Keen

[Avor]

Can there be multiple keens on a weapon?

You know, the +1 equivelent qaulity for magical items. So instead of a Keen flaming long sword, haveing a Keen, keen long sword, giving it even more crit range?

[Collin152]

No.
No you cannot.

[monty]

Otherwise, you'd have players with keen keen keen keen keen vorpal scimitars raping everything in sight.

[StoryKeeper]

No, it would be far too easy to abuse if you could. and if i'm wrong and you legally can, please don't for the sake of all that is good in gaming.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Doesn't stack. They specifically say things from the same source don't stack, and that Keen doesn't stack with anything else specifically.

[Collin152]

Otherwise, you'd have players with keen keen keen keen keen vorpal scimitars raping everything in sight.

Vorpal only kills on a natural 20, regardless of threat range, so it isn't too bad.

[Jasdoif]

Vorpal only kills on a natural 20, regardless of threat range, so it isn't too bad.Right. Now, keen^4 bodyfeeder soulbreaker falchions on the other hand....


But no, multiple keens don't stack. Magic weapon properties are still subject to "same effect from same source doesn't stack" rule.

[Avor]

Crit range of 17-19 is enough, but as long as things like fire damage can stack, I want my Firey flame sword of flameing flames. Something about multiple d6s of element damages just rubs me the right way.

[The_Snark]

Flaming doesn't stack either; you can't apply any property to a weapon more than once unless it says so. (I don't believe there are any that do.) You could, of course, have a +1 flaming frost shocking corrosive thundering weapon, if you wanted.

[Kizara]

Crit range of 17-19 is enough, but as long as things like fire damage can stack, I want my Firey flame sword of flameing flames. Something about multiple d6s of element damages just rubs me the right way.

The ELH has rules for greater versions of flamming and the like as well as holy and such weapons. Greater flamming is +6 enchant for 4d6 damage IIRC.

[StoryKeeper]

Flaming doesn't stack either; you can't apply any property to a weapon more than once unless it says so. (I don't believe there are any that do.) You could, of course, have a +1 flaming frost shocking corrosive thundering weapon, if you wanted.

Look, guys! I can kill things with all the colors of the rainbow!

[Collin152]

Look, guys! I can kill things with all the colors of the rainbow!

Now go dragon hunting!
Skittles: Kill the Rainbow! Nah, rainbows and me are on great terms nowadays.

[BRC]

Can there be multiple keens on a weapon?

You know, the +1 equivelent qaulity for magical items. So instead of a Keen flaming long sword, haveing a Keen, keen long sword, giving it even more crit range?

Keen not only dosn't stack with itself, it dosn't stack with Keen Edge, Improved Critical, or anything else that increases crit range, or else we would have everybody with Scimitars that had a 50% crit chance

[Avor]

Flaming doesn't stack either; you can't apply any property to a weapon more than once unless it says so.

Where does it say that I can't take flaming 9 times over?

What book and page number? Becuase I have a unhealthy(as in the DM hates it) intrest in ancestrial weapons, like the OA samurai, the CW Kensai and ancestrial relic feat.

If I can't take multiple flames, frosts, ect, what good is it.

Nobody has ever realy made a issue, becuase if you have a +1 weapon with 9d6 flame damage, it's only a matter of time before you encounter something that is immune to fire.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Now go dragon hunting!
Skittles: Kill the Rainbow! Nah, rainbows and me are on great terms nowadays.

Now I HAVE to make a dragon slayer known only as Skittles.

Skittles: *charging as Tiamat* Waste the rainbow!!1! :smallfurious:

[tyckspoon]

Where does it say that I can't take flaming 9 times over?


I think this would come under the 'multiple instances of the same effect' rule anyway- you wouldn't roll 9d6 damage, you would roll 1d6 nine times and apply the best result. Good odds of getting that 6 fire damage, but a thorough waste of +9 worth of enhancements.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Because, Avor, the idea is that the enhancements should add a little extra ooomph, not grossly outmatch the weapon itself.

[StoryKeeper]

Now I HAVE to make a dragon slayer known only as Skittles.

Skittles: *charging as Tiamat* Waste the rainbow!!1! :smallfurious:

Adding to my sig now...

[Avor]

Because, Avor, the idea is that the enhancements should add a little extra ooomph, not grossly outmatch the weapon itself.

It's strikes me as increadibly hypocritical of the rules, that I can have my +5 weapon do 1d6 of acid, 1d6 of sonic, 1d6 of frost, 1d6 of flame, 1d6 of and shock damage, But I can't have a +5 weapons that does only 5d6 flame.

Haveing multiples of the same, like I said, only gimps myself for later encounters. It's funny, the rules will not allow me to gimp myself.

[Dhavaer]

The only way to get multiple Keens on a weapon is to make it very, very large, and then have all the members of my family use it. It won't do much for the threat range, though.

[Collin152]

Adding to my sig now...

See that Hadrian? We've been communally quoted in a sig. Isn't that something?

[StoryKeeper]

Unfortunately, I had to cut out most of the bits because I can only have so many words in my sig at a time. Sorry! :smallredface:

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I like the idea of having Vicious^9 (I think that's what it's called) +1 weapon. I'm sure a light hearted DM would allow it. +18d6 damage to them, 9d6 to me.

Collin: Ain't that somethin' else? :smallbiggrin: That should SO be "at" as opposed to "as". >_<

[Azerian Kelimon]

It's strikes me as increadibly hypocritical of the rules, that I can have my +5 weapon do 1d6 of acid, 1d6 of sonic, 1d6 of frost, 1d6 of flame, 1d6 of and shock damage, But I can't have a +5 weapons that does only 5d6 flame.

Haveing multiples of the same, like I said, only gimps myself for later encounters. It's funny, the rules will not allow me to gimp myself.

Think of it logically. You're sword is already aflame. What are you gonna do, make it flamier? Fire is gonna burn the same if it is at the same temperature. The only enhancement is a burst, and, appropiately, it's the only logical boost up.

[Talic]

Ah, yes, the (Keen*18) Heavy Pick. The weapon that threatens from 2-20, for x4.

No, not allowed, lol.

[StoryKeeper]

I like the idea of having Vicious^9 (I think that's what it's called) +1 weapon. I'm sure a light hearted DM would allow it. +18d6 damage to them, 9d6 to me.

