Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Omegas 06-09-07, 12:12 AM	Ello everyone I read a tread by someone in the Equipment and Combat section titled "Cracked Ruling Burst Weapons Pages 224 and 225 DMG" In it he asks the question of countering damaging spells with opposite effects. Mainly Fire and Ice but the idea about countering effects has merit and the possibility of effecting many other magic damage types. I am interested in seeing the magic communities opinion on this idea so please read all of this.. He proposed that the effects of elemental, bonus damage could be counter by the opposite effect in the same way enlarge person could counter reduce person. He used Heat and Chill metal as an good example. First I have to give him applaud on a single statement he made. When someone brushed him off by saying “It’s Magic” It is likely the best burn to generic cop outs even though it is simply worded. I do not mean to disrespect but that is a poor answer. Everything that can't be explained is Magic? It is more of a "give up answer" then a real answer. Magic is the how in creation. Fire & Frost is the effect there after. Your final answer is no answer at all. I like this statement although not well worded. There is a cause and effect to everything in nature and the same should be true of magic. Regardless of “how” anything happens in the world the “effect” still reacts with the physical world in physical ways. Even a mental effects is making physical changes to once’s mind. I always hated hearing a generic answer for a strange effect as “It’s magic.” It truly is a BS answer at best. Magic has mechanics that should somewhat explain the “how.” If magic create fire without heat or air I want to know why, and I think my players deserve the same answer. Truthfully magic should create any effect the same way it is created in nature. To create fire magic would generates intense heat (aka cause) heat ignites kindling that is feed by the air creating fire. (aka effect). Is that so complicated? Most spells are more descriptive and they is further defined by school giving us an idea of how. If we are going to describe magic with physical examples or properties then the magic should be bound to these physical traits. Fire needs Heat, Air, and Fuel. Deprive fire of any of these needs and it dies. Take a lighter and start a fire under water. It wont happen and an ancient warrior would look at the ability to create fire in your hand as magic. Heat and Chill Metal explicitly points out this effect countering. Cause = Magic heats or freezes metal. Effect = Metal gets hot or cold doing damage to anyone touching it. Counter Effect = A hot piece of metal is cooled by anything cold enough to cause damage, and vice versa. This points out that magical damage can be reduced or countered by it’s, opposite effect regardless if it is natural or magical based. It is not a poor example at all. According to the book this is a basic way to counter a spell. This proves his idea of opposing, damage types has merit. I don’t like more then one element on a weapon myself, but there are fire / ice blades. Weather or not the bonus are active independent or both active at the same if the elements did counter each other it would still be a worth, wild blade. Many things have resistance against at least one element and this is even more true of PCs and NPCs. As the resistance reduces the damage before it is dealt this would expose the target to the secondary element. Sometimes it is difficult to determine what resistance they have active so it has it’s benefits. Granted it would be better to shut one off and turn another on as needed but it is activate by a command word which is determined upon creation. I have not read every passage in every book but I have not read anything to contradict this possible interpretation of counter spelling by effect. In fact the counter spell section supports it, and what more this would work on more then fire and ice. His thread has had a great deal of nay saying and most posts overlook a key point or two. Only a few have posted beneficial information. It is possible that everyone is so determined to prevent countering the “effects” of magic that their intentionally dismissing it before truly investigating the idea. Grained it would not be a great deal of changes but it would make some interesting ones to enact a ruling on this. I like countering damage by opposing damage types. Kind of like negative / positive energy, elemental based damage, and alignment based damage. I like this idea all together it fun and imaginative. I challenge anyone to find a passage that directly states that both ice and fire damages can be applied and not reduced at the same time. KPR Omegas
Cold Napalm 06-09-07, 12:25 AM	Okay I already relpied in the other post, but a short summary... Your very next post basically nullifies your theory on how the frost and flaming enchantments works since you basically say that a millisecond of contact with MAGICAL does not have to follow rules on nature flame and frost effects is not enough to do damage and yet you think a millisecond (yes your weapon in in fact not in contact with a creature for full seconds in combat) of heated/chilled metal is enough to do the damage?!? That aside, THAT much heat and cold would injure the wielder more then enemy. Remember that pitch lit torch does 1d3 when you use it as a weapon (i.e. hold the fire bit out to do damage). 1d6 on a millsecond contact would require massive amounts of heat. Same for cold. Also this would basically r uin your weapon. Counterspell does NOT support this. It supports opposite effect negating each other but NEVER elements. There is no element spell in core that is countered by opposing element. Only effect spells are countered by opposing effects. FYI you can have a +1 holy unholy spear if you want to and do 2d6 vs good and 2d6 vs evil.
