Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming?


Rules Questions

201 to 241 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

To the original poster -

According to James Jacobs (if mdt is correct), and according to an item in Shackled City adventure path, it is possible to have a weapon with frost and flaming on at the same time. There, original post answered.

This does break suspension of disbelief in some, and might easily be house ruled to work differently.

That makes this question very relevant to pathfinder society (as house rules are kind of anathema to an organization which tries to agree on rulings).

A weapon with opposed alignment banes (holy / unholy or axiomatic / chaotic) brings a bigger question, yet rules as written do not disallow it. Nor does it answer the original post, just muddies the water. I don't have an answer for the alignment banes. Only the observation that it includes things that the original post doesn't need to have addressed, though somewhat related.


I know it's old, but:

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
addy grete wrote:
Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming special abilities?
Yes, but only if you name it Icy Hot... :D

It makes me glad that I'm not the only one to think that. ;) Every time I see this thread title I think "Icy to dull the pain, hot to relax it away!"

I kind of want to make a two weapon fighter with Icy Hot in one hand and in the other a vorpal sword named HeadOn.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you wonder how they freeze and burn, and other science facts, repeat to yourself, "It's just a game. I should really just relax."

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Zathyr wrote:
in the other a vorpal sword named HeadOn.

Wouldn't it be 'HeadOff'?


Ross Byers wrote:
Zathyr wrote:
in the other a vorpal sword named HeadOn.
Wouldn't it be 'HeadOff'?

No, it's HeadOn, as in apply it directly to the enemy's forehead.

The Exchange

Ross Byers wrote:
If you wonder how they freeze and burn, and other science facts, repeat to yourself, "It's just a game. I should really just relax."

I miss that show so much. On-line riffing just isn't the same...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

KestrelZ wrote:
A weapon with opposed alignment banes (holy / unholy or axiomatic / chaotic) brings a bigger question, yet rules as written do not disallow it.

This is actually pretty simple. The rules allow it, but no one can use such a weapon without suffering negative levels. (Unless they have the Beyond Morality mythic ability.)


Ross Byers wrote:
KestrelZ wrote:
A weapon with opposed alignment banes (holy / unholy or axiomatic / chaotic) brings a bigger question, yet rules as written do not disallow it.
This is actually pretty simple. The rules allow it, but no one can use such a weapon without suffering negative levels. (Unless they have the Beyond Morality mythic ability.)

It's even simpler; Holy/Unholy only give the negative level to a wielder of the Evil/Good persuasion. So be LN, TN, or CN and you're good to go.

A TN "actively neutral" deity's artifact would probably be Axiomatic, Anarchic, Holy, and Unholy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's amazing the things people can object to in their games.

Things I've seen labeled as "cheesy" or otherwise naughty/frowned upon:
• Taking options that make it easier to use your class features
• Coordinating with your teammates (i.e., setting up flanks for each other)
• Utilizing a hands-free light source
• Coming prepared with spells/items specifically designed to overcome particular obstacles, and using them when those obstacles are encountered
• Trying to overcome obstacles by any means other than having brought a spell/item specifically designed to overcome that obstacle
• Using a spread of ability scores that closely mimics the range of scores a Heroic NPC would have
• And now, I can add "Using two thematically-dissimilar abilities on the same magic weapon".

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Huh. You're right. I would have sworn it was 'any non-Good' not 'any Evil'.

That brings the contradiction back, though.


Ross Byers wrote:

Huh. You're right. I would have sworn it was 'any non-Good' not 'any Evil'.

That brings the contradiction back, though.

How so? It simply means that only one in the middle of the moral ground could use it without negative. What is the contradiction?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

That the weapon can be two opposite things at the same time. (I'm fine with it, personally, but I can see where it bothers people.)

Q: Can my opponent do something that doesn't make sense, such as casting both Holy Strength and Unholy Strength on his Air Elemental?

A: Yes, these effects are magical, after all.


KestrelZ wrote:


A weapon with opposed alignment banes (holy / unholy or axiomatic / chaotic) brings a bigger question, yet rules as written do not disallow it. Nor does it answer the original post, just muddies the water.

I do not see the problem. Baldurs gate II, the equalizer sword, basically what you are describing. Perfectly viable fluff.

The Exchange

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Baldur's Gate II, the Equalizer sword, basically what you are describing. Perfectly viable fluff.

