|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Aug 11, 2017 17:35:00 GMT -6
Going by the LBBs, how much damage would you have a flaming sword do? Sure 1d6 for the sword itself, but what about the flames? Maybe a whole other d6? That would be 2d6--is that too high? Or an additional 1d3? Or 1d6+2 total?
Just wondered.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 11, 2017 18:20:44 GMT -6
The two easy answers:
1) Since default damage in OD&D is 1d6 (sans Greyhawk), then just +1d6 for the flames, or...
2) Make some stuff up!
It's also possible that the original intention was that there was no extra damage, save for the added damage bonus versus trolls and undead (or the "lawful" equivalents). The flaming aspect seems to be presented more as a utility rather than a damage dealer (keeping fish summoned by nixies at bay - pg.17, M&T; slash through webs in one turn - pg.35, M&T). That being said, perhaps one could simply rule that the +1 "to hit" bonus normally associated with a flaming sword also applies to damage due to the magical flames licking along the blade's edge. I like my OD&D quirky, so this is what I do.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Aug 11, 2017 18:55:59 GMT -6
I interpret:
to mean-- that the to hit "bonus" and the damage "bonus" are represented the same symbolically--as the pluses given. Thus, the +1 Flaming Sword does 1 d6 damage +2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs); +3 vs. Undead (Treants).
One would think that if the game developers meant that additional damage would be in the form of additional six sided dice, they would simply have said so.
Underlining by me; not in the source material.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 11, 2017 19:05:20 GMT -6
How much damage does burning oil do? Maybe use that as a reference?
|
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Aug 11, 2017 19:56:02 GMT -6
I agree with oldkat. “Bonus” meaning the +/–, not an extra die. Compare the language used for the +3 War Hammer which gets “no damage bonus when striking, for it already does from 2-12 points of damage.” That said, I like the idea of a powerful flaming sword that deals some damage even on a miss. Neil Gaiman mentions that about Surtr’s flaming sword in his Norse Mythology. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 11, 2017 21:52:42 GMT -6
What about 2d6 damage against cold-based monsters which would be vulnerable to fire? It occurs to me that perhaps a flaming sword should do 1d6-1 damage against humanoids since the flame would cauterize any wound preventing blood loss and infection (like a lightsaber). Nah nevermind that's lame... Also, because not lame:  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 11, 2017 23:06:53 GMT -6
I like the +X/+X interpretation along with the utility, which is likely qualitative. Can a fire sword do something? It can if the Ref says it can. It doesn't need a detailed rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 12, 2017 2:15:41 GMT -6
By the title of the thread ("damage on a flaming sword"), I figured out that the question would be along the lines of : "If you douse a flaming-sword with water, does it damage it ? " Wich leads to another question : "If I pour a good quantity of oil on the wearer of a flaming sword, would he catch fire ?"  |
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Aug 12, 2017 10:13:04 GMT -6
By the title of the thread ("damage on a flaming sword"), I figured out that the question would be along the lines of : "If you douse a flaming-sword with water, does it damage it ? " Wich leads to another question : "If I pour a good quantity of oil on the wearer of a flaming sword, would he catch fire ?" Ref's call, but I'd rule no on the first (magical flame is magical) and yes on the second. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 12, 2017 15:24:42 GMT -6
I interpret: to mean-- that the to hit "bonus" and the damage "bonus" are represented the same symbolically--as the pluses given. Thus, the +1 Flaming Sword does 1 d6 damage +2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs); +3 vs. Undead (Treants). One would think that if the game developers meant that additional damage would be in the form of additional six sided dice, they would simply have said so. Underlining by me; not in the source material. This. I doubt that, when you get hit by a flaming sword, your problem would be the fire. Your problem would still be the sword hit. If it happens you're vulnerable to fire, then it's different (Therefore the damage bonus vs. Trolls and Treants and such). Additionally the flames can be used creatively to burn things, to shed light, to frighten creatures and so on. Or just to cook a meal, if need be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 17:09:26 GMT -6