If the player didn't mind having his character killed off, that could be a great cinematic weapon. Think about it, you now have the power to kill the god or demon lord, or humungo dragon or whatever, but there's a very good chance that you'll die doing so.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Not flamier, but it burns hotter. What I get tickled pink about is the possibility of the Merciful weapon enhancement repeating. Doing more damage because is MORE merciful? :smallamused:

[AstaraelSCO]

New Spell: Prismatic Skittle Spray. The tastier way to own everything in the room!

[Collin152]

Collin: Ain't that somethin' else?

Pardon? I don't think I understand.
"If you please!"
"Ah, yes, of course, Sir Joseph. If you please."

I still don't understand weapons both vicious and merciful at once.

[Collin152]

Collin: Ain't that somethin' else?

Pardon? I don't think I understand.
"If you please!"
"Ah, yes, of course, Sir Joseph. If you please."

I still don't understand weapons both vicious and merciful at once.

[Avor]

Think of it logically. You're sword is already aflame. What are you gonna do, make it flamier?

Exactly!

Why have the flame just cover the blade, it should burn as large as bon fire! When I hit you, I want the flame to cover your entire body, not just where I cut you.

Also, sure, my sword is covered in flame, but it's 1d6, standard issue non-magical flame. If a wizard put the effort it, he could probly make it burn far more hot. Put enough magic/godly influence in, why not?



For some of use, simply haveing a weapon on fire is not enough, I have done that IRL, it needs to burn hot enough to melt holes in people. The wizzard and rouge gets multiple D6s, I want them too.

[Avor]

Think of it logically. You're sword is already aflame. What are you gonna do, make it flamier?

Exactly!

Why have the flame just cover the blade, it should burn as large as bon fire! When I hit you, I want the flame to cover your entire body, not just where I cut you.

Also, sure, my sword is covered in flame, but it's 1d6, standard issue non-magical flame. If a wizard put the effort it, he could probly make it burn far more hot. Put enough magic/godly influence in, why not?



For some of us, simply haveing a weapon on fire is not enough, I've done that IRL, it needs to burn hot enough to melt holes in people. The wizzard and rouge gets multiple D6s, I want them too.

[StoryKeeper]

Not flamier, but it burns hotter. What I get tickled pink about is the possibility of the Merciful weapon enhancement repeating. Doing more damage because is MORE merciful? :smallamused:

Sometimes a quicker demise IS more merciful >:)

Also, I can see a weapon with multiple flames stacking damage either because it does in fact burn more intensely, or because the flames around the weapon grow in size thus burning a larger portion of the targets body when it strikes.

[tyckspoon]

Ah, yes, the (Keen*18) Heavy Pick. The weapon that threatens from 2-20, for x4.

No, not allowed, lol.

Well, seeing as how that'd be a ridiculously Epic weapon (+19 bonus costs a touch over 7 million gp) it's probably not actually excessive. The non-epic version of it that stacks 'only' nine Keens would be dangerous, tho.. and it should probably be a scythe for better damage and two-hander Strength bonus (x4).

[drengnikrafe]

I can see it now...
The +9 Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming Greatsword.
Of course, only warforged with the "Adamantine Body" upgrade can use it, becase anything else would melt (including human skin) when holding it...

[StoryKeeper]

or anything with fire immunity.

[Avor]

I can see it now...
The +9 Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming, Flaming Greatsword.
Of course, only warforged with the "Adamantine Body" upgrade can use it, becase anything else would melt (including human skin) when holding it...

No, it does not harm the wielder.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Collin: Translation: Neat!

AstaraelSCO: Initiate of the Skittle Stained Veils.

StoryKeeper: Merciful^9: I won't hit you more often because I care. Instead, I'll just hit you HARDER.

[drengnikrafe]

No, it does not harm the wielder.

Says who?
I'm sure if you accidentally dropped your sword in your spleen if it had a +1 Flaming, you'd take the damage from the sword and the burning. If someone's sword has a flame that is burning the heavens with it's giant flames, it should create enough heat to harm it's weilder by some (unless, of course, it does have fire resistance).

[Avor]

Says who?
I'm sure if you accidentally dropped your sword in your spleen if it had a +1 Flaming, you'd take the damage from the sword and the burning. If someone's sword has a flame that is burning the heavens with it's giant flames, it should create enough heat to harm it's weilder by some (unless, of course, it does have fire resistance).

page 224 of the DMG.

"The fire does not harm the wielder."

[Hadrian_Emrys]

The rule was made so you could keep a flaming weapon in your pants.
Wizards thought the idea was hot.

[Avor]

The rule was made so you could keep a flaming weapon in your pants.
Wizards thought the idea was hot.

Doesnt matter, it's command activated, off and on like a light sabre.

[StoryKeeper]

I thought it was use activated.

[Collin152]

The rule was made so you could keep a flaming weapon in your pants.
Wizards thought the idea was hot.

Hey, if my main man wants a hot blade in his pants, I'm obligated to make sure he gets one.

[drengnikrafe]

page 224 of the DMG.

"The fire does not harm the wielder."

I'll concede that a +1 wouldn't harm the weilder, but it's not specific enough to say whether or not the already illegal Flaming^9 sword. If the bonuses were totally independant (as per the 1d6 times 9, best one), I can see that applying, but the DMG says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a weapon that deals a bonus 9d6 points of flame damage, just 1d6.
It's hard to perfectly argue over rules when they're illegal, isn't it?

[Avor]

I'll concede that a +1 wouldn't harm the weilder, but it's not specific enough to say whether or not the already illegal Flaming^9 sword. If the bonuses were totally independant (as per the 1d6 times 9, best one), I can see that applying, but the DMG says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a weapon that deals a bonus 9d6 points of flame damage, just 1d6.
It's hard to perfectly argue over rules when they're illegal, isn't it?

It's magic.

It doens't hurt you, only what it hits.

Infact, if you read it, it says on a sucessful strike the extra damage is delt. So, as far as I'm concerned, you can have hell on a sword, but it woun't burn anything that it isn't directly touhcing.

[drengnikrafe]

It's magic.

It doens't hurt you, only what it hits.

Infact, if you read it, it says on a sucessful strike the extra damage is delt. So, as far as I'm concerned, you can have hell on a sword, but it woun't burn anything that it isn't directly touhcing.

