The illuminating weapon property: or "500 gp or free, your choice!"

[qwertyu63]

I'm convinced that WotC doesn't actually read what they write.

MiC page 36: Illuminating weapon property; costs 500 gp; the weapon emits light to 20' and shadowy light 20' past that.
Nice simple power to add onto your weapon... except...


Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). 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.

So would you like to pay 500 for your glowing weapon or do you want it to be free? :smallsigh:

[Kennisiou]

The property likely exists so that you can add a glow to a weapon that previously didn't have it.

[NoACWarrior]

I think that illuminating lets you make a masterwork weapon have a magical enhancement which is treated as a light source. Its much cheaper than going for a magical +1 enhancement and hoping it will be part of that 30% which emits light. Also illuminating can be shut off without affecting enhancement bonuses, and is incredibly useful in stealth type campaigns.

If you ask your DM you could probably do the d10 to see if it has magical light before applying illuminating.

[Slipperychicken]

except...

I have never seen any D&D group ever use the glowing magic items rule. It typically remains in the dumpster next to massive damage and multiclass XP penalties.

[qwertyu63]

I think that illuminating lets you make a masterwork weapon have a magical enhancement which is treated as a light source. Its much cheaper than going for a magical +1 enhancement and hoping it will be part of that 30% which emits light. Also illuminating can be shut off without affecting enhancement bonuses, and is incredibly useful in stealth type campaigns.

If you ask your DM you could probably do the d10 to see if it has magical light before applying illuminating.

Actually, illuminating can't be shut off either.

I was thinking "If you would buy a weapon with illuminating, why not just buy one that is in that 30%? Cheaper that way."


I have never seen any D&D group ever use the glowing magic items rule. It remains in the dumpster next to massive damage and multiclass XP penalties.

I know, but that doesn't negate the fact that WotC wrote both of these.

[Rubik]

The property likely exists so that you can add a glow to a weapon that previously didn't have it.This.

Problem is, it's cheaper to buy a casting of Continual Flame to add to a weapon. It CAN be dispelled, but the party wizard could easily add it back on for 1/10 the cost of the illuminating weapon property.

I wouldn't mind nabbing a pair of +1 warning/eager sleeve blades, and if at least one of them doesn't glow naturally (for a given value of "natural"), I'd consider adding this property so I have an easily concealed torch without the possibility of permanent dispellation (assuming no access to anyone with wizard or cleric casting, anyway).

[NoACWarrior]

Actually, illuminating can't be shut off either.

I was thinking "If you would buy a weapon with illuminating, why not just buy one that is in that 30%? Cheaper that way."

Illuminating can be shut off. Any magical weapon ability can be shut on or off unless otherwise noted, but the part about a shining +1 sword means that the light originates from the +1 bonus and in order to shut it off you must also deactivate the +1 bonus - the wording is there so you just can't have your pie and eat it too.

[TuggyNE]

Illuminating can be shut off. Any magical weapon ability can be shut on or off unless otherwise noted

Why would you say that? A lot of weapon abilities specifically note that they can be shut off, but I've never seen any general rule to that effect, so I would assume the converse.

[NoACWarrior]

Maybe it was just a mix up - I remember this is how we played in my group, but that was also because the DM sent alot of monsters with elemental healing after us.

But yes, short of the description claiming on or off abilities, theres no way to deactivate an ability, by RAW. I was also probably thinking about magic items with continuous effects (I don't know if such items can turn off as well, maybe I'll look it up later).

I'm wrong ;)

[ericgrau]

I think that illuminating lets you make a masterwork weapon have a magical enhancement which is treated as a light source. Its much cheaper than going for a magical +1 enhancement and hoping it will be part of that 30% which emits light. Also illuminating can be shut off without affecting enhancement bonuses, and is incredibly useful in stealth type campaigns.

If you ask your DM you could probably do the d10 to see if it has magical light before applying illuminating.

Weapons need to be at least +1 before you're allowed to add special properties like illuminating. Furthermore:



At the time of creation, the creator must decide if the weapon glows or not as a side-effect of the magic imbued within it. This decision does not affect the price or the creation time, but once the item is finished, the decision is binding.

