Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Burning Earth no longer striking as +4 weapon?

Hey everyone,

The other day I was battling an earth elemental in the undercellars, using the Burning Earth longsword. My understanding is that it's supposed to strike as a +4 weapon - however, against the elemental I was getting the 'weapon ineffective' notice in the game log, which led me to believe that it's actually striking as a +1 weapon.

A couple questions from this:

1) Is the sword supposed to strike as +4? If so, I'll happily do further testing to verify my finding and report it on Redmine.

2) If it is bugged, can I simply change the enchantment level with Near Infinity to fix it, or will that cause other problems with the item? I used to fix items like this (e.g. Daystar) before v2.0, but I don't know if it's still safe to do so.

And unless anyone already has the answer to the following at their fingertips, I'll also try to test other items with situational enchantment levels, like Jerrod's Mace and Daystar in BG2 (not to mention Burning Earth in BG2) to see if they're working as intended.

Thanks in advance for your insights!



  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 778
    Interesting. I always thought these weapons used the highest level of enchantment to determine ‘what they can hit.’ So that Burning Earth, for example, would get a +1 thaco vs, say, demons, but could still hit demons that require +4 to hit. What you’re describing certainly matches the description more acurately, though. Thanks for clarifying!

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,299
    edited March 2019
    also worth noting: "Burning Earth"/"Flame Tongue" is pnp flametongue (a ubiquitous burning-sword-archetype generic weapon in d&d), and has always been intended to work as per pnp.

    so, the way it was prior to the change was just a consequence of flawed implementation of pnp, due to technical limitations.

    edit: daystar is also a pnp generic, 100% conforming; there it's known as sunblade
    so "daystar" is just a specific, named, sunblade, the same way carsomyr is a named, but in all respects generic, holy avenger (however, holy sword mechanics were never implemented fully according to pnp, because they're kinda complicated)

    Post edited by bob_veng on
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,098
    kjeron wrote: »
    It is working as intended, matching it's description.
    It is a +1 weapon by default.
    It is a +2 weapon vs. regenerating creatures (trolls, lycans)
    It is a +3 weapon vs. cold-using creatures (Winter Wolves)
    It is a +4 weapon vs. undead

    You could make an argument to add White/Silver? Dragons, Ice Salamanders, and Ice Mephits as Cold-using creatures. (Were there any Ice elementals I would add them as well)

    The Daystar now works similarly as well:
    It is a +2 weapon by default.
    It is a +4 weapon vs. evil creatures
    It does an additional 1d8+2 damage vs. undead, or 1d8+4 vs evil undead.

    Does Daystar do double-damage vs. undead as described? If so is all of the damage doubled - (1d8+4)×2 vs evil undead = 10-24 damage/hit?

  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,206
    I always forget that you can backstab undead. In some other game I play undead are immune to backstabs.

  • DalrykDalryk Member Posts: 27
    This would have been useful information to have *before* committing to an Improved Mantle fight with the Burning Earth as my only "+4" weapon....

Sign In or Register to comment.