*OOF*

I'd argue that it doesn't make any sense, but we are talking about rewriting the immutable laws of the universe.

I concede, and I'll shut up on this one...

[Hadrian_Emrys]

If it's command activated, there is no way that a player wouldn't make the trigger "FLAME ON". Hell, if it was a gauntlet, I'd go limp wristed just to mess with the other people at the table.

[Collin152]

If it's command activated, there is no way that a player wouldn't make the trigger "FLAME ON". Hell, if it was a gauntlet, I'd go limp wristed just to mess with the other people at the table.

I see. So, you'd be flaming and limp wristed... just to mess with them?
You got spirit, man.

[Roderick_BR]

Sure you can. Why you'll waste all that money on an effect that doesn't stacks with anything else is beyond me :smalltongue:
Seriously. It doubles the threat range of a weapon. A second keen effect will... double the threat range of a weapon.
So, a longsword will go from 19-20 to 17-20. If you apply keen again, it'll, again, go from 19-20 to 17-20. It doesn't affect the "current" thread value, only the original. In 3.5 you can't combine multiple effects that increases threat ranges.

[Cuddly]

Shouldn't it be flaming *9? A flaming^9 would be quite absurd, doing millions of damage.

Anyway, stacking flames on a sword isn't that big of a deal. You rules Nazis need to closer examine the rules and realize that stacking energy damage isn't that big a deal, since everything past level 10 (when this will actually become a problem) has energy resistance. Or outright immunity

[Collin152]

Shouldn't it be flaming *9? A flaming^9 would be quite absurd, doing millions of damage.

Anyway, stacking flames on a sword isn't that big of a deal. You rules Nazis need to closer examine the rules and realize that stacking energy damage isn't that big a deal, since everything past level 10 (when this will actually become a problem) has energy resistance. Or outright immunity

Suppose it had the Cold subtype, and took extra damage from fire.
It'd be helpful then.

[Gorbash]

Problem with it is that is a MASSIVE amount to elemental damage without any save against it. You could kill a white dragon in one full attack, since on average your hits would do 50 dmg to it (and I'm not including weapon dmg, strength bonus or anything else, just pure fire dmg), like Collin said...

[shadow_archmagi]

Heres how to deal damage. Step one:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=320889

Step two:
Now that you've got as many modifiers added to damage as possible, just buy numerous enhancement items. Remember, three items of +3 is way cheaper than one of +6.

Step three: Laugh as you experience a moment of spiritual enlightenment, becoming one with the blade and using brute force to elegantly place the blade in the weak spots you spent so long studying, which are even easier to hit because you're just so darned likable the enemy subconsciously left himself a little open.

[FlyMolo]

That is silly.

And what's the best crit range acheivable? A falchion is 18-20, and with improved crit that's like 14-20. Keen doesn't stack with that OR keen edge. How lame.

According to adding multiples, though, you could add three to the range each time, if they did stack. So 8-20, with all three.

[RandomNPC]

flymolo, thats 18-20 then keen 15-20, then imp. crit. would be 12-20 if they stacked. remember a X2 and an X2 added are X3 not X4. then again, we aren't applying normal rules.

[SurlySeraph]

I still don't understand weapons both vicious and merciful at once.

Vicious merciful weapons are very paladin-y. "I care about saving you from yourself so much that I'm willing to severely injure myself to do it."

As for the premise of Flaming Flaming Flaming weapons... by RAW they aren't legal, but I think they should be. They're not really overpowered, and the idea of something producing more elemental damage isn't far-fetched. Keen Keen weapons I disagree with, though; there's only so sharp you can make a sword, and monomolecular weapons are just another place where advanced physics does not mix well with DnD. I would like it if you could stack crit enhancers like Improved Critical with Keen (since that would give a big edge to finesse fighters), but it really is more balanced this way.

[GoC]

Problem with it is that is a MASSIVE amount to elemental damage without any save against it. You could kill a white dragon in one full attack, since on average your hits would do 50 dmg to it (and I'm not including weapon dmg, strength bonus or anything else, just pure fire dmg), like Collin said...

Flaming only does slightly more damage than an extra bit of enhancement bonus.
It does +3.5 per bonus while the enhancement does +1+2(power attack) more damage, is more versatile and doesn't deal fire damage which everything has resistance to.

[Hectonkhyres]

What I get tickled pink about is the possibility of the Merciful weapon enhancement repeating. Doing more damage because is MORE merciful? :smallamused:
Yes, this weapon knocks the enemy on his ass... but he wakes up three hours later feeling great! His old war-wounds will never again bother him, he is no longer inclined to beat his wife, and his armpits smell like fresh baked cookies. At least if you don't cut his throat before he wakes up, that is.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Yes, this weapon knocks the enemy on his ass... but he wakes up three hours later feeling great! His old war-wounds will never again bother him, he is no longer inclined to beat his wife, and his armpits smell like fresh baked cookies. At least if you don't cut his throat before he wakes up, that is.

Yeah... because once my +1 Merciful*9 "Belt" (Spiked Chain) finishes showing the red dragon who's the daddy, my teammates so aren't going to slit it's bloody throat once I leave the room. :smalltongue:

[Myatar_Panwar]

I truly see no problem with stacking elemental damage. In fact, i've dreamed about having a weapon like the one your describing for quite some time. Sure, its breaking the rules just a little, but its not breaking the game. This just seems like something that you should ask your DM for permission to do.

And what? A super-duper flaming weapon could kill a white dragon, or other creature with fire-vulnerability fast??? What a great plan!!! I'll go spend 200,000gp on this great flaming weapon for this one battle, and hope to hell that the dragon isn't intelligent in the least, and when he see's my giant inferno of a sword, he wont cast any sort of energy resistance (or frickin immunity) spell on himself!

But seriously, you would probably run into way more things with energy resistance/ immunity, than energy vulnerability. Not that big of a deal.

[SamTheCleric]

You could just house rule it...

Flaming: +1 Enhancement (1d6 fire damage)
Improved Flaming: +2 Enhancement (2d6 fire damage
Greater Flaming: +3 Enhancement (3d6 fire damage)


...

