+1 flaming flaming greatsword

[Darkness]

Anything you can hit with a 3 deserves to have its head lopped off.

Yeah, plus, creatures of some types (e.g., undead) and creatures whose damage reduction is high-enough-not-to-be-damaged-by-you/+2-or-better are immune anyway.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't necessarily see why as a DM I need to rule the same for every kind of item enchantment. No to the Triple-Keen Scimitar +1, but yes to the Hellfire Longsword +1.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't necessarily see why as a DM I need to rule the same for every kind of item enchantment. No to the Triple-Keen Scimitar +1, but yes to the Hellfire Longsword +1.

Good point. When flaming is not enough, make a greater flaming (or hellfire). It will be +2d6 and will have +2 (or maybe +3) market price.

+3 because 2d6 are better than 1d6/1d6, cause of resistances: 1d6 fire and 1d6 acid may result in no additional damage against a planetouched (tiefling), but 2d6 fire will have a good chance of hurting that enemy. In that case, the +1 would be to harsh, though, and I'd kick it and make hellfire +3d6 fire for +4 mp.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I posted in another thread about this; I made a Greater Flaming/Frost/etc. set of enchantments for my campaign. +3 cost. +2d8 damage, they give off continuous light, don't need an action to activate (they're always on, which can be good or bad), and each has a secondary effect with DC 15 to avoid.
For example, the Flaming one sets the target on fire (see DMG for rules, but basically it's 1d6 damage per round until you make a Reflex DC 15 save). Most of the secondary effects are based on the Orb spells from T&B. Two use Reflex, two use Fort, one uses Will; DC 15 isn't very high, so it's not going to dominate the high-level game, but it'll still be useful enough to justify the higher market price.(Tweak stats as needed for balance, but that's the basic idea)

It's not that allowing a Sword of Really Hot Fire (i.e., triple Flaming) would be unbalancing, but there's just more stylish ways to do this than to create a stacking headache. If you let Flaming stack, then people ask for Flaming Burst, and if you let that stack, why not Keen or Wounding?

KaeYoss: (1d6+1d6) may be worse than 2d6 against a single type of resistance, but on the flip side, you're more likely to have damage he DOESN'T resist. For example, a Fiendish-template creature has Fire and Cold resistance. I'd rather have (1d6 Fire + 1d6 Lightning) than (2d6 Fire) against him, but both of those are better than (1d6 Fire + 1d6 Cold).

 

[Archer]

They made the blasting power in the epic handbook which is a triple flaming that can be multiplied on a critical. They call it a +6 weapon power. I'd really call it a +4 (+3 for 3d6, +1 for bursting)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The burst from the blast enhancements should be worth more than +1, cause the damage is as much as the old one (or even more with higher crit multipliers) and that should be +2 at least.

 

[Spatzimaus]

The burst would be +2, bringing the effective cost to +5.

Flaming: 1d6 per hit, +1 cost
Flaming Burst: Flaming + xd10 on a crit, +2 cost

So, xd10, which averages 5.5x, is a +1 cost. 3d6 that multiplies on a crit is 3 flamings and 10.5x on a crit. 10.5/5.5 is almost 2. So, +3 for the Flaming3, +2 for the "burst".

More importantly, if you assume flaming DOESN'T stack as written, just the fact that you get around that limitation should be worth the extra +1. Plus, as has been pointed out, a single Flaming is worthless against a creature with any kind of fire resistance, while this ability would still do damage to things with Fire 20 or higher if you crit.