Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ellanon 07-04-05, 04:00 AM	...and Shock, and Thundering on a weapon?
Elgonn 07-04-05, 04:06 AM	Yes. Read the FAQ.
James Wildspell 07-04-05, 04:12 AM	...and Shock, and Thundering on a weapon? The DMG doesn't prohibit it. The DM might. I would prohibit opposed Elemental effects (Fire/Water, etc.) on the same item. But that is just my take on it.
Elgonn 07-04-05, 04:21 AM	The 'official' take on it. Highlighted for effect. 3.5 D&D FAQ The new descriptions for the flaming, frost, and shock weapon special abilities say that these weapons’ energy effects work only on command. Why was this changed in the revision? Does that mean that their wielders must use a standard action to activate them for each attack? Or do the energy effects last awhile? If so, how long do they last? What’s the chance that you burn (or freeze or shock) yourself when holding onto an activated weapon? Can you put away an activated weapon without damaging the scabbard where you store it? What happens if you have ammunition with these effects? Do you have to activate each piece of ammunition separately? What happens if you have a flaming, frost, and shock weapon? Logically, such a weapon couldn’t exist, but what if it did? Would you have to activate each property separately? Finally, how does all this affect flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst weapons? Do these weapons’ flame, frost, and shock properties have to be activated for the burst powers to work? The flaming, frost, and shock weapon special abilities always have been command activated; the revision just clarified that. Activating an energy power requires a standard action, but once you activate energy power, the power works until you use another action to deactivate it. You can activate or deactivate one of these powers on up to 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, provided that all the ammunition is in your possession, all the ammunition is the same kind, and all the ammunition has the same power. Any attack you make with an activated weapon deals energy damage to your foe if you hit—you don’t have to do anything special to deal energy damage with an activated weapon. A burst weapon’s burst power is use activated and it works even when the weapon’s energy power is not activated (see the last sentence in each power’s description). The energy from a flaming, frost, shock, flaming burst, icy burst, or shocking burst weapon never harms you while you’re wielding or carrying the activated weapon (see the power descriptions), and it will not harm your equipment. If you lose or set down an activated weapon, the energy it produces will harm other objects it touches, so it is best to deactivate it first. There’s nothing illogical about a flaming, frost, shock weapon (at least not within any framework that allows weapons to generate energy in the first place), and there’s no rule against such weapons (think of the weapon as having fiery, frosty, shocking flames). The character creating such a weapon decides how it can be activated. Most such weapons probably are made so that the wielders can activate all three powers simultaneously, or activate them one at a time, as desired.
VirgilCaine 07-04-05, 01:00 PM	Perhaps the blade of the sword is freezing cold, has electricity arcing over it, and flames surrounding it.
Purkake 07-04-05, 01:06 PM	Easyer way: its D&D, fantasy, magic. Think of it as a sword that does 4d6 extra elemental damage(for all 4) and dont think too much ;)
Ellanon 07-04-05, 02:03 PM	Thanks guys!
R.M.G.C.L.F. 07-04-05, 02:17 PM	Important note: It deals ENERGY damage. There is no such thing as elemental damage, and it is because of this confusion that stupid and/or ill-informed people try to make things like the "Elemental plane of electricity".
Rulebook 07-05-05, 09:04 AM	and dont forget its MAGIC here... cold and fire arent necissarily opposing forces if you build them together. the aspect of use can change the traits of the forces after all. if one of my old college buddies can port windows and linux software together with some careful coding, any wizard worth half a grain of salt can mix fire and ice together in a sword. (y'know if they meet the reqs though)
mvincent 07-05-05, 01:29 PM	Important note: It deals ENERGY damage. There is no such thing as elemental damage, and it is because of this confusion that stupid and/or ill-informed people try to make things like the "Elemental plane of electricity".mmm... frothy. ... it's easy to confuse with lines like this in the rules: "Mastery of Elements: The archmage can alter an arcane spell when cast so that it utilizes a different element from the one it normally uses. This ability can only alter a spell with the acid, cold, fire, electricity, or sonic descriptor. "
Nom 07-05-05, 09:34 PM	That said, I personally consider stacking two energy enhancements to be unbalanced. Compare a flaming frost longsword to a flaming burst longsword. The former does +1d6 fire +1d6 cold. The latter does +1d6 fire, +1d10 fire on 10% of hits. There is the standard action activation time issue, but that can be worked around in many situations. +1d6 fire +1d6 cold is more likely to fail to overcome weak energy resistance to both fire and cold, but does provide the advantage that you have two energies to resist against. In contrast, the burst sword will occasionally grant enough fire damage to easily overcome weak ER, but not make much impact against ER 10 or greater.
Rulebook 07-05-05, 10:47 PM	okay, now compare two elemental attacks, with a burst effect on a keen scimitar, or a keen scythe. youve gone from a 10% chance to a much better chance of scoring that +1d10, or a 20% of doing +3d10 more. in single hit comparisons the burst will likely fail, but with the right equipment the whole-fight damage will be by far in the burster's corner.