Of course, I'd actually do it like this:

Flaming: +1 Enhancement (1d6 fire damage)
Improved Flaming: +3 Enhancement (3d8 fire damage
Greater Flaming: +5 Enhancement (5d10 fire damage)

Would be a little more dramatic.

[Azerian Kelimon]

You know, that's the reason they introduced flaming burst. In the DMG, at that.

Really, after a flaming burst, it gets ridiculous. I'm incinerating you already, what am I gonna do, cause fifth degree burns instead of fourth degree? You're dead already!

Or imagine a collision weapon, which inflicts an extra +5 damage for a +2 enhancement. What am I gonna do with a *4 Collisionary weapon, make the blunt force trauma traumishly traumatic?

And of course, there's the balance issues. Maybe flaming is not so bad...

But if you're doing that one, Charlie, I'm gonna get a Quadruple Vampiric weapon and heal and DO an extra 4d6 per attack, making me nearly unkillable if I go for many attacks. Now, see WHY they stopped at a certain point?

[Reptilius]

Really, after a flaming burst, it gets ridiculous. I'm incinerating you already, what am I gonna do, cause fifth degree burns instead of fourth degree? You're dead already!

Or imagine a collision weapon, which inflicts an extra +5 damage for a +2 enhancement. What am I gonna do with a *4 Collisionary weapon, make the blunt force trauma traumishly traumatic?

a) 26th degree burns?

b) Well, by the fluff, Collision weapons increase their mass immediately prior to a strike. Perhaps the Collision *4 weapon causes the target to implode, and pull in everything else in a 100 ft. radius. Or it could deal +20 damage.

[drengnikrafe]

Here's one that gets me: Throwing.

It used to make it so that you could effectively grip the weapon as to throw it, but now it's..... what, got it's own prepulsion system?
Also, Dancing. It used to be able to act on it's own. Upgrade it to Dancing*3 and... it can make perform checks and make money as a street performer?

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I'd limit the stacking enhancements to elemental damage effects. Super Keen and Vampiric toys would just be nasty.

I still think that the +1 9* Vicious weapon idea is neato though. At least one person agrees.

[Draz74]

Upgrade it to Dancing*3 and... it can make perform checks and make money as a street performer?

Sweet. I can think of some characters who would definitely shell out the money for that.

And some other characters who would suddenly drop all their other quests to take up a genocide against Dancing*3 weapons throughout the world.

[Collin152]

Also, Dancing. It used to be able to act on it's own. Upgrade it to Dancing*3 and... it can make perform checks and make money as a street performer?

It dances longer, maybe?

[Cuddly]

Suppose it had the Cold subtype, and took extra damage from fire.
It'd be helpful then.

Alright. Suppose it was immune to fire.
It balances.

[Cuddly]

You know, that's the reason they introduced flaming burst. In the DMG, at that.

Really, after a flaming burst, it gets ridiculous. I'm incinerating you already, what am I gonna do, cause fifth degree burns instead of fourth degree? You're dead already!

Or imagine a collision weapon, which inflicts an extra +5 damage for a +2 enhancement. What am I gonna do with a *4 Collisionary weapon, make the blunt force trauma traumishly traumatic?

And of course, there's the balance issues. Maybe flaming is not so bad...

But if you're doing that one, Charlie, I'm gonna get a Quadruple Vampiric weapon and heal and DO an extra 4d6 per attack, making me nearly unkillable if I go for many attacks. Now, see WHY they stopped at a certain point?

How does having a flaming freezing saber make any more or less sense? It's goddamn magic.

The biggest issue I see with stacking the same element would be the fact that you could break resistances.

Example:
A demon is immune to lightning, and has 10 fire, cold and acid resist. Your +1 shocking, flaming, corrosive, freezing sword may as well just be a +1 sword.

If you were doing 5d6 fire damage, then you could crack that fire resistance.

[Hectonkhyres]

Yeah... because once my +1 Merciful*9 "Belt" (Spiked Chain) finishes showing the red dragon who's the daddy, my teammates so aren't going to slit it's bloody throat once I leave the room. :smalltongue:
Really, they might not.
Thats when you whip out mindrape and get yourself a new mount.

Yes. Very merciful, that.

[new1965]

flaming+energy surge gives you a +4d6 flaming weapon usable multiple times a day for a +3 bonus

[The Necroswanso]

Flaming is a fire bonus to damage. A luck bonus to damage does not stack with a luck bonus to damage. Thus, if you have two sources, one creating a +1, while another creates a +2, they do not stack. It's in the modifiers rule.
Thus, when magical, in this case elemental, bonus to damage is created, it does not stack. Flaming, frost, etc, are considered bonuses to damage. Thus they can't stack to deal a potential 9d6. (however they can all be added to deal 9d6 of varying types) Even if they could, you just spent 200,000 gold on the worlds worst item.
Arguing that the fire would hurt the owner, is a house rule that should follow such a change. If you have a sword that creates a collosal pillar of flames, you will not be immune to it. That's just reaks too much of twelve year old logic.
Assuming it just burns epically hot, would melt the blade and flesh. It's one of those things that is just too out there, even for D&D. (You're holding it, so therefore if we grapple I can touch it and be immune too. Really, think about it.) I also noticed how you said a weapon set on fire in real life doesn't work really well and needs to be insanely hot? Great. But this is D&D. As far from real life as Mr. Rogers is from Phillip Anselmo, (singer for Pantera).

If your DM rules that it all works, than congratulations, you have the single most useless weapon ever if they have fire immunity. However against creatures with the cold subtype, it becomes an instant kill. So therefore technically you have a major artifact. And with rules as written, at level five a Bard could probably talk a +10 price down to 1000 gold.

Keen does not stack with anything. It says it specifically. And it's shouldn't. IF a fighter will truly only miss 5% of the time, why the hell should he only not crit that same 5%?

Flaming=fire damage bonus to your damage rolls, IE: it does not stack. Look at Flaming burst, it was made solely to expand flaming. Ruling otherwise is just ignorant. This is not RAW, this is not SRD, it's logic based on the rules of the game.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Or, for anyone who dares to insist, well, let me show you the way to illumination.

Stunning surge weapons. +1 enhancement, you roll a Will save against DC (10+1/2 level+CHA) or are stunned for a round.