runestar 06-09-07, 01:06 AM	I challenge anyone to find a passage that directly states that both ice and fire damages can be applied and not reduced at the same time. You won't find it, and that is what allows a weapon to have both the flaming and frost properties at the same time. There is nothing in the DMG item creation rules which expressly forbids this specific combination. Let me pose you a challenge - find me a rules quote which explicitly states, beyond reasonable doubt, that you cannot have a flaming, frost weapon and I will concede my point. As pointed out, you can have a +1 holy, unholy, axiomatic and anarchic weapon. Does a flaming, frost weapon offend your senses so?:confused: I said it once and I will say it again. All these explanations have done nothing but provide reasons as to why they should not stack from a flavour POV. But they do not explain why they would not stack from a rules perspective. The way dnd is written, rules should always take precedence over fluff. Or in the very least, flavour should not prevent mechanics from working the way they should, like how one might cleave with a piercing weapon. Your place is not to theorize about why such a combination is not possible (the FAQ has already clarified this). Your can argue that sweeping everything under the 'it's magic' carpet is lame. Perhaps it is. So what? At the end of the day, it still does not change the fact that a flaming, frost weapon is every bit legal by the RAW, which is good enough for me.:) The FAQ even supports our stance. It is really no different from stacking flaming with shocking. Damage is damage. We paid good money for it, the DMG allows it, it is good to go.:)
Omegas 06-09-07, 02:57 AM	I appricate there was no flamming conversation on these replies thus far. I keep most house rules limited to heath regeneration and travel. Still there are commonly accepted house rules widly accepted by many DMs. Determining the merits and flaws of these potental changes make them more funtional. Another thing to keep in mind is that rules change. Look at just the changes made within the 3.5 books. This bourd should be more then just this is the rules suck it up and follow suit. I remeber when when savage speices where though of as twisted and unbalance and then they started accepting new races. Later the book was printed. The point is the more the game evolves the more realistic the setting and characters seem. The rules are mildly unclear on this point, and I am willing to agree to mildly. I don't agree with opposing effects such as holy / unholy. Fire and ice where the examples that started the ball rolling and they are the easiest to refer to. Regardless what it is so long as the effects oppose each other there is a mild issue. I think the game would be better without unholy / holy weapons and the ability to counter or reduse spells that do have oppisite effects. Apparently I am not alone. Just because the rules allow something does not mean it should be permitted. I have not looked at every pre-made magical weapon but did wizards create any holy/unholy weapons that where not alingment restricted in some way? If I am taking cold damage from a snow storm in the tundra enviorment I should be able to cast burning hands to make some heat in the cave I am hiding in. Not blasting myself in the face but attacking the cold in the air to counter it for a time. If I fall in flames I want my friend to beable to cast ice arrow to reduse the damage and put out the flames. It is not that unreasonable of and effect, but when damage is envolved it should follow the method in Heat / Chill Metal. Counterspell is most often left to the waste side, as most spell casters just don't bother. This would make it more effective and offer new tactices on the field. It would also make several spells that become worth with levels become usefull again. Granted this could be considered flavor but it has merit and should not be denouced just because it is not in the rules. If it helps to assume it is a house rule then think of it that way.