So the property really is entirely pointless at creation. I suppose you could add it on as an upgrade unlike the above. But as pointed out there are cheaper ways.

[Jack_Simth]

... why would you want the weapon to glow, unless it's just a distraction? I mean, I generally have my cleric type characters pick up a masterwork dagger with Continual Flame on the blade. Dress up as a rogue, and people then target Will and Fort until you become famous. Don't want light? Sheath it. Want light? Hold it in the hand that's handling your buckler. Want just a little light? Pull it just slightly out of the sheath.

If you want to do it right, you planar bind a Lantern Archon (or better - a Hound or even Trumpet Archon) to put the Continual Flame spell on it. That also makes it show up as Lawful and Good to the appropriate detection spells (as it's under the effects of a spell-like ability from a typed outsider).

[Slipperychicken]

... why would you want the weapon to glow, unless it's just a distraction?

Maybe it's a regulation: All magic weapons in a kingdom are required to glow, so they can't be easily concealed (so it's harder to sneak them past the palace guards). Possession of unlawful magic items is punishable by nasty things.

[slaydemons]

First off, illuminating weapon is silly. Secondly you want your weapon to glow for power fantasies

[deuxhero]

Having a magic weapon that glows is helpful if lighting rules are actually enforced and you are human.

The problem is continual flame on something you can remove if you don't want to glow is better in absolutely every way.

[ericgrau]

If you aren't great at hiding anyway you may want a light source that doesn't take another hand nor any form of item juggling that might be better used on something more major. Plus it's far harder to dispel this way. It's not that great, but it is free. So the decision isn't "is it worth the cost?" it's "is it better or worse than nothing?"

And with that in mind on how tough a decision it is at 0 gp... illuminating is pretty dumb.

[Ravens_cry]

First off, illuminating weapon is silly. Secondly you want your weapon to glow for power fantasies
There is also an enchantment that makes your sword make "Zhoom" and "zhwang!" and "zhim" noises as you swing it.
I heard it from my cousin Jed, I swear!

[HighWater]

There is also an enchantment that makes your sword make "Zhoom" and "zhwang!" and "zhim" noises as you swing it.
I heard it from my cousin Jed, I swear!

How much for just the zhim?

[tri]

It's only a 30% chance for it to be glowing though. Anyway there's cheaper methods to get illumination, such as a dull gray ioun stone with continual flame casted on it. That doesn't require you to hold it either.

[TuggyNE]

It's only a 30% chance for it to be glowing though.

For random weapons. If you make it yourself you can choose either way.

[tri]

For random weapons. If you make it yourself you can choose either way.

Oh whoops, missed that part. But still, it'll only apply to those that craft magical weapons.

[Shinken]

Maybe it was just a mix up - I remember this is how we played in my group, but that was also because the DM sent alot of monsters with elemental healing after us.

But yes, short of the description claiming on or off abilities, theres no way to deactivate an ability, by RAW. I was also probably thinking about magic items with continuous effects (I don't know if such items can turn off as well, maybe I'll look it up later).

I'm wrong ;)

Flaming/Shock/Cold weapons are different, because they require activation to begin with. Which is another rule everyone ignores.

[Jack_Simth]

Flaming/Shock/Cold weapons are different, because they require activation to begin with. Which is another rule everyone ignores.
Under most circumstances, the fact that it needs activation is irrelevant. See, it won't harm you or your equipment, so there's no problem leaving it on full-time, including when sheathed.

[Agincourt]

Flaming/Shock/Cold weapons are different, because they require activation to begin with. Which is another rule everyone ignores.


Under most circumstances, the fact that it needs activation is irrelevant. See, it won't harm you or your equipment, so there's no problem leaving it on full-time, including when sheathed.

Right. We just generally assume the PC has left the property on and only turns it off if necessary. I.e., a shambling mound and a shocking weapon.

[Chronos]

If you have a 7th-level cleric or wizard, Continual Flame doesn't even cost anything. Just summon a lantern archon and have it cast it.

My last cleric had Continual Flame cast on his sword, shield, and holy symbol, for a few reasons: He was human and so needed a light source, multiple castings makes it less likely that they'll all be dispelled, and a sword, shield, and holy symbol that are all wreathed in flame just looks cool (even cooler than a generic glow).

