PDA

View Full Version : Flaming weapons?



Lolzords
2007-04-05, 04:59 PM
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.(Dungeon master's guide page 224)

Basically, when you say "fire" or whatever, your weapon bursts into flames.

Does this mean the weapon doubles as a light source? Can you use it to light firewood?

alchemy.freak
2007-04-05, 05:02 PM
I would say yes, to both.

but someone out there probably disagrees

Black Mage
2007-04-05, 05:14 PM
I'd say it would work like a torch in terms of providing a light source, and that yes, it can light fires if you were to hold the flame to wood long enough.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-05, 05:16 PM
I thought it was just assumed that you could treat it like a light source.

Jack Mann
2007-04-05, 06:01 PM
By RAW, no. But it's reasonable to assume that flaming weapons are always in the 30% of magic items that give off light.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-04-05, 06:14 PM
I don't think you could light fires with it. If you hit the logs, then yes, but the fire doesn't harm anyone or anything unless the weapon hits.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-05, 06:41 PM
By RAW, no.
Do we really need RAW to tell us fire gives off light?

jjpickar
2007-04-05, 06:44 PM
I should hope not.

Kel_Arath
2007-04-05, 07:02 PM
yes to both. it acts just like normal fire for all purposes excpet not hurting you. and heads up, if you ever get disarmed, when they pick it up, say the command word and the flame wont be there to hurt you if the enemy uses it. (useful trick!)

Portent
2007-04-05, 07:09 PM
If they pick up the weapon, though, won't they be considered the "wielder"?

Fizban
2007-04-05, 07:23 PM
Remember that on command still means a standard action.

As Shhalar said, RAW it gives off no light, but it's reasonable to assume so. I'd have it give off light as a torch when lit.

The wielder is the guy holding the weapon, if they take it, you get burned.

There's no guidelines that I know of for using fire damage to start a fire unless the ability specifically says it does, but common sense says again that you could use it just like torch to light something up. considering that a torch only deals 1 point of fire damage on a hit, 1d6 is more than enough.

nooblade
2007-04-05, 07:59 PM
You guys are missing something. We need to know if the weapon gives off light when it isn't sheathed in fire. These things are very important, you see. That 30% chance is so annoying for hiding. No wonder the shopkeepers probably don't give any extra money for it. And you can't deactivate it, unlike the fire.

the_tick_rules
2007-04-05, 08:00 PM
yeah, fire gives off light, what are campfires all about?

JaronK
2007-04-05, 08:11 PM
I use flaming weapons as lightsources all the time. Also, in campaigns where cold is an issue, they make great campfire starters.

JaronK

AmoDman
2007-04-05, 08:47 PM
Do we really need RAW to tell us fire gives off light?

/agree.

This isn't one of those things RAW doesn't explicity state because it's trying to stretch the rules (like it doesn't say gnomes don't shoot lasers out of their eyes), it's an instance where "You can put shoes on your feet," or "Grass is soft," is common sense.

Support! From the web spell description...

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

Thus, a flaming sword is sheathed in flames that do fire damage literally means that there is fire on the sword which both gives off light and heat and as per fire.

TheOOB
2007-04-05, 08:56 PM
The laws of common sense say that a flaming sword would give off light as a torch, and be able to light fires if held to a flamable object long enough. I don't think it's too big a deal giving 1 cp worth of functionality to an enchantment that costs at least 3,000gp.

Jack Mann
2007-04-05, 11:46 PM
Zen was using the DMG's wording to frame the question, so it seemed reasonable that he wanted to know what the rules say. By the rules, flaming weapons don't shed light.

Notice that I immediately said that it would be reasonable to rule that they're part of the 30% that do give off light. I do not argue with the need to go beyond what the rules strictly say at times, or even to change rules when necessary. But if someone appears to be asking what the rules say, then I will tell them.

If what was reasonable and what was by the rules were the same, I wouldn't need to implement so many house rules in my games.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-06, 12:00 AM
By the rules, flaming weapons don't not give off light.

I think it may be one of those "flavor" things that the DM may add (or remove) at his discretion.

It'd be creepy to have a flaming sword that didn't shed light.

clericwithnogod
2007-04-06, 12:05 AM
Remember that on command still means a standard action.

Yes, but you get a lot of mileage from this standard action. As long as you are holding or carrying the item, it doesn't damage you or your equipment. So you only have to play around with activation and deactivation if you set it down or want to hide the flames for some reason while you have it unsheathed in hand.

AmoDman
2007-04-06, 12:17 AM
Zen was using the DMG's wording to frame the question, so it seemed reasonable that he wanted to know what the rules say. By the rules, flaming weapons don't shed light.

Notice that I immediately said that it would be reasonable to rule that they're part of the 30% that do give off light. I do not argue with the need to go beyond what the rules strictly say at times, or even to change rules when necessary. But if someone appears to be asking what the rules say, then I will tell them.

If what was reasonable and what was by the rules were the same, I wouldn't need to implement so many house rules in my games.

I disagree. I believe the rule is written for you to know that the sword is sheathed in fire. There is no rule for or against light (though it is clear on heat). There's no rule I know of that states a campfire gives off light even though I know it does. I wouldn't even want the rulebook detailing out these things at every opportunity. It's nonsensical.

By RAW my character may or may not breathe out his ass, by RAW I can hold my sword by the blade no problem, by RAW crap smells like cinnabuns.