Omegas 06-09-07, 03:14 AM	Okay I already relpied in the other post, but a short summary... Your very next post basically nullifies your theory on how the frost and flaming enchantments works since you basically say that a millisecond of contact with MAGICAL does not have to follow rules on nature flame and frost effects is not enough to do damage and yet you think a millisecond (yes your weapon in in fact not in contact with a creature for full seconds in combat) of heated/chilled metal is enough to do the damage?!? That aside, THAT much heat and cold would injure the wielder more then enemy. Remember that pitch lit torch does 1d3 when you use it as a weapon (i.e. hold the fire bit out to do damage). 1d6 on a millsecond contact would require massive amounts of heat. Same for cold. Also this would basically r uin your weapon. Counterspell does NOT support this. It supports opposite effect negating each other but NEVER elements. There is no element spell in core that is countered by opposing element. Only effect spells are countered by opposing effects. FYI you can have a +1 holy unholy spear if you want to and do 2d6 vs good and 2d6 vs evil. Damage is and effect of magic. Elemental damage is an effect of magic. This is clerified in the contest of magic. And to counter what you are saying. Chill Metal Page 209 second Par of the effect (The creature takes COLD DAMAGE if its equipment is chilled.) Heat Metal Page 239 second Par of the effect (The creature takes FIRE DAMAGE if its equipment is heated.) This is as you say an exact example of elemental countering damage. It also indicates that it does not matter what spell is cast to revers the damage. Any fire or ice damaging spell works.
Omegas 06-11-07, 06:24 PM	Bounce
Omegas 06-11-07, 10:42 PM	(Number 1) JacobReed suggested in another thread that the following damage types counter each other on a point for point. Example if you recieved 5 points of light damage and 6 points of shadow damage the five light counter five of the shadow and the player loses one point of heath from shadow damage. The concept is opposing enegy negate each other. The following types of damage counter each other on a point for point basic Good-Evil Lawful - Chaotic Positive - Negative Light - Shadow Fire - Cold Force - Sonic (Optional) Electric - Acid (Optional) Force and sonic are both forms of concussion waves eather in motion or frozen in a space. Acid is an isolator for electric charges the same way too much electric energy to acid vaporizes it. Currently me and 18 other DMs are testing this with sucess. Everyone hated it at first but by the third game they are all love it. Damage is deternined over a full round. Players keep track of the damage and type per round. Should a player fall to 0 or less heath they forfit thier turn remaining actions but they can be revived by counter damage. Even death can be reverted with out negatives as it did not happen by the end of the round. This makes a small change in game play over the core rules. We are interested in more counterable damage types if you can think of any. (Number 2) As a second house rule weapons can be restricted to 3 bounus damage types at a time. No more then one elemental, one alingment, and one non-elemental / non-allingment damage bounus. A weapon may have multi-elemental damage bouses but once again only one active at a time, plus acid and sound are added to the list. DMs choice to allow shadow, light, or force but it is not recomended as there are few ER or DR for these types. The weapon may also have two alingment based bonuses so long as they are not conflicting in nature. Once again only one at a time. It the help of over 18 DMs we are testing this with positive results. At first most players don't seem to like the change but as they start using it to there advantage they love it. Try it you might like it. Even with the rule change some mages are keeping multi damage type spells
Ezurus 06-11-07, 11:29 PM	So if I were to pull you out of a frozen lake, it would fix you right up if I just dumped some boiling water over you. Right?
MakArios 06-12-07, 10:20 AM	Although I do like the idea of countering effect by effect, I think your house rules have a flaw. Heat Metal and Cold Metal I assume are the precedences you take to make these rules. They counter opposite energy damage without doubt. But they are not instantaneous effects. As I see it, and I might be wrong of course, if for example you`re wearing full plate and someone casts chill metal on you, you will take cold damage after a while, but this damage can be negated (and also negates) by fire damage (fireball). So, by RAW, as I understand it, if actions will turn like this: - chill metal cast - irrelevant actions [end of the round] - 1d4 cold damage - irrelevant actions [end of the round] - fireball cast You will take a Ref saving throw and then xd6-2d4 fire damage (or half if Ref succeeded), right? Just trying to make things clear (for myself especially :P ). With your house rules it will work the same. But if (with your house rules) in the same round on the same target: - a fireball is cast - a cone of cold is cast You would take (i.e.) 10d6[fire]-10d6[cold]? These are both instantaneous effects. Let`s take it to the extremes: - on init 20 wizard casts a quickened fireball on Joe and then moves at full speed - on init 1 sorcerer moves at full speed and then casts cone of cold on Joe Since everything is happening simultaneously in 6 seconds, there isn`t a way (at least I can`t see it) that these instantaneous effects could happen at once and counter each other. It also leads to some abuses. A psion with energy missile (and energy ball later) can literally erase any elemental damage from anybody, assuming he can act. A fighter with shock sword could counter Melf`s Acid Arrow by touching his own blade. Actually when first saw this topic ("counterspelling by effect") I thought that it would be something like: DM: "A red dragon strikes from above, breathing his legendary fire on you." Mage: "I cast Cone of Cold directly at the dragon! It should counter at least some of his fire breath." [and now some mechanics to handle it] Anyway, if it works for you, then great. But I can`t see these rules in my game, albeit I like the concept. Cheers, MakArios
Ezurus 06-12-07, 03:08 PM	If you wanted to increase the amount of possible counterspelling in your campaign, I wouldn't be opposed to saying that any spell with a descriptor (Fire, Evil, Axiomatic) can be countered automatically by a spell of equal or greater level with an opposing descriptor, but only for the purpose of counterspelling. You can only dispel effects by spells indicated in the spell description or of course by using dispel magic. You never can dispel instantaneous effects, that's just silly. They're instantaneous, they can only be countered at the time of casting. You can't uncook meat by sticking it in the freezer.