[Slipperychicken]

If you have a 7th-level cleric or wizard, Continual Flame doesn't even cost anything. Just summon a lantern archon and have it cast it.


Not unless you have an infinite-duration summoning spell.


Summoning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

[Seerow]

Isn't there a more expensive version of the property that sheds light to 60ft instead of 20ft?

[Rijan_Sai]

Not unless you have an infinite-duration summoning spell.
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

Out of curiosity, when does a Permanent duration spell "expire?"


Continual Flame (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/continualFlame.htm)
Evocation [Light]
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Object touched
Effect: Magical, heatless flame
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No


Maybe I'm wrong, (wouldn't be the first time!) but it seems to me that that line from the Summoning sub-school description is an indication about Duration, and that the duration of a spell will instantly reach "0*" when the summoned monster leaves. Permanent duration spells don't reach "0" without Dispel, as I understand it.

*
(I.E. a spell that is "1 round/level," at CL 10 will last 10 rounds. If the summon dies/runs out of time/is dispelled/etc. after only 5 rounds have passes, the remaining 5 rounds are lost.)

[Seerow]

Permanent is still a duration that can be dispelled and would be ended by the summon ending.

If it were instantaneous and created a new source of light that was permanent, that would be different. But duration permanent can be ended.

[Slipperychicken]

Out of curiosity, when does a Permanent duration spell "expire?"


When the summoning spell ends, obviously :smalltongue:

But seriously, the point is so you don't use summons to circumvent material and XP costs. The in-universe explanation is probably something like "when the tenuous connection holding a summoned creature to the material plane ends, it extinguishes the summon's magic along with its material form".

[Rubik]

When the summoning spell ends, obviously :smalltongue:

But seriously, the point is so you don't use summons to circumvent material and XP costs. The in-universe explanation is probably something like "when the tenuous connection holding a summoned creature to the material plane ends, it extinguishes the summon's magic along with its material form".Planar Binding is a thing, and it's a cheaply accessible thing, too.

[Slipperychicken]

Planar Binding is a thing, and it's a cheaply accessible thing, too.

Nobody said WotC always does the best job balancing these things, but that seems to have been the idea. Planar Binding is supposed to have a number of risks and costs, like the time it takes to cast, the target having a decent chance to escape or subvert commands, and exposing the caster to the otusiders' vengeance.

[Rubik]

Nobody said WotC always does the best job balancing these things, but that seems to have been the idea. Planar Binding is supposed to have a number of risks and costs, like the time it takes to cast, the target having a decent chance to escape or subvert commands, and exposing the caster to the outsiders' vengeance.I don't think that really counts here -- at least, if the caster is of Good (or well-meaning Neutral) alignment, and is using the lantern archon's help against Evil.

But it's a wizard. If he takes precautions, even higher level demons can't do much against him, so long as said demons aren't also spellcasters.

[eastmabl]

Or, maybe this is just a new rule towards the end of the 3.5 book cycle that justified new books.

[Zaq]

Eh, better a glowy weapon than a loud weapon.


Mentally Audible

Fully 30% of psionic weapons telepathically mutter, croon, recite battle poems, scream, or produce other mental “noises” when first drawn, at first blood, or when they slay a significant enemy. Such a weapon cannot be concealed from creatures within 15 feet when it is drawn, nor can its mental “soundtrack” be curbed.

And this is why psionic weapons are bad. Because really? Really?

[Windstorm]

Eh, better a glowy weapon than a loud weapon.

And this is why psionic weapons are bad. Because really? Really?

Eh, they can be fun in the right circumstances, in the last comedy campaign I was in, the guy playing a thri-keen ninja found a set of 4 swords, turned out they had the personalities of each of the ninja turtles (not intelligent, just psionic and an internet soundboard)

The magic illumination rules are actually quite handy for detecting antimagic effects in the upper levels

[TuggyNE]

Out of curiosity, when does a Permanent duration spell "expire?"



Maybe I'm wrong, (wouldn't be the first time!) but it seems to me that that line from the Summoning sub-school description is an indication about Duration, and that the duration of a spell will instantly reach "0*" when the summoned monster leaves. Permanent duration spells don't reach "0" without Dispel, as I understand it.