Swords are sharp, noses are on your face (and are used for breathing), crap smells like crap, fire produces light. They aren't rules, but they aren't not rules. Unless particular exceptions are made, they're as plain as humans have five fingers per hand (unless otherwise stated).

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-06, 12:20 AM
Forget light source, man. A flaming weapon is apparently an infinite energy machine. I'm sure there's plenty of abuses present for the appropriate gear head artificer.

AmoDman
2007-04-06, 12:28 AM
Forget light source, man. A flaming weapon is apparently an infinite energy machine. I'm sure there's plenty of abuses present for the appropriate gear head artificer.

As is a shocking weapon, oddly, except for a frost...since cold is the absence of motion. Hmmm...gotta love those flaming frost swords! Hehe, now that's something I would've expected Wizards to mention by RAW, but eh. A wizard did it.

Corolinth
2007-04-06, 12:34 AM
1d6 fire damage is the same as normal nonmagical fire. You should be able to set something on fire with it.

I generally tend to assume anything that's either sheathed in lightning or on fire (such as activated flaming or shocking weapons) are also giving off some amount of light, but your mileage may vary. I'm sure there's a few DMs out there who think that flaming weapons burn with non-light-having flame.

TheOOB
2007-04-06, 12:36 AM
There is nothing wrong with a flaming frost weapon, at least nothing more wrong then the fact that magic exists in the first place. A longsword is double edged, so why couldn't one edge be flaming and one edge be frost, if you slice through someone both effects would hit them, and rapid freeze/heat might make things even worse.

AmoDman
2007-04-06, 12:41 AM
There is nothing wrong with a flaming frost weapon, at least nothing more wrong then the fact that magic exists in the first place. A longsword is double edged, so why couldn't one edge be flaming and one edge be frost, if you slice through someone both effects would hit them, and rapid freeze/heat might make things even worse.

Thusly I said, a wizard did it.

Lightless flames makes about as much sense as stone hard grass in springtime. Sure, you can do it, but, as they say, that's the exception...not the rule.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-06, 01:08 AM
So...those acidic weapons... produce as much hydrogen as you have metal next to them to oxidise? :P

*ponders flaming corrosive weapons*

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-06, 01:10 AM
I bet dwarves use acid weapons to mine with. They're like power tools that don't need an energy source.

AmoDman
2007-04-06, 01:11 AM
So...those acidic weapons... produce as much hydrogen as you have metal next to them to oxidise? :P

*ponders flaming corrosive weapons*

Hey now, if we start combining effects scientifically we fall into the same trap I just mentioned with frost/flaming...just don't do it man. Don't do it.

*Chants 'A wizard did it'*

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-06, 01:16 AM
D&D worlds don't act on real-world physics. They're composed entirely of elemental energies, and thus all rules are based upon these fundamentals. While frost and flame may be opposite energies, they don't cancel each other out, for that would disrupt the universe and make it destroy itself. So combining these energies, or any other elemental energies for that matter, is certainly possible.

Fizban
2007-04-06, 02:52 AM
Now, if you don't want your flaming weapon to shed (as much) light, you can get the DM to change it so that the blade is just really hot. It might glow, but it'll be a lot dimmer than full on fire.

Also works with cold: instead of "cold energy" (whatever that looks like), the blade is frosty and fog forms near it. Electricity: stab->zap. Acid, not so much. I'm just talking for talking's sake now, I'm done.

AtomicKitKat
2007-04-06, 07:55 AM
What I meant was, if you combine corrosive and flaming, you're liable to start shattering armour(and eardrums) everytime you face an opponent encased in metal. :P

Matthew
2007-04-08, 06:26 PM
Thusly I said, a wizard did it.

No, no, the Wizards did it...

LoopyZebra
2007-04-08, 08:06 PM
No, no, the Wizards did it...

Are they on a coast?

So, it seems reasonable to allow flaming weapons to that, but to me it seems like it'd give it a slight edge (very, very slight) over other elemental based enchantments. What does frost do? Keep steak from thawing?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-08, 08:23 PM
Well, as someone else mentioned, a shocking weapon probably also should shed light. And, though it may be physically unsound in the real world, many fantasy depictions of "cold energy" depict it with a blue glow.

In any case, there are definitely times when an item shedding light would be a decided disadvantage.

PaladinBoy
2007-04-08, 08:32 PM
I certainly agree that most flaming weapons probably give off light.

I also think it's possible to have a flaming weapon that does not give off light. After all, if you want your sword sheathed in black fire that gives off no light, then I'm sure there's a wizard somewhere that can make it do that.

my_evil_twin
2007-04-08, 11:18 PM
One rule that never seems to get used is relevent here. Upon creating any magic weapon, the creator can choose to make it glow like a torch at (IIRC) no additional cost. Also, 10% of randomly generated magic weapons shed light as a torch. By this precedent, there's no problem assuming that all flaming weapons shed light.

Tach13
2007-04-08, 11:47 PM
Simplest answer, check with whoever is running your game. The game I have a flaming weapon in both my DM and I have the same view on it, when ignited, it gives off light as a torch (even makes the online mapper show me as holding a torch, so those in my group know how far away from me there is good light). The way I use it, when ignited you can see with it like a torch, and when it goes off you get no light. As a Rogue it works best that way.