Elthbert 07-05-05, 11:44 PM	Important note: It deals ENERGY damage. There is no such thing as elemental damage, and it is because of this confusion that stupid and/or ill-informed people try to make things like the "Elemental plane of electricity". Oh yeah those stupid people like the first 2 editions of the game which had the quasi elemental plane of lighting, damn those 1st and second edition players where really stupid weren't they? Do you ever think before you post?
Elthbert 07-05-05, 11:49 PM	To answer your question by the rules yes, but I would not allow opposed energies on a weapon, it just seems stupid.
Alvaric 07-06-05, 12:48 AM	To answer your question by the rules yes, but I would not allow opposed energies on a weapon, it just seems stupid. Well, considering "earth damage" is represented by acid in d20, I don't see anything too outlandish about an electrified spear/whip/whatever that also oozes acid.
Elthbert 07-06-05, 12:51 AM	Well, considering "earth damage" is represented by acid in d20, I don't see anything too outlandish about an electrified spear/whip/whatever that also oozes acid. Well actually electricity is a buch of loose electrons and acid is a bunch of loose protons so it seems silly to me from a simply scientific point of view, from a magic point of view having an Earth/Air spear seems pretty silly to me as well since earth and air are opposed.
Alvaric 07-06-05, 01:20 AM	Well actually electricity is a buch of loose electrons and acid is a bunch of loose protons so it seems silly to me from a simply scientific point of view, from a magic point of view having an Earth/Air spear seems pretty silly to me as well since earth and air are opposed. Scientifically, I'm sure I could build something that's both acidic and electrified without much trouble. You can't run some current through lemon-juice, for Pete's sake? "Magic" is an arbitrary set of constraints -- unless the rules say so, they're only "opposed" according to your imagination. Like I said: I don't think it's any weirder to picture electrified acid as opposed to freezing or flaming acid.
Elthbert 07-06-05, 01:27 AM	Scientifically, I'm sure I could build something that's both acidic and electrified without much trouble. You can't run some current through lemon-juice, for Pete's sake? "Magic" is an arbitrary set of constraints -- unless the rules say so, they're only "opposed" according to your imagination. Like I said: I don't think it's any weirder to picture electrified acid as opposed to freezing or flaming acid. of course you can but if you take a strong acid and run a current trough it for a while you are going to weaken the acid a bit, it just seems silly to have opposed things like that being produced by the weapon itself it is not the same as taking an acid and running a charge through it it is having the weapon produce both--- and Air and Earth are opposed, always have been, but it is simply a prejudice I have from the way elemental planes are layed out. Frankly I don't like that electricity is airs power as I still play with a quasi elemental plane of lightning.
Inigo Carmine 07-06-05, 02:27 AM	Using science as a reason to oppose it doesn't make sense in D&D. This is a world where "cold" is an energy type instead of the lack of thermal energy. Also, even scientifically, running a current through an acid weakens it, sure, but so does using an acid to corrode things anyways, or an acid that is constantly dripping off something is bound to run out anyways, but not with an acid sword. So many other specific scientific principals are neglected by magic in D&D that it seems silly to apply any more than the basic pseudo-science requirements. Gravity, and you can't breath underwater without gills. even those get broken on a regular basis by magic.
Ranix 07-06-05, 02:46 AM	lol internet
aelryinth 07-06-05, 02:56 AM	"earth' dmg being represented by 'acid' is a misnomer, IMO, as it should be 'alkaline' for that effect... O wait, bases and acids both fall under the same dmg header, silly me. Must be the prescence of Earth elements in the liquid doing the dmg, because we know it isn't the water doing the dmg. ==Aelryinth
Elthbert 07-06-05, 03:13 AM	Using science as a reason to oppose it doesn't make sense in D&D. This is a world where "cold" is an energy type instead of the lack of thermal energy. Also, even scientifically, running a current through an acid weakens it, sure, but so does using an acid to corrode things anyways, or an acid that is constantly dripping off something is bound to run out anyways, but not with an acid sword. So many other specific scientific principals are neglected by magic in D&D that it seems silly to apply any more than the basic pseudo-science requirements. Gravity, and you can't breath underwater without gills. even those get broken on a regular basis by magic. I know it just bothers me.
Ellanon 07-06-05, 03:40 AM	Is that 1d6 of damage that big of a deal to deny their combination or argue about it here on the boards? =)
Elthbert 07-06-05, 03:42 AM	Is that 1d6 of damage that big of a deal to deny their combination or argue about it here on the boards? =) well i think so, it is an issue of flavor yes but isn't that all D&D is at heart anyway?