Boohoo. You go make your 9d6 flaming weapon. If you can do that, I'll make a nuntuple Stunning Surge weapon which, by the rules, will stun for 9 rounds unless you make a Will save of DC (90+9/2 times my level+9 Times my CHA bonus).

See why the idea is stupid? It's as stupid as the uranium longsword.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I would just like to point out that magic is about breaking the stupid rules of the universe. Why would a magic flaming sword hurt the wielder? I don't see any wizards having their fingers melt off whenever they cast an empowered maximized Scorching Ray, or their hands freezing over and snapping off whenever they unleash a Cone of Cold.

And in truth, I would much rather have a frickin blowtorch on a stick, than a piece of metal which is somehow cold, hot, acidic, loud, and electrified, all at the same time.

[Grommen]

You just need a +25 Vorporal, Danceing, Keen, Luck Blade

Common you know you want it.

I had all my players take Improved Critical and then gave them edged weapons so that they felt so much better about being a blade swinger.

Then I re-read the 3.5 ed rules. I hate change :smallfurious:

I would allow you to add damage to your flaming weapon calling it Lest, Lessor, Greater, and Flame Broil. It would take you time and money and most likely an entire adventure seeking out the wizard capable of such things.

I also don't see how a weapon could do 1d6 fire and frost damage. The resulting weapon would produce a lot of steam and noise (possibly causing a couple fear checks) but physically I don't quite get how this would work. I guess however it would be a legal weapon.

The way we have been playing weapons with multipal elemental damage is that the player just picks one damage type for the fight. The weapon then does that for the battle. That way you don't get stuck swinging a flaming weapon at a Red Dragon or brandishing your frosted Longsword at a Frost Giant.

[Cuddly]

Flaming is a fire bonus to damage. A luck bonus to damage does not stack with a luck bonus to damage. Thus, if you have two sources, one creating a +1, while another creates a +2, they do not stack. It's in the modifiers rule.

Right, we've been discussing a house rule.


Arguing that the fire would hurt the owner, is a house rule that should follow such a change. If you have a sword that creates a collosal pillar of flames, you will not be immune to it. That's just reaks too much of twelve year old logic.

Who said anything about a colossal pillar of flames? You'd be putting more magic into the enchantment, making it hotter. Did you know that fires can have different temperatures? It doesn't have to be a huge pillar of flame.

Let me restate that. It's magic. Yes, magic does work that way.


Assuming it just burns epically hot, would melt the blade and flesh. It's one of those things that is just too out there, even for D&D. (You're holding it, so therefore if we grapple I can touch it and be immune too. Really, think about it.) I also noticed how you said a weapon set on fire in real life doesn't work really well and needs to be insanely hot? Great. But this is D&D. As far from real life as Mr. Rogers is from Phillip Anselmo, (singer for Pantera).

Ok, so first you argue that it's too unrealistic, and now you're arguing that we shouldn't pay attention to realism? Make up your mind, kiddo.


If your DM rules that it all works, than congratulations, you have the single most useless weapon ever if they have fire immunity. However against creatures with the cold subtype, it becomes an instant kill. So therefore technically you have a major artifact.

No. Sure, it won't work against some monsters who are fire immune (which are common), but with 9d6 fire damage, you have a much better chance of hurting a fire resistance creature than with 1d6 fire damage (this is most likely the reason why you can't stack elemental damages, actually). Your fire damage is only going to hurt that fiendish creature 20% of the time, and your fire damage will never hurt a demon, if you only are doing 1d6.

As for it being a major artifact? Hardly. First, you have to be able to hit the cold subtype creature. Go look up a white dragon's stats and when you could afford a 200k item. Second, there are tons of one hit kills that work WAY better, in the rules, and don't cost 200,000gp. Caster save or die spells, uberchargers. An item that does a lot of fire damage to a single target that is contingent upon hitting said target is different from any other ability, how?


And with rules as written, at level five a Bard could probably talk a +10 price down to 1000 gold.

That's a problem with the diplomacy rules, and has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. You can actually talk dragons into following you fanatically and gods into giving you real artifacts with the broken diplomacy rules.


Keen does not stack with anything. It says it specifically. And it's shouldn't. IF a fighter will truly only miss 5% of the time, why the hell should he only not crit that same 5%?

Because
He's skilled (improved critical)
The weapon is good at poking organs (anything with a critical range beyond 20)
He cast magic on it (such as keen or spikes)
It's made out of a special material
He gets a class ability (Disciple of Dispater, for instance)


Flaming=fire damage bonus to your damage rolls, IE: it does not stack. Look at Flaming burst, it was made solely to expand flaming. Ruling otherwise is just ignorant. This is not RAW, this is not SRD, it's logic based on the rules of the game.

We're discussing house rules. As such, it's not RAW. Duh.
But wow, if you're having so much trouble with the stacking of like elemental damage, then simply create different categories of fire damage:

Flaming 1d6
Improved Flaming 2d6
Greater Flaming 3d6
Superior Flaming 4d6


Or, for anyone who dares to insist, well, let me show you the way to illumination.

Stunning surge weapons. +1 enhancement, you roll a Will save against DC (10+1/2 level+CHA) or are stunned for a round.

Boohoo. You go make your 9d6 flaming weapon. If you can do that, I'll make a nuntuple Stunning Surge weapon which, by the rules, will stun for 9 rounds unless you make a Will save of DC (90+9/2 times my level+9 Times my CHA bonus).

See why the idea is stupid? It's as stupid as the uranium longsword.

No, you're just making a slippery slope argument and demonstrating how a DM could be an idiot.

Simply because the DM allows similar elemental damage to stack has no bearing whatsoever on allowing any other abilities to stack. It would be an exception to the stacking rule, not a rewrite of all stacking rules.

(Which, by the way, if you could get multiple Stunnings on your weapon, you would just force the guy to make 9 will saves).

[Azerian Kelimon]

Oh, no. If YOU get to stack your d6's, instead of rolling nine separate d6's, I'd get a Stunning Surge nine times as strong. Else, you're making an exception to your own rules.

And yeah, you CAN make your weapon hotter. That's what flaming burst is for. Afterwards, it loses importance. What's the difference, I repeat, between fourth and fifth degree burns? You die anyway.

[Cuddly]

Oh, no. If YOU get to stack your d6's, instead of rolling nine separate d6's, I'd get a Stunning Surge nine times as strong. Else, you're making an exception to your own rules.