MakArios 06-12-07, 05:01 PM	Ezurus, that`s exactly what I meant. Maybe I didn`t state it clearly enough, as it was just a description without mechanics/initiative management, so maybe if I have said it somewhat like this: "Mage readies an action to cast cone of cold at the dragons mouth if he breaths fire. Dragon breaths, mage casts. Fire and cold meat each other half way. What happens?"
Ezurus 06-12-07, 05:19 PM	Ezurus, that`s exactly what I meant. Maybe I didn`t state it clearly enough, as it was just a description without mechanics/initiative management, so maybe if I have said it somewhat like this: "Mage readies an action to cast cone of cold at the dragons mouth if he breaths fire. Dragon breaths, mage casts. Fire and cold meat each other half way. What happens?" Ummm... I'm just talking about being able to counterspell spells automatically as you can usually do with a readied action if you have the correct spell prepared. I would never suggest that you can counterspell a Supernatural ability like a breath weapon. And I am also only talking about spell descriptors, not whether they have a similar area of effect. A Burning Hands could be countered by a Chill Metal spell, not because the spells interact, you would just allow it to be a valid spell to counter with because of the opposing spell descriptors. Trying to come up with a system for mixing spell interactions seems like a very inexact science that would be confusing and burdensome. Though it would sound cool if character did such a thing in a novel or something.
MakArios 06-12-07, 05:34 PM	Hmm... That would work similar to Improved Counterspell, right? I don`t have my books with my and I am not sure if this was the feat for counterspelling with higher level spells of the same school. Or was it something other? Though it would sound cool if character did such a thing in a novel or something. The cinematic feel is what I`m aiming at with this ;). I know it would be really hard to complete (even for core-only lower level spells), but if I had enough time... This could be interesting. I think I will work with this idea for a while :). So basically what you suggest would work similar with rule #1 in Omegas post (7th post in this thread) but only when determining counterspelling? @Omegas: Ok, so if we use the rules you`ve presented here, what happens to fire-and-ice-ball (fireball admixtured for cold damage)? Going strictly by those rules (opposite damage types cancel each other if dealt in the same round) it would be just a flashy bang. Maybe with the "WTF?" effect on those in the area :P.
Ezurus 06-12-07, 06:00 PM	Hmm... That would work similar to Improved Counterspell, right? I don`t have my books with my and I am not sure if this was the feat for counterspelling with higher level spells of the same school. Or was it something other? . Yeah, basically just to expand the options of spellcasters when it comes to countering like Improved Counterspell does. That feat allows you to counter a spell of the same school with a spell of higher level. Not very cinematic, but who says that just because you're countering a spell there isn't some cool visual effect? Like if I kill an ogre by an extra 20 damage or something, I like to think I sliced him in half and his torso went flying away from his lower body. If I counter a Fireball with Cone of Cold (using this option rule) I could imagine that the fireball and the cone intersected and the spells started feeding off of eachother until they both disappeared or something. The cinema isn't in the rules, it's in your mind.