I interpret: to mean-- that the to hit "bonus" and the damage "bonus" are represented the same symbolically--as the pluses given. Thus, the +1 Flaming Sword does 1 d6 damage +2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs); +3 vs. Undead (Treants). One would think that if the game developers meant that additional damage would be in the form of additional six sided dice, they would simply have said so. Underlining by me; not in the source material. Exactly correct. Furthermore, it's what the plain English of the text clearly says. If you wanted to be extra generous, you could also give it a +1 damage against everything else. It's not difficult, people. |
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Aug 13, 2017 17:34:52 GMT -6
I interpret: to mean-- that the to hit "bonus" and the damage "bonus" are represented the same symbolically--as the pluses given. Thus, the +1 Flaming Sword does 1 d6 damage +2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs); +3 vs. Undead (Treants). One would think that if the game developers meant that additional damage would be in the form of additional six sided dice, they would simply have said so. Underlining by me; not in the source material. Okay, but the next sentence is "These swords are those with a +2 or +3 against specific creatures, but not those with a general bonus of +2 or +3." Which I get, and you make clear in your post. General bonuses are only to hit while the specified ones are also bonuses to damage. However, I was specifically curious about folks thoughts about the regular +1 Flaming Sword which would by this interpretation do a +1 to hit and no extra damage as there are no creatures specified for it to be useful against. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 13, 2017 18:45:10 GMT -6
I interpret: to mean-- that the to hit "bonus" and the damage "bonus" are represented the same symbolically--as the pluses given. Thus, the +1 Flaming Sword does 1 d6 damage +2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs); +3 vs. Undead (Treants). One would think that if the game developers meant that additional damage would be in the form of additional six sided dice, they would simply have said so. Underlining by me; not in the source material. Okay, but the next sentence is "These swords are those with a +2 or +3 against specific creatures, but not those with a general bonus of +2 or +3." Which I get, and you make clear in your post. General bonuses are only to hit while the specified ones are also bonuses to damage. However, I was specifically curious about folks thoughts about the regular +1 Flaming Sword which would by this interpretation do a +1 to hit and no extra damage as there are no creatures specified for it to be useful against. I don't think the OD&D Vol 2 and Greyhawk tables have a "regular" +1 flaming sword; just the one that is +1, +2 vs Trolls (Pegasi,Hippogriffs), +3 vs Undead (Ents) Holmes has this as Sword +1, Flaming, +2 against Trolls, +3 against Undead. AD&D similarly just has the Sword +1, Flame Tongue, which has a set of bonuses vs specific monsters. This sort of implies that all +1 Flaming Swords have the listed bonuses due to the magic flame. In B2, Gygax included a "+1 flaming sword", which doesn't have any other bonuses listed, but this was probably just a short hand for the one in the Holmes rulebook. But your question is still valid, does the +1 Flaming Sword also do +1 damage against a non-troll or non-undead? The text says: "The swords all receive bonuses as far as the probability of hitting an opponent is concerned, but some also gain a damage bonus when they do hit. These swords are those with a +2 or +3 against specific creatures, but not those with a general bonus of +2 or +3." It doesn't say "these types of swords only get a damage bonus against specific creatures", it just says that these types of swords get a damage bonus. So it would be reasonable to interpret this to give them a +1 damage against other opponents. But I could see interpreting it the other way. Holmes in fact says "Any sword that is +2 or +3 against particular opponents (trolls, undead, etc.) does the indicated damage", which leans more to just giving the bonus damage against the specific opponent. (In my own games I give the bonus to hit and damage for all magic swords) I agree with others above that the flaming sword is super-useful for shedding light (like a permanent torch), starting fires, lighting oil flasks, burning through things, keeping animals away etc. The Holmes rulebook gives two specific uses for them, burning through a web spell in 1 round, and doing normal damage to a black pudding; while not specified I would extend this to an ochre jelly and a mummy as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 21:02:17 GMT -6