Wrong. It's called an exception for a reason. BECAUSE IT'S AN EXCEPTION Go look it up. I'll wait.


And yeah, you CAN make your weapon hotter. That's what flaming burst is for.

And flaming burst sucks. It's a waste of cash, given that it's only going to work 15% of the time, tops. Maybe even not that much, given that criticals have to be confirmed.


Afterwards, it loses importance. What's the difference, I repeat, between fourth and fifth degree burns? You die anyway.

1d6 fire damage might burn your puny commoner low hitpoint flesh badly, but for us badass barbarians, we hardly notice it.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Okay, then. What about Holy or Vampiric weapons? They function similarly to Elemental weapons, so why not let 'em stack?

Now, see the problem of the idea?

[Cuddly]

Okay, then. What about Holy or Vampiric weapons? They function similarly to Elemental weapons, so why not let 'em stack?

What about them? We're discussing elemental damage.


Now, see the problem of the idea?

Of what, your idea to let everything stack? Yes. But how is that at all relevant?

[Azerian Kelimon]

In that, if you're going to let elemental damage stack because "It's magic!" and it makes it hotter, then it is perfectly reasonable to make the weapon do extreme amounts of damage to vile beings because it's holier (See: Quadruple Holy weapons), or to be able to leech gross amounts of health because it has more bloodlust (See: Quadruple Vampiric weapons), or to be able to stun an enemy almost every time you attack, and for prolonged periods because magic fortifies the attack and makes it harder to resists(See: Nuntuple Stunning Surge weapons).

Whatever you say, magic must be, under a D&D system, logical. If magic can make a weapon flamier but not holier, it ceases to be logical.

[Cuddly]

In that, if you're going to let elemental damage stack because "It's magic!" and it makes it hotter, then it is perfectly reasonable to make the weapon do extreme amounts of damage to vile beings because it's holier (See: Quadruple Holy weapons), or to be able to leech gross amounts of health because it has more bloodlust (See: Quadruple Vampiric weapons), or to be able to stun an enemy almost every time you attack, and for prolonged periods because magic fortifies the attack and makes it harder to resists(See: Nuntuple Stunning Surge weapons).

Whatever you say, magic must be, under a D&D system, logical. If magic can make a weapon flamier but not holier, it ceases to be logical.

Wrong. Sorry.
As long as you're not messing with balance, it's fine. Nontuple stunning weapons are too OP. 9d6 fire damage is... 9d6 fire damage. It's not a free disarm and forcing your opponent to give up precious actions.

Silly goose.

[Curmudgeon]

Allowing nd6 (where n is > 1) flaming weapons isn't any more reasonable than allowing n instances of keen to stack. The game is designed to balance things out. For this particular case, energy resistance comes in particular increments, maxing out at 30. 9d6 fire damage averages more than 30, and you've suddenly thrown things out of whack.

In order to stack the same type of energy damage and balance things out, you'd need to allow stacking of the same type of energy resistance. This opens a whole big can of worms.

I'm opposed.

[its_all_ogre]

when did dnd become balanced?
you make a monk i'll make a wizard.....see who wins at level...10+

so where is this fabled balance?
elemental enchantments stacking as an exception to the stacking rule i would have little issue with personally.
:smalltongue:

[Hadrian_Emrys]

9x6=54 no? So Resistance 30 would drop that by over half of what the guy next to you is taking. Resistance is supposed to be just that, not Immunity. Damage Reduction doesn't make on impervious to physical damage now does it? This is evens out when you come accross genuinely Immune foes, then your pimp cane of flame turns into a shiny stick that tickles some. Elemental damage is a different matter in terms of balance than Vampiric on the grounds that Vamp starts being TOO good, with no way to balance out the gain.

[Reptilius]

I'm trying to keep myself from making a really bad flame war pun.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I'm trying to keep myself from making a really bad flame war pun.

*groan*

I think it's almost too late.

[Draco Ignifer]

I don't see any reason a +2 Holy Holy Holy Holy sword would be any more broken than a +1 Nonuple-Flaming one. Unless Vile creatures have some special weakness that I'm not aware of, it does less damage, and only against evil creatures... 8d6 + 2 + Weapon damage as opposed to 9d6 + 1 + Weapon Damage.

It seems like a lot, but consider that you're dealing with a +10 weapon here. That's a quarter of the entire wealth that a level 20 character gets to spend. It's only 40,000 gold more than a ring that would make you immune to it (ring of elemental immunity), and is cheaper than becoming completely immune to critical hits (36,000 GP, assuming +1 Greater Fortification Armor), fly (54,000 GP), and getting a +6 bonus to three of your main stats (36,000 x 3) (Grand total = 198,000).

You should expect some level of power from a single magical item that costs more than a castle.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Which is why I said Holy. If you're evil, no save, no immunity, no nothing. You take the whole damage.

Or, as I said, vampiric. Unless you're dead and reanimated, I'm going to leech off your health. Period.

[its_all_ogre]

azerian.
the poster above has repeatedly stated this would only be with elemental damage types (forget who they are but it doesn't matter).
what part of that are you struggling with exactly? :smallsmile:

most of us agree that simply stacking different bonuses would get unbalancing, collision or vampiric most of all, but elemental? pulease :smalltongue:

[SamTheCleric]

But, the REAL question here... we have keen... but can we make a peachy keen sword?

...

That was bad. I'm ashamed of myself.

[serok42]

Keen not only dosn't stack with itself, it dosn't stack with Keen Edge, Improved Critical, or anything else that increases crit range, or else we would have everybody with Scimitars that had a 50% crit chance


My group has always house ruled that Improved Critical stacked with Keen

One is how you wield the weapon and the other is how sharp the weapon is.

It hasn't been game breaking.

[Burley]

Okay. It's unbalanced, whether it be elemental or not. It's just not balanced.

My personal opinion: I would never allow it. Same Armor bonuses doesn't stack, Same Skill/Ability bonuses don't stack, I wouldn't let same weapon enhancements stack. That's what burst is for. The point of energy resistance/immunity isn't to make a weapon powerful that it cuts through the resistance. The point is to show that players need versatility. Always have a back up weapon, not one single weapon that does a ridiculous amount of damage.

