D&D 5E Why is "Frost Brand" rarer than "Flame Tongue"?

Xeviat

Hero
The title says it: Why is "Frost Brand" rarer than "Flame Tongue"?

Flame Tongue deals +2d6 damage, while Frost Brand deals +1d6 damage.
Frost Brand gives resistance to fire damage ... okay, that's a bonus. Frost brand can extinguish nonmagical flames ... that could come in handy.
Oh, and Flame Tongue requires a bonus action to activate the damage, while Frost Brand doesn't.

It still doesn't seem like Frost Brand should be that much more rare than Flame Tongue.

What are your thoughts?
 

log in or register to remove this ad




S

Sunseeker

Guest
Because the DMG rarities make no sense, generally speaking.

Make a weapon as rare, or not rare as you want it to be. I mean, unless you're always rolling random loot, then you just have to put up with the fact that rarity makes no sense.
 

Ahglock

First Post
Well frost brand actually also seems better to me. It's a ring of resistance to the most common elemental damage in a magic sword. That's far better than just one more d6 IMO. At least given the atunement rules. Multi purpose items really rock when you can only attune 3 items.
 

Giant2005

First Post
Because the motivation of 95% of prospective Wizards, for spending the time and effort to learn Wizardry in the first place, is that they are latent pyromaniacs. They simply like to see stuff burn.
 



Oofta

Legend
A frost blade doesn't do quite as much damage but it grants the bearer resistance to fire damage and a handy "extinguish flames" spell.

In addition, it's a well known fact that people can't resist sticking their tongues on the frost blade to see if it sticks. Sadly, this frequently this requires the destruction of the sword to detach the idiot.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top