Is that what that does? I was able to find most of the other artifact bits but never got the Equalizer assembled. Sounds like it's based on Greyhawk's Equalizer of Gran March, which essentially was a one-sword war against LG, CG, LE and CE.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Baldur's Gate II, the Equalizer sword, basically what you are describing. Perfectly viable fluff.
Is that what that does? I was able to find most of the other artifact bits but never got the Equalizer assembled. Sounds like it's based on Greyhawk's Equalizer of Gran March, which essentially was a one-sword war against LG, CG, LE and CE.

I do not remember exactly. But it does little agaisnt neutral, and then for every step of alignment the sword hitted harder. Not exactly a holy unholy lawful chaotic lonsgword but still.

The Exchange

That's Equalizer of Gran March, all right. I wonder how it wound up in pieces on Faerun?...

Sorry, sorry. Derailing. We were talking about hot-cold things...


Lincoln Hills wrote:
I wonder how it wound up in pieces on Faerun?

The planar sphere?.

Shadow Lodge

A frost, flaming, shocking, corrosive blade would look cool with red and blue flames with a hink of green streaks and some electrical arcs running up and down the blade.

Add holy and you get all that and a golden glow at the heart of the blade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys are not thinking scientifically enough about a Cold Fire weapon.
Allow me to introduce you to the idea of "negative temperature," and I mean that on the kelvin scale--so lower than absolute zero--whereby the system is balanced in a higher energy state than a lower one, but in this case the energy is held in place by a magical barrier instead of a human generated field of energy. The sword itself is freezing, and does cold damage on hit, however when the sword hits it also temporarily disables the magical field holding the artificial high energy state of the negative temperature in check thereby releasing that energy into the target as well to cause fire damage.

Make any sense? No? That's ok.

One could also assume that a cold fire blade switches back and forth from a very low temperature to a very high temperature very quickly--miliseconds perhaps--to have the same effect.

Sovereign Court

fretgod99 wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
i agree ok by RAW, but oh so silly, as the heat generated by the flaming would be absorbed by the cold generated by the frosting (as per the universal law of entropy)
Meh. Whacking someone with a magic stick might not be a closed system.

action - reaction :: closed :)


chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Sometimes DM'S are just wrong.
Rule 0.1: In the event the GM is wrong, see Rule 0.
If a DM wants to go against the official rules and establish houserules, then yes he is always correct in a sense. If a DM insists on following the official rules and then gets them wrong, then yeah he's wrong.

If the GM insists on his interpretation regardless, then the GM is no longer wrong--by definition. It may not be to the liking of the player involved, but his table, his rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Sometimes DM'S are just wrong.
Rule 0.1: In the event the GM is wrong, see Rule 0.
If a DM wants to go against the official rules and establish houserules, then yes he is always correct in a sense. If a DM insists on following the official rules and then gets them wrong, then yeah he's wrong.
If the GM insists on his interpretation regardless, then the GM is no longer wrong--by definition. It may not be to the liking of the player involved, but his table, his rules.

No, if the DM says he is playing RAW and then gets the rules wrong, then he is wrong and no amount of Rule 0 will ever change that. If he insists on his interpretation by houseruling it, then sure, he's right. It may be a fine distinction but it's an important one. I have zero issues with houserules, but whenever someone adamantly claims their houserule is RAW I want to slap them.


chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Sometimes DM'S are just wrong.
Rule 0.1: In the event the GM is wrong, see Rule 0.
If a DM wants to go against the official rules and establish houserules, then yes he is always correct in a sense. If a DM insists on following the official rules and then gets them wrong, then yeah he's wrong.
If the GM insists on his interpretation regardless, then the GM is no longer wrong--by definition. It may not be to the liking of the player involved, but his table, his rules.
No, if the DM says he is playing RAW and then gets the rules wrong, then he is wrong and no amount of Rule 0 will ever change that. If he insists on his interpretation by houseruling it, then sure, he's right. It may be a fine distinction but it's an important one. I have zero issues with houserules, but whenever someone adamantly claims their houserule is RAW I want to slap them.

If a GM makes a ruling that is in accordance with RAW then he is correct.

If a GM makes a houseruling, then he is correct.

If a GM makes a ruling that isn't in accordance with RAW and yet calls it RAW then he is incorrect.

I'm just trying to show that the GM isn't always right. He can absolutely be wrong. Whether or not pointing this out will make a difference is another matter, because when pointed out he can simply make a houserule so that it now works the way he thought/wanted it to be.

When it comes to RAW versus houserules I always go by this:
If a houserule gets no objections and only positive feedback from the group, and I see no potential for badness then it gets implemented.
If a houserule gets some objections and some positive feedback, then I look into the reasons behind it and I make a judgment call where the nay-sayers hold most power, because if I'm going away from original, then there has to be a good reason.
If I want to implement a houserule that only gets negative feedback from the group, then I take it very seriously and only in very rare circumstances would I implement it regardless. (I don't think it has happened yet).