A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired.

How awkward.

[Seerow]

Eh, better a glowy weapon than a loud weapon.



And this is why psionic weapons are bad. Because really? Really?

That actually sounds ridiculously cool. Sure, sucks for a sneaky character... so don't get one on a rogue. (Or if you do, use it as a backup weapon for regular combat). But having a sword that shrieks out a mental battlecry when you draw it? That's the sort of thing that can drive real fear into your enemies, a building block of a legend.

Now I must get a psionic weapon in my next campaign.

[Keneth]

I have never seen any D&D group ever use the glowing magic items rule.

We use it. We always have. But I virtually never roll for random loot, I find it utterly pointless, so the rule is applied precisely when we choose to apply it.

It's an easy one to forget though. Kinda like the one about abjurations resonating when in close proximity.


Flaming/Shock/Cold weapons are different, because they require activation to begin with. Which is another rule everyone ignores.

We don't ignore it, we just accept that the ability is activated unless instructed otherwise, rather than the other way around.

[ericgrau]

Isn't there a more expensive version of the property that sheds light to 60ft instead of 20ft?
You could pay an NPC to cast widened continual flame for 500 gp to get 40 feet. It might get dispelled though. Yes, you could also take the widen feat yourself, but who does that?

[The Grue]

Just wanted to jump in and say that, in all my years of playing 3.x, I have never once seen this "30% of all magic weapons shed light" rule used.

Has anyone been in a game where it was used?

[Windstorm]

Just wanted to jump in and say that, in all my years of playing 3.x, I have never once seen this "30% of all magic weapons shed light" rule used.

Has anyone been in a game where it was used?

regularly used in my games and in the ones I participate in, however magic items are not common, and the few that are in general use are not made shiny precisely because they're for general use.

its actually a pretty useful rule, because if you see something giving off faint glow, you know its something magic and or interesting, and also a good giveaway when fighting humanoids that use items and weapons.

[Hamste]

The illuminating property is just a way for sellers to make a bit more money with out it actually costing them anything (They say the glowing effect is actually an enchantment and not a mistake so they can sell their weapons for 500 more)

[Scootaloo]

... why would you want the weapon to glow, unless it's just a distraction?

If you've ever played an MMO, then you HAVE to know that particle effects make gear 10% better just by their presence.

[TuggyNE]

If you've ever played an MMO, then you HAVE to know that particle effects make gear 10% better just by their presence.

I think you mean 20% cooler.

[Sith_Happens]

Not unless you have an infinite-duration summoning spell.

Gee, it's a good thing that spell-like abilities aren't spells, isn't it?:smallwink:


How awkward.

To the dysfunction thread!

[Segev]

Regarding summoned creatures' spells:

That applies to summoned creatures. Not called creatures. And Planar Binding and Planar Ally are both calling spells. There is a specific difference between the two. (Called creatures can die for real, for example.)

[Slipperychicken]

Gee, it's a good thing that spell-like abilities aren't spells, isn't it?:smallwink:


I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.



SRD
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.

[...]

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:

[Chronos]

Yeah, my defense there is that I just didn't know about that rule. It's pretty clear, though: You can't use Summon Monster IV for free Continual Flames (though you can use Lesser Planar Binding).

[DigoDragon]

And this is why psionic weapons are bad. Because really? Really?

I'm picturing the 'Singing Sword' from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? :smalltongue:



Just wanted to jump in and say that, in all my years of playing 3.x, I have never once seen this "30% of all magic weapons shed light" rule used.

Has anyone been in a game where it was used?

I've been in several 2e games where it was used, but just one 3.x game with that rule in play. In the latter game, my rogue got a shortsword that always had a glow on it like a torch. Can't turn it off, but I could just stick it in a scabbard if I didn't want the light.

[Deaxsa]

Problem is, it's cheaper to buy a casting of Continual Flame to add to a weapon.

But that's not even as good as a pellet of liquid sunlight (Dungeonscape). It's an awfully ineffective holy water pellet that... also gives off light as a torch, permanently. like a glowy peice of glass. and it only costs 20 GP.