Is activating the flaming ability, on a flaming weapon a standard action?

[MacMathan]

IMC we play it that way but we allow a single standard action to turn on both weapons for dual wielders.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As written in the DMG, it does not harm the wielder. Once you sheathe it, you are no longer wielding it, and are therefore no longer 'the wielder'.

Turn it off as a standard action before putting it away.

Likewise, there is nothing in the DMG to support the idea that multiple functions can be activated with a single command word. The Ring of Shooting Stars can have a very nasty single round if you allow this.

So in my game, if someone wants to activate their Shocking, Flaming, Frost longsword and their Flaming, Frost dagger, it will take them five rounds...

-Hyp.

 

[Droid101]

Likewise, there is nothing in the DMG to support the idea that multiple functions can be activated with a single command word. ...

So in my game, if someone wants to activate their Shocking, Flaming, Frost longsword and their Flaming, Frost dagger, it will take them five rounds...

-Hyp.

Hmmm.... and what if it was Lawful or Chaotic to boot? It's not fair that you don't have to turn those ones on.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

As written in the DMG, it does not harm the wielder. Once you sheathe it, you are no longer wielding it, and are therefore no longer 'the wielder'.

Turn it off as a standard action before putting it away.

Likewise, there is nothing in the DMG to support the idea that multiple functions can be activated with a single command word. The Ring of Shooting Stars can have a very nasty single round if you allow this.

So in my game, if someone wants to activate their Shocking, Flaming, Frost longsword and their Flaming, Frost dagger, it will take them five rounds...

-Hyp.

I don't know, that's a bit extreme to me. I would probably allow a single command word but it would increase the cost a bit. You could have the enchanter make the command word 'imperion' activate all three aspects of the weapon but maybe for 1.5x the cost. As far as sheathing it while still on we always played that you could have a scabbard enchanted to be the *home* for that specific sword upon creation so that they act as a single item and you could sheath it while still on. It makes some great game effects such as when my ranger was stuck on a desert island being faced by angry tribal midgets. She pulled her frost scimitar just barely out of the sheath so that the frost started wafting up in a cold smoke, completely unnerving the small superstitious tribefolk and giving her surprise on her following single action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmmm.... and what if it was Lawful or Chaotic to boot? It's not fair that you don't have to turn those ones on.

Why not?

Damage that affects Chaotic creatures isn't going to bother your equipment, and unless you're Chaotic, it's not going to bother you, either...

-Hyp.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Why not?

Damage that affects Chaotic creatures isn't going to bother your equipment, and unless you're Chaotic, it's not going to bother you, either...

-Hyp.

I will point out it specifically says that it doesn't harm your *equipment* nor the wielder. It also says that you can activate up to 50 arrows. Where are these arrows kept but in a quiver? Is it assumed that you have a special quiver. You aren't holding 50 arrows at one time so you are only wielding 1, do those other 49 deal compounded fire damage to you?

 

[Caliban]

I will point out it specifically says that it doesn't harm your *equipment* nor the wielder. It also says that you can activate up to 50 arrows. Where are these arrows kept but in a quiver? Is it assumed that you have a special quiver. You aren't holding 50 arrows at one time so you are only wielding 1, do those other 49 deal compounded fire damage to you?

The rules don't say any of that. The FAQ does.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I will point out it specifically says that it doesn't harm your *equipment* nor the wielder.

The FAQ, not the DMG.

The DMG states "The fire does not harm the wielder."

Now, one's equipment is often considered part of the creature for purposes of effects, so it's fair to generalise from this that the wielder's equipment is not affected.

But once he sheathes the sword, he's not the wielder any more.

-Hyp.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

The FAQ, not the DMG.

The DMG states "The fire does not harm the wielder."

Now, one's equipment is often considered part of the creature for purposes of effects, so it's fair to generalise from this that the wielder's equipment is not affected.

But once he sheathes the sword, he's not the wielder any more.

-Hyp.

I was under the impression that the FAQ was official however. Am I wrong? If I am then I will take it back. I was talking about official documentation. There are a lot of things in the core books that were messed up and fixed via the FAQ. We may not like all of them (I know a lot of people have problems with the bastard sword issue) but they are what the designers intended.

 

[Caliban]

I was under the impression that the FAQ was official however. Am I wrong? If I am then I will take it back. I was talking about official documentation. There are a lot of things in the core books that were messed up and fixed via the FAQ. We may not like all of them (I know a lot of people have problems with the bastard sword issue) but they are what the designers intended.

The problem is that Skip is no longer a designer, and in this case he is not clearing up something ambiguous, he seems to be trying to change the rules, or simply not remembering the correctly.

In this instance he refers to text that doesn't exist in the DM to support his answer. That's why I have a problem with it.