Ellanon 07-06-05, 04:05 AM	well i think so, it is an issue of flavor yes but isn't that all D&D is at heart anyway? That depends on your definition of flavor. In addition, my preferred flavor may not be your preferred flavor. Personally, I see the rules of the game as a necessary evil. Otherwise, we may as well be playing cops & robbers in the playground. I also trust the game designers to balance things. I figure they know their job well enough, and likely a ton better than I do. I am sure some of you could quickly point out mistakes they have made, but to me that is a small percentage of the whole. The other 99.9% is a fair and balanced game. I like 3.5 and have changed very little; what little I have changed I asked about here on the boards and got opinions about their long term impact on my game. Anyhow, I got the answer I needed and I thank you all for your responses. Have fun with the philosophical debates!
Nom 07-06-05, 07:07 AM	okay, now compare two elemental attacks, with a burst effect on a keen scimitar, or a keen scythe. youve gone from a 10% chance to a much better chance of scoring that +1d10, or a 20% of doing +3d10 more. in single hit comparisons the burst will likely fail, but with the right equipment the whole-fight damage will be by far in the burster's corner.keen scimitar? That's an additional +1 enhancement, and it raises +1d10 x 15% to +1d10 x 30%. Doesn't matter how you slice it (pun intended), +1d6 x 100% is better than +1d10 x 30%, except in the rare situation where a one-off hit doing +10 rather than +6 will make a dramatic difference. Burst on a high crit value weapon is a little more exciting (a lucky +3d10 could hurt), but then that's more a function of the existing high crit value mechanics than the burst ability. Is that 1d6 of damage that big of a deal to deny their combination or argue about it here on the boards? =)In a sense, yes. It's the equivalent question to "why shouldn't I just change greatswords to do 2d12 damage?" or "what's wrong with 40 point buy?". The game is designed with certain mathematical parameters in mind. No-one stops you changing those parameters, but if you change too many too far, don't be surprised if things become too easy or too hard. In the example above, I can quantitatively prove that +2 for +2d6 energy damage (even different energy types) is far better than +2 for burst in all but the most unusual situations. Comparing +1 for +1 hit and damage to +1d6 energy is trickier, although most people agree it comes out in favour of the energy damage in many situations. Combine that energy stacks with greater magic weapon while standard enhancement doesn't, and you definitely have a problem. Short answer: If you allow multiple energy types on the same weapon, don't be surprised if it becomes a very popular option. If the option is too popular then this is a good clue something might be is broken.
Ellanon 07-06-05, 11:58 AM	Short answer: If you allow multiple energy types on the same weapon, don't be surprised if it becomes a very popular option. If the option is too popular then this is a good clue something might be is broken. The officials have determined that it is acceptable to allow their combination. We are not talking about an option or variant. I think WotC has done a fine job with 3.x and I trust their judgement. The only thing I have ever had a problem with is Diplomacy's ability to change someone's attitude without their consent. =) The other 99.9% of the game I am happy with. And even if something proves to be unbalancing in your specific game, the DM has a multitude of in-game ways to recover that balance. In this case, Sunder is your friend. Remove the item AFTER it has been shown to be a problem, and do not allow it's recreation/rediscovery by your players. The game can only be broken is you as a DM allow it. However, all the mathmatical 'tests' you can think of cannot compare to a 'real' study of the issue in question. Let them try it, and if it proves to be too much, remove it. I just hope, for the sake of your ears, that your players are experienced with Sunder, otherwise they may think you are picking on them. LOL "You've never sundered my weapons before. Now that I get a badass one, you break it?!"
Nom 07-06-05, 06:13 PM	The officials have determined that it is acceptable to allow their combination. We are not talking about an option or variant. I think WotC has done a fine job with 3.x and I trust their judgement. The only thing I have ever had a problem with is Diplomacy's ability to change someone's attitude without their consent. =) The other 99.9% of the game I am happy with.See, you make the same distinction I do, between a "correct" ruling and a "good" ruling. The FAQ is quite correct in that nothing in the rules explicitly prevents you from stacking these energy abilities. I am merely pointing out that if you allow it you render another existing ability (that is supposed to be an upgrade) entirely redundant and allow an ability that is slightly over-powered - Monte Cook has admitted as such on his web site - to stack (thus compounding the problem).
mvincent 07-06-05, 06:34 PM	And even if something proves to be unbalancing in your specific game, the DM has a multitude of in-game ways to recover that balance.Stacking has been allowed for quite some time, but I haven't seen any of my players use it yet. Even if they did, it doesn't seem that powerful compared to some other tactics, For my own characters, trading +1 for another 1d6 damage wasn't worth it. Spell-storing was was more useful, or (with power-attack and multipliers), I could do better with just another +1 enhancement.
Ellanon 07-06-05, 07:12 PM	Monte Cook has admitted as such on his web site I have read websites from people like Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. I have noted that they sometimes play different rules from the ones that they have created for 3.x. Even so, I am still reluctant to change the rules. My players expect things a certain way unless I tell them differently. It's easier for me to concentrate on the story devices and leave the system alone. One less thing for my group and myself to have to deal with.