My impersonal opinion: While I'd never allow it in my game, I wouldn't say that you shouldn't allow it in yours. Maybe your campaign universe allow that sort of magic. That's cool. But, give a +9d6 Flaming Greatsword to your group's fighter, and I can pretty much guarantee that even the group's uberwizard is gonna complain. So, to keep your game alive, you'll have to throw everybody these uberweapons. Then, to keep them from killing every dragon on the planet, you're going to have to bump the CR of their encounters, just to keep them challenged. By the time you get your game balanced, your 16th level party is going to be fighting 3 Aspects of Tiamat and a handful Pyro-Cyro-hydras, and, then, somebody will complain about such-and-such monster is "immune to my uberweapon and you're picking on me."
If you think you can keep your game from screeching to a hault (which I hope doesn't happen), I hope your players have a load of fun, because I know that I love rolling tons of damage dice. However, when you tell other D&D players about the house-ruled nonsense you throw into your game, expect a LOT of conversations (arguments) like this thread.

[Cuddly]

Okay. It's unbalanced, whether it be elemental or not. It's just not balanced.

My personal opinion: I would never allow it. Same Armor bonuses doesn't stack, Same Skill/Ability bonuses don't stack, I wouldn't let same weapon enhancements stack. That's what burst is for. The point of energy resistance/immunity isn't to make a weapon powerful that it cuts through the resistance. The point is to show that players need versatility. Always have a back up weapon, not one single weapon that does a ridiculous amount of damage.

My impersonal opinion: While I'd never allow it in my game, I wouldn't say that you shouldn't allow it in yours. Maybe your campaign universe allow that sort of magic. That's cool. But, give a +9d6 Flaming Greatsword to your group's fighter, and I can pretty much guarantee that even the group's uberwizard is gonna complain. So, to keep your game alive, you'll have to throw everybody these uberweapons. Then, to keep them from killing every dragon on the planet, you're going to have to bump the CR of their encounters, just to keep them challenged. By the time you get your game balanced, your 16th level party is going to be fighting 3 Aspects of Tiamat and a handful Pyro-Cyro-hydras, and, then, somebody will complain about such-and-such monster is "immune to my uberweapon and you're picking on me."
If you think you can keep your game from screeching to a hault (which I hope doesn't happen), I hope your players have a load of fun, because I know that I love rolling tons of damage dice. However, when you tell other D&D players about the house-ruled nonsense you throw into your game, expect a LOT of conversations (arguments) like this thread.

You must have a terrible gaming group.

The fighter in my group was regularly doing 50-60 damage in a full round attack at level 7. The rogue that replaced him is level 10, and regularly does about 75 damage per full attack. He gets up to around 120 damage when he's facing low AC targets.

And do you know what? The wizard in my group gladly welcomes that sort of damage output, since he isn't using blasty spells and someone needs to finish off the blind, crippled, enervated monsters.

Futhermore, 9d6 extra damage isn't that big a deal at high levels, since it costs 200k to get. 200k for an average of 200 points of extra damage for a hasted full round attack? Sure. Not that that's going to be a big deal compared to anything else at those levels. Especially the brutality of going toe-to-toe with a dragon. Also, you just sunk more than a quarter of your wealth into a single item that will perform poorly against any opponent with fire resistance (virtually all of them at that level), and won't function at all vs fire immunity. Against a monster with resistance 10 (common), your weapon is a third less effective. With resistance 20, your weapon is two thirds less effective.

As for dragons, there are exactly what, 1? 2? dragon types weak to a specific energy type? Big deal. Your sword does an extra 9d6 *1.5 damage. The dragon you're fighting has hundreds of HP. You're not going to get to make a full attack on it, because only an idiot would get that close to a dragon.

Though, being able to stack that much damage might make using bows worthwhile.

[The Necroswanso]

Wrong. Sorry.
As long as you're not messing with balance, it's fine. Nontuple stunning weapons are too OP. 9d6 fire damage is... 9d6 fire damage. It's not a free disarm and forcing your opponent to give up precious actions.

Silly goose.

So, wait a second. Nuntuple stackings of fire, that works against anything, is fine, yet nuntuple holy, which only works against evil creatures is OP? Now you're just being 1)Immature about it, and 2)biased to your wants only.

Look at it this way:
Out of all the monsters in D&D, only about 35% really have fire immunity/resistence, until you get up to level 15.
So, if you were to place this weapon in even a 10th level game, this becomes a HUGE shift in power. The wepon deals on average 27 extra damage. And if your DM is not tweaking monsters, add that to your monkey gripping barbarian who is dealing an average of 25-30 damage a round, that's 52-57 damage on average, before STR, rages and power attacking. At tenth level everything he hits will start needing to save for massive damage every round.

Now, let's put it an actual game, let's say the game I'm in. Every week, between games me and the players get together, and work to make our group balanced. I'm a barbarian and a ranger. I deal a great amount of physical damage every round, usually 20-30 against non-favored enemies. Our wizard, deals only about 75% that same amount I deal, however he makes up for it with reserve feats and what not.
Our rogue is a warlock with a spiked chain, so he gets reach and extra damage just the same. He's dealing the same amount of damage I am. Our next player is a Fighter Knight going into Dwarven Defender. He has 32 AC. He deals only half the damage I deal, but he also receives maybe 5 damage every fourth encounter, where as I am constantly needing healing and saving vs. negtive Levels.
Now, our Cleric, is a band-aid. It is what he chose. He balances the game out by not even attacking, why? I'll never know.
Let's say you drop this +1 9d6 flaming Greatsword into the game. In one round, this weapon will deals 11d6. Who do we hand it to?
Me? While I'm raging and facing any of my favored enemies, which I do alot, I have a +25 to hit. This is with a human. If I were to take this weapon, even not against my favored enemies, I will be doing about 33+ about 14, if I'm not power attacking. So, if I Do power attack, which I always do, 60% of the time every enemy will die, or have to save vs. massive damage.
Okay, that over powers anyone who is a heavy hitter.
Do I give it my our Wizard? He get's +23 to each swing every third round. At best. But that becomes a waste of his spells. And if he uses that sword, he will quickly become the worlds worst fighter, rather than a wizard. I doesn't make him any stronger, just less useful.
Give it to our rogue, Why? He's constantly flanking from a distance. If he uses the greatsword he now has to be up front, and with 14 AC, that's not wise. He'll start soaking up damage at an alarming rate and now he'll be dying.
Cleric, he doesn't even carry a weapon. He's useless with a sword.
Our Knight: So with one weapon he is now dealing more damage then I am with all my raging and oversized weapon using. Great, he's only able to be hit about 20% of the time, and he's dealing almost double the damage I do. Just because of a weapon.
Now the game is seriously unblalanced, and with all our work to make the game work for everyone, which for a game to last you need to do, one weapon has thrown such a huge damage curve that in order to balance it out we have to be constantly fighting fiends, demons and devils.
So now we have a campaign change, just to accomidate for the weapon.
OR: we could grant everyone such a weapon, but by your "logic" anything else is too overpowered just because energy resistence exhists even if you're not facing it. So we can't have a holy one because even though we face mostly neutrals, it's too powerful, can't have a vampiric weapon because let's face it, dealign damage and gainign that much life IS overpowered. But the point is that you're saying something equally as useful is overpowered.
This weapon, MAY balance out, if you're at just below epic levels.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