Basically the GM is god and should never be questioned by the plebs (players).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Basically the GM is god and should never be questioned by the plebs (players).

How is that kind of thing EVER going to lead to good play?

No. The GM is NOT god. And you should absolutely be able to question him. But the way you do it is very important. And if he ends up saying a final ruling then the GM has the right to do so. BUT if the players are dissatisfied with it, then he will soon be the GM of nothing.


Lifat wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
Basically the GM is god and should never be questioned by the plebs (players).

How is that kind of thing EVER going to lead to good play?

No. The GM is NOT god. And you should absolutely be able to question him. But the way you do it is very important. And if he ends up saying a final ruling then the GM has the right to do so. BUT if the players are dissatisfied with it, then he will soon be the GM of nothing.

Player Entitlement at its finest.

You do not have the right to question the DM's rulings. You absolutely have the right to point out the difference between RAW and RAE (Rules as Enforced), but you don't have the right to tell the DM that he's wrong on his table.

The DM can throw you out of a game for being a problematic player just as much as you can walk away from the table.

On topic, if a player tries to convince the entire table to walk away from a game because the DM ruled that you cannot have more than one elemental enchantment active at the same time on a weapon then you are most certainly the problem.

The DM most certainly plays the role of God in the game, if you don't like that, then play in a game where the DM does not have control. That means play either a videogame where the restrictions do not change or play PFS where the DM isn't allowed to make house rules.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Lifat wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
Basically the GM is god and should never be questioned by the plebs (players).

How is that kind of thing EVER going to lead to good play?

No. The GM is NOT god. And you should absolutely be able to question him. But the way you do it is very important. And if he ends up saying a final ruling then the GM has the right to do so. BUT if the players are dissatisfied with it, then he will soon be the GM of nothing.

Player Entitlement at its finest.

You do not have the right to question the DM's rulings. You absolutely have the right to point out the difference between RAW and RAE (Rules as Enforced), but you don't have the right to tell the DM that he's wrong on his table.

The DM can throw you out of a game for being a problematic player just as much as you can walk away from the table.

On topic, if a player tries to convince the entire table to walk away from a game because the DM ruled that you cannot have more than one elemental enchantment active at the same time on a weapon then you are most certainly the problem.

The DM most certainly plays the role of God in the game, if you don't like that, then play in a game where the DM does not have control. That means play either a videogame where the restrictions do not change or play PFS where the DM isn't allowed to make house rules.

Where do you get off assuming how I would handle questioning a GM? I specifically said that HOW you question it is important

I mentioned no specific topics that I would question! And I did NOT advice people to be dsiruptive in any way or form. I did NOT advice people to try and convince the other players to leave the table.
Questioning a GM should generally be handled in between sessions and always directed to him. Pointing out where the GM is going away from RAW is absolutely okay. Even questioning houserules is okay as long as it is done in a respectful manor. If you are dissatisfied with the answers after a discussion, then you really are out of options. Accept the ruling or leave the game. The other players should not be coerced in any direction, but rather be left to make up their own minds.
You wouldn't have called me entitled if you had read what I said fully and if you hadn't put words in my mouth.


I suppose the connotation of 'question the DM' is really what is causing the confusion here.

If you simply mean, you want to understand why the DM makes any particular ruling out of curiosity, then yeah that's fine. I have no problems explaining the rules to a player or my decision making process.

I was under the impression that 'questioning the DM' meant interrupting the game and attempting to change the ruling mid-play to accommodate for the player's whim, which thinking that the player has the right to do so is entitlement.

Not that DMs don't allow players to cite rules and change things on the fly, I do it all the time, but my players are spoiled.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

master_marshmallow wrote:

Player Entitlement at its finest.

You do not have the right to question the DM's rulings.

*blinks*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Player Entitlement at its finest.

You do not have the right to question the DM's rulings.

DM Entitlement at its finest.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's almost as if there is a middle ground between "The GM is the overlord and you're lucky to play." and "The players get to do whatever they want, despite the rules." that people are ignoring because yelling on the internet is more fun.

Or maybe playing a team-based game that requires coordinating multiple people will always require compromise on some level.

Dark Archive

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

You guys are not thinking scientifically enough about a Cold Fire weapon.

