

Why not greater? Its the same as normal, it can just get precision to all the attacks.

[Fhaolan]

Enhancement. Not Enchantment (that is, until somebody develops the "Flaming Burst Charm Person" spell).

Okay, that's almost worth it.

Better: Sonic Burst Charm Person spell. It creates rock band groupies. EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Enhancing your weapon? I'll stick to enchanting.
I wanna say something to that, but Sean K. Reynolds says it so much better. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html)

[CharPixie]

Hey, you do whatever you want to your weapon. I'm not stopping you.

Anyway, I think the consensus is, more or less, that it's only really worth paying for if you are optimized to use it. Which is a fine answer. Personally, I tend to run casual games and don't expect people to optimize much, so I think I'll likely up it a bit. Probably to 2d10 (Keen, Burst would mean 1/3 chance of 11 extra damage... about right).

[Bears With Lasers]

Beauty is in the ONE big eye of the beholder, but that does not mean that I do not have eye-stalks! :smalltongue:

*eats them*

[MrNexx]

I wanna say something to that, but Sean K. Reynolds says it so much better. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html)

Neither Sean K. Reynolds nor Wizards of the Coast have the authority to redefine standard English words. They may have specific definitions for 3.5, but that does not mean that people who use the standard English definitions, in a way that contextually makes sense, need to "learn what the words mean, dammit!"

To make an object magical is to enchant it. RTFD.

[Jack Mann]

WotC does have that authority--where the terms are used in the game. Sean Reynolds is speaking about the words as they are used in D&D, not generally. In the game, weapons are not enchanted, because the word means something different in the game. Out of the game, you might refer to any spellcaster as a wizard or a sorceror, but in D&D, these are different things. Wizards has every right to redefine standard English words as it sees fit, for the purposes of game terminology.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Semantics: serious business.

Anyway, I've always considered the "X Burst" property to be a worthwhile upgrade over it's +1 equivalent. You get all the fun of the +1d6 elemental damage, and extra damage on a crit. It's not as good as, say, Augmented Critical, but that's why Augmented Critical is special quality/class feature, and not a weapon enhancement (to my knowledge).

For best results, obviously, combine with Keen enhancements and dual-wielding. Bless weapon will also help, obviously.

[Turcano]

Semantics: serious business.

Anyway, I've always considered the "X Burst" property to be a worthwhile upgrade over it's +1 equivalent. You get all the fun of the +1d6 elemental damage, and extra damage on a crit. It's not as good as, say, Augmented Critical, but that's why Augmented Critical is special quality/class feature, and not a weapon enhancement (to my knowledge).


The reason why it's not worth the cost is this: for a weapon with normal crits, it's 1d6 normally and 1d6+1d10, at most, 30% of the time compared to 2d6 all the time. It might be worth it with a pick/scythe, but I'm not sure. Plus, different elements cover a wider range of use vis-a-vis energy resistance/immunity. If an monster's immune to fire, a fiery frost weapon will still get the 1d6 cold damage; you're out of luck with a flaming burst weapon.

[Thomas]

I wanna say something to that, but Sean K. Reynolds says it so much better. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html)

He does preface that with "It annoys me when publishers..." (Well, "pubishers," but I'm a generous reader.) That makes sense - I hate it when publishers **** up the rules of the game, too. (Like Mongoose does all over the new RuneQuest supplements. If I wasn't changing all the rules to suit myself anyway, I'd be quite cross.)

But telling regular gamers to "get the words right" is plain *******ry. Everyone understands what "enchantment" means in the context CharPixie used it in; expecting us to redefine our vocabularies for one edition of one game (especially when, in AD&D, enchant and enchantment meant what they actually mean - enchant weapon, anyone?) is just idiotic.

And technically, "enhancement" is the wrong term for the special abilities (the right term) anyway. Enhancement refers to the enhancement bonus, and that's it. It doesn't refer to anything except the enhancement bonus, in fact. There are no "weapon enhancements" or "armor enhancements."

Hey - get the words right, damnit! :smalltongue:

[Roderick_BR]

It is technically just an addition to critical hits.
A long sword deals 1d8 on a hit, plus modifiers (magic/strenght/etc.), and twice on a critical.
A flaming sword deals 1d8 on a hit, plus modifiers, plus 1d6 by fire. On a critical, it doubles everything, but the 1d6.
A flaming burst will add 1d10 fire damage on a critical hit.
It just depends if you want to improve the critical hits.
It will be useless against creatures immune to critical hits as much as it's useless to use a Keen effect against them.
It will be useless against creatures immune/resistent against the element, just as it's useless to use the non-bursting elemental effect.
If you go by that route, it's better to don't have any elemental power at all. Or any effect that affects the critical hit.

[Rumda]

The burst damage still effects creature immune to critical hits when you roll a crit and confirm it it is quoted above and below here so you don't have to squint

A burst power has its normal effect against foes that aren’t subject to critical hits. If you strike such a foe and your attack roll is good enough to threaten a critical hit, go ahead and roll to confirm the critical. If you confirm the critical, the burst power is activated, but the foe doesn’t take any extra weapon damage. For example, you have a +1 flaming burst longsword and you hit a wight with it, rolling a 19 (good enough for a threat with a longsword). The wight is an undead creature and not subject to critical hits, but you roll to confirm the critical anyway. If you confirm the critical, the wight takes normal damage from the sword (1d8+1 points if you’re a Medium character, plus your Strength modifier), not double damage as a critical hit. The sword’s burst power kicks in however, dealing an extra 1d10 points of fire damage to the wight.

[PinkysBrain]

Why not greater? Its the same as normal, it can just get precision to all the attacks.
It's multiple attacks, though in this case it doesn't matter ... since only a single arrow of a manyshot does crit damage.

For a true shot combo manyshot is better than greater manyshot though.

[MrNexx]

WotC does have that authority--where the terms are used in the game. Sean Reynolds is speaking about the words as they are used in D&D, not generally. In the game, weapons are not enchanted, because the word means something different in the game. Out of the game, you might refer to any spellcaster as a wizard or a sorceror, but in D&D, these are different things. Wizards has every right to redefine standard English words as it sees fit, for the purposes of game terminology.

As I said. But that doesn't change the standard English meaning of the words, nor does it excuse a dismissal of basic of reading comprehension skills. If the word is being used, in context, in a manner which suggests that the standard English definition is appropriate, rather than the assigned D&D definition, then read it in context and don't booping nitpick.

[Rigeld2]

It's multiple attacks, though in this case it doesn't matter ... since only a single arrow of a manyshot does crit damage.

For a true shot combo manyshot is better than greater manyshot though.
From Greater Manyshot.

Your precision-based damage applies to each arrow fired, and, if you score a critical hit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits) with more than one of the arrows, each critical hit deals critical damage.
From Manyshot

Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits), only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.
Looks like Greater is better... Manyshot only requires one attack roll tho, so that could be termed "better" tho I dont think so.

[PinkysBrain]

Sorry, dyslexia struck ... I meant "true strike" combo. In which case the fact it's a single attack roll is a good thing.