1: The +1 Inferno does not come in just greatsword form. It can be crafted over time by a player who wants to use it as any weapon.

2: Given the nature of your group, it's not the weapon to blame for the level of "IMBA", it's the retard of a DM who decided to use that item as loot that's the problem. I'd be like giving first time players the Head of Vecna.

3: Just because it's AN option, does not mean that it is the ONLY option. There are TONS of other ways players can spend their cash to increase their effectiveness that are not subject to Resistances and Immunities, a max boost of 9d6 isn't going to break anything when the game begins with the concept of that as a rule. When you and your party members rolled up characters, this wasn't a house rule, why do they matter?

[tyckspoon]

So, if you were to place this weapon in even a 10th level game, this becomes a HUGE shift in power. The wepon deals on average 27 extra damage. And if your DM is not tweaking monsters, add that to your monkey gripping barbarian who is dealing an average of 25-30 damage a round, that's 52-57 damage on average, before STR, rages and power attacking. At tenth level everything he hits will start needing to save for massive damage every round.

Now, let's put it an actual game, let's say the game I'm in. Every week, between games me and the players get together, and work to make our group balanced. I'm a barbarian and a ranger. I deal a great amount of physical damage every round, usually 20-30 against non-favored enemies. Our wizard, deals only about 75% that same amount I deal, however he makes up for it with reserve feats and what not.


Ok, you have two major problems here. The first is that your party is, to put it diplomatically, on the low end of optimization. +9d6 damage is *nice* for optimized characters, but it won't be doubling or better their damage output even at a relatively low level.

The second and bigger problem is that you're suggesting putting a +10 equivalent item in a level 10 party. It's worth more than the entire suggested wealth for 4 level 10 characters. They shouldn't be seeing something anywhere near that costly for another 7 or 8 levels, and even then it would still be a massive chunk of a character's wealth. With the emphasis that D&D has on character wealth as part of a character's effectiveness and balance, it should not be at all surprising that giving a character an item that he's not supposed to be able to afford yet can potentially overpower that character. It's also meaningless; you should be considering what the item can do when it is level-appropriate to have it, not when you drop a nigh-epic bit of gear on a medium-level group.

[The Necroswanso]

That's true, I did neglect the fact that my party is level 6.
However it wouldn't be that odd of a loot drop. As a matter of fact while doing a CR7 quest from the Demonweb campaign book we were handed a legacy weapon as predetermined loot. And from my understanding, if you can weather the ridiculous requirements, which this one basically required you to be bit by a spider, then they function much better than a +10 weapon.

[Cuddly]

That's true, I did neglect the fact that my party is level 6.
However it wouldn't be that odd of a loot drop. As a matter of fact while doing a CR7 quest from the Demonweb campaign book we were handed a legacy weapon as predetermined loot. And from my understanding, if you can weather the ridiculous requirements, which this one basically required you to be bit by a spider, then they function much better than a +10 weapon.

A +10 weapon, is in fact, an odd loot drop. Going by the 3.5 DMG and not MiC, ajor items don't start dropping until, what, level 10? And that's on a roll of 100. Then you have a ~15% chance of rolling a magic weapon. Then you have to actually roll for the stats on it. So yeah, 1 time out of 1500, you get a major magic weapon.

Predetermined loot is, definitionally, not random loot. Nor would the legacy weapon you got be a +10 weapon as soon as you got it, at level 6. You would need to invest many levels and sacrifice stats and stuff for it to function as a +10 weapon. And then the cost of doing so, presumably, outweighs somewhat all the benefits.

[The Necroswanso]

Most likely as it only helped the arcane caster.

[OverWilliam]

I don't see what the problem is here. We're not writing computer code here, we're making a Rule of Cool justified allowance. Quit getting your panties in a twist because it's going to cause a Fatal Error and your game will crash. You're not an outside observer who punches in the 'can's and 'cannot's into your game and then has to take five steps back, let it run its course, and see if you missed anything. No set of rules, no matter how well-thought out, will be waterproof. And making it waterproof is easy, you have to make it player proof, and that's worse. It's impossible to think of every contingency, every exploit, every unfair advantage that someone could come up with, and even if you could you'd spoil the fun of looking for them. The rules rely on the DM to sort the exploits that are fun, but not dangerous from the ones that are fun, for a little while, but will only make things boring in the long run. If we did say something like 'Ok, now you can stack weapon enchantments, have fun' then it would break the game, or more accurately, the players would break the game if left unchecked. But it's not an all-encompassing statement. It's a DM judgment call on a case-to-case basis. "Ub3r H0t Longsword? T3h Wi/\/. Do it." "L4mz0r health suck? Br0k3n. N00b."

The balance on this is not the set and fixed walls that the rules will allow you to beat your head against, the balance is instead in the Human Logic and Thought Process of the DM, which if you ask me, is a lot more idiot-proof than the real rules are, and is a lot more fun to look for chinks in. Let's admit it, every now and then when the DM lets you get away with something that you probably shouldn't be able to but they let you have it anyway, it's fun being on fire for a little while, pun intended. It's one of the more enjoyable parts of the game, because you thought it up, you talked them into it, and later on you'll find something else that they may or may not like. It's part of the challenge.