Allow me to introduce you to the idea of "negative temperature," and I mean that on the kelvin scale--so lower than absolute zero--whereby the system is balanced in a higher energy state than a lower one, but in this case the energy is held in place by a magical barrier instead of a human generated field of energy. The sword itself is freezing, and does cold damage on hit, however when the sword hits it also temporarily disables the magical field holding the artificial high energy state of the negative temperature in check thereby releasing that energy into the target as well to cause fire damage.

Make any sense? No? That's ok.

Yay! I was going to bring up negative temperature as well, I love it when magic items can be explained by real world physics that when you try and explain them to people sound just like magic anyways :)

Also, everyone can be wrong! We're humans (mostly) and shocker, humans get stuff wrong all the time! Player, GM, doesn't matter, treat each other respectfully, listen to others points of view and discuss the rules like sensible people then get back to the game regardless of if you were right or wrong and have fun!

Scarab Sages

A blue flame that in contact with the flesh seens irradiate hot but it's frozen on touch, it'll burn before freeze and freeze before burn. God dam you, magic!


!!!!!!!! I just had a burning frozen Jimmy Dean sausage breakfast sandwich I just picked up at the marina mart. Outside was super hot melted cheese burn my tongue hot. The center was still Ice cold frozen water.

Stupid Entropy didn't work in real life, how can we expect it to always work in a fantastically magic environment?


master_marshmallow wrote:

I suppose the connotation of 'question the DM' is really what is causing the confusion here.

If you simply mean, you want to understand why the DM makes any particular ruling out of curiosity, then yeah that's fine. I have no problems explaining the rules to a player or my decision making process.

I was under the impression that 'questioning the DM' meant interrupting the game and attempting to change the ruling mid-play to accommodate for the player's whim, which thinking that the player has the right to do so is entitlement.

Not that DMs don't allow players to cite rules and change things on the fly, I do it all the time, but my players are spoiled.

Questioning the GM is usually like this (when done the way it should be):

Are you sure that your ruling is correct, because if you look at this, this and this rule text, it seems to indicate something else. If the text is enough to make it clear that the GM's ruling is wrong by RAW, then the GM has two options: Make his ruling a houseruling or change the ruling.
If a player has an issue with a houseruling, then questioning it should also point to what the player finds problematic. If the GM still disagrees after hearing the player out, then the ruling stands.

When to question is also important... Try to do it after the session is concluded or in a break or something so that it doesn't ruin the mood and the flow. If you truly believe something is important enough that you need to question it right away, then do so. If the GM finds the timing inapropriate, then all he needs to do is say that it will be discussed later. In that event the player really should shut up and roll with it untill a natural break comes along.

Trying to change a ruling mid-play is fair game IMO if it is an important enough ruling. But it is both the player's and the GM's job to try to keep rules discussion in the natural breaks.

I've seen plenty of both player entitlement and GM entitlement.
Are there more examples of Player entitlement out there? Probably. There are usually 4-5 players per GM, which means there are 5 times as many people who can feel entitled.

Usually though, if a GM is experienced enough, whenever they are questioned in a ruling mid-play, they tend to say stuff like: "This is how we will run it this time, and then we can discuss it in a natural break." And when I've seen GM's do this, I've never seen a player press on in discussing it before a natural break.

Liberty's Edge

I'm with Jiggy and Ross.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

!!!!!!!! I just had a burning frozen Jimmy Dean sausage breakfast sandwich I just picked up at the marina mart. Outside was super hot melted cheese burn my tongue hot. The center was still Ice cold frozen water.

Stupid Entropy didn't work in real life, how can we expect it to always work in a fantastically magic environment?

I tried to warn you; gotta give it time before you bite in!


Jiggy wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

!!!!!!!! I just had a burning frozen Jimmy Dean sausage breakfast sandwich I just picked up at the marina mart. Outside was super hot melted cheese burn my tongue hot. The center was still Ice cold frozen water.

Stupid Entropy didn't work in real life, how can we expect it to always work in a fantastically magic environment?

I tried to warn you; gotta give it time before you bite in!

Yeah I figured that my new knowledge of the laws of entropy would prevail.

Crap any minute now I bet gravity is going to fail now too.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
i agree ok by RAW, but oh so silly, as the heat generated by the flaming would be absorbed by the cold generated by the frosting (as per the universal law of entropy)
Meh. Whacking someone with a magic stick might not be a closed system.
action - reaction :: closed :)

Action - Reaction + MAGICS!!!! = ... ?!?!?!? ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!

*shrug*

Or whatever.

;)


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Yeah I figured that my new knowledge of the laws of entropy would prevail.

Crap any minute now I bet gravity is going to fail now too.

*casts Reverse Gravity*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Raise Dead, rather.

201 to 241 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.