Can a pyrokineticist's fire lash be made magical so that, for example, it's a +1 shock fire lash?

If so, can a pyrokineticist have multiple fire lashes, each of them different? (For example, can a pyrokineticist have a +1 shock fire lash and a +2 keen fire lash and choose which to use each time the fire lash ability's used?)

  • \$\begingroup\$ Related: Weapon afire on fire lash \$\endgroup\$
    – Sdjz
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 14:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ That’s also my question. \$\endgroup\$
    – MrHiTech
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 14:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Indeed it is, and I understand they are different.My comment merely "links" the two questions, displaying them in the right side bar under linked. Chances are, people that are interested in one of the two questions may be interested in the other. \$\endgroup\$
    – Sdjz
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 14:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Far more closely related would be your other fire lash question, How much like a whip is a fire lash? \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 14:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AVeryLargeBear I disagree, and in fact suspect you misunderstand the follow-up question: the follow-up question isn’t asking whether or not you can create multiple fire lashes at a time, but rather asking whether or not it is possible to maintain multiple separate enhancement suites for fire lashes, allowing you to choose which to apply. It’s a question that makes absolutely no sense outside the context of this question as a whole. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 14:37

2 Answers 2


The answer is going to depend entirely on how one answers How much like a whip is a fire lash?—at this point, there are two answers to that question, one which reads the various descriptions of the fire lash being a whip as meaning it’s like a whip in all ways, and another which reads the various explicit ways in which the fire whip is described as being like a whip, and infers that these are the only ways in which it is like a whip. Both approaches seem reasonable to me, but neither seems definitively like “the correct answer.”

If the fire lash is like a whip only in the listed ways, magical enhancement is not listed, so it doesn’t work. If the fire lash is like a whip in all ways, then whips can be enhanced and therefore so can the fire lash be.

However, your follow-up question kind of makes things moot: there is no suggestion in Expanded Psionics Handbook that you are summoning the same fire lash every time. To wit:

The whip remains in existence as long as the pyrokineticist holds it,

means that if you stop holding it, it no longer exists—it’s gone, and so are any enhancements you paid to have put on it. Your fire lash isn’t a real, stable object that you’re just calling to your person and then sending back into storage when you’re done with it. It’s a construct of unstable energy that doesn’t exist at all except while you keep it together. You create a new one every time you need another.

So while maybe you can enhance a fire lash, that is a complete waste of time and money since those enhancements are going to disappear as soon as you stop holding it. Maybe if you don’t need to sleep, you can kinda-sorta maintain your grip on it at all times, or you could use a locked gauntlet to make it impossible to let go of, but sooner or later this is going to go poorly for you.

Houseruling the fire lash to allow you to add persistent enhancements to it, fluffed as maybe enhancing you, or your ability to produce a fire lash, seems entirely reasonable to me. Allowing multiple enhancement suites, so you could choose which one to create at a given time, also seems reasonable to me. In fact, both of these houserules would still fall far short of making the pyrokineticist a good class—the class is a pretty pure trap, and I strongly recommend against it.


A fire lash is not a masterwork weapon

The issue isn't really with the pyrokineticist maintaining her hold on the fire lash effect indefinitely—adventurers are a kooky and powerful lot, and if an adventurer gets it into her head that she wants to hold something in her hand forevermore, then, by Pelor, she will find a way! The issue is, instead, with adding magical enhancement bonuses and magic and psionic weapon special abilities to any weapon: "Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic [or psionic] weapon," says Creating Magic Weapons (Dungeon Master's Guide 285-6), and a fire lash effect just isn't a masterwork weapon and, for the typical pyrokineticist, never becomes one.

So, until the pyrokineticist can somehow make the fire lash effect masterwork, she's stuck with a regular ol' no-enhancement-bonus, no-magic-or-psionic-weapon-special-abilities fire lash effect.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, but a Monk’s unarmed strikes aren’t masterwork either, but you can enchant them. Generally a weapon has to be able to become masterwork to need to be masterwork in order to be enchanted. \$\endgroup\$
    – MrHiTech
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 16:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MrHiTech Uh, no, you cannot enhance a monk’s unarmed strikes. HeyICanChan is absolutely right here. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 16:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MrHiTech Whether or not a monk's unarmed strike can be made magical or masterwork is hotly debated. Please, take that up with answers to this question. If you want to reject this answer's premise, that's (ahem) cool, but the DMG really does say what I quoted in the answer. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 16:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan What about if you had a homebrew feat that made your fire lash masterwork? \$\endgroup\$
    – MrHiTech
    Commented Sep 7, 2018 at 22:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MrHiTech To avoid that conversation, I'd recommend the GM instead create a feat that had a benefit saying that Your fire lash can have applied to it magical enhancement bonuses and magic weapon special abilities as if it were a normal masterwork melee weapon. These magical enhancement bonuses and magic weapon special abilities are the same each time you create a fire lash. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 8, 2018 at 0:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .