Stacking Weapon Properties.

[Alcopop]

I understand that bonuses wouldn't stack but could you take things like the impaling (MiC) property more then once to get more uses?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Nope. Unless an ability specifically says you can have it more than once on one weapon (which, to my knowledge, none do) you can't double up on abilities.

[Alcopop]

It's not that I don't believe you but could you point me to the page or rule where it states this, because I just can't find it. And i'll need it to show another player.

Thanks.

[sadi]

Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability, an ability incompatible with an ability that you’ve already rolled, or if the extra ability puts you over the +10 limit. A weapon’s enhancement bonus and special ability bonus equivalents can’t total more than +10.

Right on the magic item chart for random special abilities. I tend to believe that that does mean you can't have the same ability twice.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm on both Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities and Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities

[Starbuck_II]

Well, Wotc had a few adventures with a Giant who multiple flaming added to weapon.

[Grumman]

How about a different approach:

If this rule did not exist, what would be the best method to abuse it? Would such a houserule be broken enough to make it an inherently bad idea?

[Dublock]

How about a different approach:

If this rule did not exist, what would be the best method to abuse it? Would such a houserule be broken enough to make it an inherently bad idea?

My first thought while reading this was "Why can't melee have nice things even if it can be broken?" lol. Not all combination would be broken with it. I don't know enough to think of a really broken one on the top of my head.

[Grumman]

My first thought while reading this was "Why can't melee have nice things even if it can be broken?" lol.

Because Gishes and Clerics wield weapons too.

Not all combination would be broken with it.

Yeah, but it's more important to worry about the top being level than the bottom. It doesn't matter if a +1 Keen^9 weapon sucks, because it's not our problem if someone's stupid enough to build it.

[Sophismata]

You can have multiple monster-specific enchantments, eg Bane weapon.

Edit ...I think.

[Curmudgeon]

It's not that I don't believe you but could you point me to the page or rule where it states this, because I just can't find it.

Check your Player's Handbook Glossary; page 313 under stack:

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).

Flaming is a modifier to your damage roll. Damage from Flaming won't stack with more damage from Flaming; that's the same source.

Impaling doesn't fit into this general stacking restriction, so having multiple instances of it should be RAW legal.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You can have multiple monster-specific enchantments, eg Bane weapon.

Edit ...I think.

You can; it's the same principle as different bonus types. Flaming is flaming is flaming, but undead-bane and dragon-bane are sufficiently different to coexist.

[Cieyrin]

Putting wounding on a weapon multiple times would be on its way to being overly nasty. 4 Con damage per attack is nothing to sneeze at O_O

[Starbuck_II]

Check your Player's Handbook Glossary; page 313 under stack: Flaming is a modifier to your damage roll. Damage from Flaming won't stack with more damage from Flaming; that's the same source.

Impaling doesn't fit into this general stacking restriction, so having multiple instances of it should be RAW legal.

But Wotc made precedent when they hada triple flaming weapon (the Frost giant did have a weapon with three flamings so that it grants 3d6 fire damage with attacks).

[Foryn Gilnith]

Read any stat block for a prestige class example NPC. Count the errors. Do that for every book ever published. Then report back and testify, again, that the WotC "precedent" of a triple-flaming axe matters.

[lsfreak]

Yea, stat blocks are pretty messy at times. My favorite is that apparently WotC even forgot about the ridiculous entry requirements they put in for Master of Nine.

Off the top of my head, the only ones that are probably broken are stat damage, Splitting, and Lucky arrows for a soulbow (I missed, oh I get to reroll again, oh I missed, I get to reroll again...). Maybe magebane. There's probably others as well.

[daggaz]

Considering you are talking about a use/day effect, and that you are going to pay thru the teeth to double that useage by effectively stacking the bonus, which in turn severely limits any further bonuses you can put on that weapon, I would have zero problems with this as a DM.

It would be a whole lot smarter/cheaper to just buy another copy of the same weapon.

In this case, impaling is a +1 property. Since you have to have a +1 weapon in the first place, its a total +2 for a cost of 8000 gp. Thats 3/day. Toss on another impaling, and you are 6/day at 18,000 gp and the next bump up costs you 14000gp just to add another +1. That is a lot of gold.

OR you just have two impaling longspears or whatever for 16,000 gp, saving you 2000, and if you then decide to bump one up, its only costing another 10,000. Of course at that point, you focus on one weapon only, but thats going to happen anyhow unless you are swimming in loot.

[Sophismata]

Read any stat block for a prestige class example NPC. Count the errors. Do that for every book ever published. Then report back and testify, again, that the WotC "precedent" of a triple-flaming axe matters.

Soulbow lucky is only one reroll per attack. Still awesome, of course.

[lsfreak]

Soulbow lucky is only one reroll per attack. Still awesome, of course.

I assume that was directed at me; my point was stacking-wise it breaks. You could potentially get four attack rolls for every attack.

[Curmudgeon]

But Wotc made precedent when they hada triple flaming weapon (the Frost giant did have a weapon with three flamings so that it grants 3d6 fire damage with attacks).

Actually they can't set precedent that way, according to the rules.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

The primary source says bonuses from the same source don't stack, and it always takes precedence.

[thegurullamen]

If you wanted it, you could just homebrew some incremental properties.

Flaming: +1d6 fire damage per attack. +1 bonus
Flaming, Greater: +2d6 fire damage per attack. +2 bonus
Fires of Hell: +4d6 fire damage per attack. +3 bonus

Keen: Doubles the threat range of a weapon +1 bonus
Keener: Adds 1 to the threat range of a weapon +1 bonus, requires Keen
Frigging Sharp: Adds 1 to the threat range +1 bonus, requires Keener

Vorpal: Beheads opponent on a natural 20. +5 bonus
Vorpal, Snicker Snack: Beheads opponent on a natural 20 and allows another attack on all opponents within range with the same roll. (Despite using the same roll of 20, the attack does not automatically hit and does not behead secondary opponents, however.) +9 bonus

[Starbuck_II]

I don't think Snicker Snack is worth it.

Besides making me hungry:
+9 is way too high.
+7 maybe. I could see that as you get another attack.

[Yuki Akuma]

Just a note: trying to put 1/day abilities multiple times on a single weapon really isn't worth it. Just get multiple weapons with the ability on, it's cheaper.