Actually on page 23 it lists flaming sword +1 and on page 30 "swords, damage bonuses". It stats that +1 swords are just +1 to hit not damage unless special damage is listed like the +2 to trolls and the +3 to ents. So against any foe not listed it is +1 to hit and only to hit.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Aug 13, 2017 21:44:04 GMT -6
Zenopus -- which has its origins in Vol. 2 M&T regarding Webs; oddly, it is found within the description of the Staff of Wizardry, and requires 1 full "turn" in that regard. There is no such mention of what a flaming sword might do to a Black Pudding in the original books, so the good Dr. might have added his own touch concerning this. All that aside, it still remains open to the game referee to finally decide things such as these. For myself, I am not convinced the sword flames at all, except when attacking those specific creatures listed. The jury is still out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 13, 2017 22:25:23 GMT -6
Zenopus -- which has its origins in Vol. 2 M&T regarding Webs; oddly, it is found within the description of the Staff of Wizardry, and requires 1 full "turn" in that regard. The Greyhawk Web spell references page 35 of Vol 2, so its not really strange that Holmes explained the Web spell using material from there. Holmes as published changed the 1 full turn to 1 round. He left the Giants at 2 turns, but Gygax then in turn changed that to 2 rounds. I think this is one of those instances where Gygax used "turn" in LBBs when he meant round. This bit is not in the Holmes Manuscript, so it's a Gygaxian clarification. He frequently added a sentence to the end of the entries provided by Holmes. It's certainly possible to handle it that way, although the Flame Tongue in AD&D clarifies that flame appears whenever the wielder uses a command word, and can be used for light and ignition. |
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Aug 13, 2017 23:47:30 GMT -6
I can totally see this conversation with a player:
"You gave me a +1 Flaming Sword that just looks cool?"
"But it might harm Black Puddings, or you could set things on fire with it. You do get +1 to hit though."
"Dude, I could set things on fire with a candle, and if it's +1 to hit but does no extra damage then why make it a flaming sword at all?"
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 14, 2017 1:31:27 GMT -6
If that conversation comes up, give your player a candle +1 by all means. And then roleplay a situation where they wield the candle in combat. Oops, flame's out after one strike, re-ignite! Let them meet other adventurers - "Nice candle you got there, Sir Knight! *snicker*" And of course, a candle might just be spent at some point  What I'm saying is, there is more to a flaming sword than just the rules crunch, there's also the "fluff" coming with such a weapon. Don't make it a simple "flaming sword +1", but give it a name and a history. For example, it's the "Tooth of Mogradhum", a giant demon from before the times of kingdoms, when the gods still walked the earth. One of the gods battled the demon lord Mogradhum, king of hellfire, who lived in a volcano. After the battle, the gods threw the demon's carcass into the void of space, never to return to this world again. But - one tooth remained and it was made into a sword by a sorcerer whose name has been lost to the ages... Isn't that a little more interesting than a "flaming sword +1"? Plus, you get adventure hooks! Maybe the soul of said sorcerer still clings to the shadowlands and he tries to return to (un)life through the artifact sword. Or maybe Mogradhum's body is shooting by and coming close to this world, reaching out mentally into the one wielding the sword... |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 14, 2017 10:15:59 GMT -6
Obviously, if players argue they should do extra damage with a flaming sword because it is flaming, then the GM should demand that they do something to exploit that flaming. Douse opponents with oil before hitting them with the sword. The sword would do no extra damage, but the oil would catch fire and do continuing damage for at least another round, if not more, until the opponent drops and rolls, or otherwise does something to counteract the flame.
To me, it seems obvious that the sword does extra damage to the listed creatures (trolls, ents, undead) because they are supposed to be vulnerable to fire. Except for the pegasi and hippogriffs. Why them? If it's because their feathers are supposed to be flammable, why not griffins?
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 14, 2017 19:16:44 GMT -6
To me, it seems obvious that the sword does extra damage to the listed creatures (trolls, ents, undead) because they are supposed to be vulnerable to fire. Except for the pegasi and hippogriffs. Why them? If it's because their feathers are supposed to be flammable, why not griffins? My impression is that it's a Law/Chaos thing (Edit: Yes; see pg.27 of M&T). A Lawful flaming sword would do the extra damage to trolls and undead, and a Chaotic sword would do the extra damage to the creatures in parentheses (all listed under "Law" in the M&M alignment table). As for susceptibility of Lawful targets to magical flames, sure - feathers and bark/leaves. --- --- --- I'd be tempted to say that the flames only appear in the presence of such foes, but then the text gives the two utility examples, implying that the flames are either always on, or the player has to declare when they are on. As Michael says above, there is no difficulty in directly interpreting the text - it works and doesn't "break the game". It's OK if players present an argument in favor of extra damage... it's part of the game. It's how house rules are developed. It's just up to the referee to adjucate it fairly. IMO, the most elegant ruling would be to declare the normal +1 to hit bonus as a general damage bonus from the flames only if the player announces that the flames are on. It's an easy to remember ruling, it fits within the framework of the RAW, I don't have to write it down, it's not "overpowering", and the player gets what he/she wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 14, 2017 19:30:33 GMT -6
On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players...
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 15, 2017 5:44:14 GMT -6
On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players... That's Monster Level Tables 5 and 6. Monsters listed in those two Monster Level Tables occur on dungeon levels 2--12, and 3--13+ respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 15, 2017 6:08:38 GMT -6
Going by the LBBs, how much damage would you have a flaming sword do? It might depend on who wields it. "Going by the LBBs" you'll notice that Elves do +1 damage with any magic weapon (M&T p16). It might also depend on who an Elf is attacking, since Elves "gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when fighting certain fantastic creatures" (M&M p8). Sure, nobody cares, but it is in the LBBs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 9:10:47 GMT -6
I can totally see this conversation with a player: "You gave me a +1 Flaming Sword that just looks cool?" "But it might harm Black Puddings, or you could set things on fire with it. You do get +1 to hit though." "Dude, I could set things on fire with a candle, and if it's +1 to hit but does no extra damage then why make it a flaming sword at all?" Hmmm... "Okay, fine. The flaming sword disappears in a puff of smoke. It's gone. Now you don't have to worry about it any more." |
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Aug 15, 2017 10:27:36 GMT -6
Old School Dungeon Mastering AKA "I'll give you something to cry about!"
You'd think one would be happy getting a weapon that can be used against certain undead and magical nasties...
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Aug 15, 2017 13:23:15 GMT -6
Even before 5E came about with "advantage/disadvantage", I've given flaming swords the ability to roll twice for damage and take the higher, with the difference being the flame damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 2:21:45 GMT -6
On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players... That's Monster Level Tables 5 and 6. Monsters listed in those two Monster Level Tables occur on dungeon levels 2--12, and 3--13+ respectively. Sure... if that's how it's interpreted. Seems to me that the wording is possibly referring directly to the monster* level 5 and 6 tables (despite the use of the word "matrix" in the note). Otherwise, treasure would be unguarded if on the first dungeon* level. Granted, the "rule" is merely a suggestion; I was just surprised by the implications as I had never really paid strict attention to the note before. Sorry - my fault for going off topic. But I think this is worthy of discussion - I'll start a separate thread (if it hasn't been already). *(I use italics just to differentiate between between the uses of level, not to make a point really) |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 16, 2017 4:46:11 GMT -6
Not sure what you're suggesting foxroe. All I meant was that the monsters listed in Monster Level Tables 5 and 6 are not the same as monsters "typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon".
M&T suggests that "items will be guarded by appropriate monsters" (emphasis mine). It goes on to suggest that monsters of the "fifth or sixth level monsters classes" (i.e., the 5th and 6th Monster Level Tables, i.e., the powerful monsters) would be appropriate, irrespective of what dungeon level the item may be found on.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 18:11:08 GMT -6
You are correct; I inappropriately said "fifth or sixth dungeon level" in my initial comment. I should have said "fifth or sixth monster level". Anyway, I moved the conversation to another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 19:00:01 GMT -6
A flaming sword that comes in brief contact with metal or leather armor wouldn't likely do any extra damage. In fact, leather would be even better as an insulator. Textiles would be the same unless the contact time was several seconds long or long enough to ignite. Against bare skin, however, a preheated flaming sword would be devastating (hot knife through butter, anyone?). So maybe, if you are fighting half-naked humanoids, an extra 16.67% damage per hit might be reasonable.
|
|
