Opposing elements on weapons

Are their any specific rules beyond basic logic that disallow opposing elements on weapons? If so would they vary by circumstance when;

Permanent enchantments - ie a sword with both the flaming and frost abilities.

Permanent vs semi permanent - an arrow with the flaming property fired from a bow with the frost property.

Permanent vs spell - ie sword with the frost ability temporarily imbued with the flaming ability from a spell.

Permanent vs class ability - ie a flaming arrow imbued with frost from the arcane archer PrC ability.

Thanks

There are no rules against it and I'd say logic doesn't bar it either, it is magic after all. Why not let it be some bizarrely shock inducing burning cold?

I actually recall an NPC in the 3.5 AP shackled city that had a flaming frost sword.

But that was of course 3.5....

I thought you could only activate one of those abilities at a time.

This topic comes up quite a bit. There is nothing limiting a weapon from having both properties active at the same time. Logic just doesn't play into it, its a fantasy world that has magic!

I've never seen rules limiting it. You couldn't activate two flaming effects but you could do one of each element and go for a cool theme with it at that.

The Final Fantasy nerd in all of us often wants to cry out when we see opposing elements working together, but Pathfinder is a different system.

Perfectly legal, always has been.

Plus, blue flame that turns into icy hot snowflakes just looks cool.

To join the crowd... legal and cheesy.

Plus, blue flame that turns into icy hot snowflakes just looks cool.

I was all set to bring up not liking the idea, but that actually does sound pretty cool. Well played.

Icy to dull the pain, and hot to relax it away.

Totally legal, and I don't consider it cheesy. Usually because by the time it's a good idea to start adding the elemental enchants instead of straight pluses many creatures have a myriad of energy resistances that means you're lucky to deal 1 point of energy damage from your d6 roll.

To join the crowd... legal and cheesy.

How is having more than one enhancement on a weapon "cheesy"?

To join the crowd... legal and cheesy.

I do believe you're the only one who has claimed cheese here. I certainly don't see it as remotely questionable.

I thought I remembered finding something somewhere that restricted you to one such enchant active at a time, but I can't find such text right now. I don't think it's inherently cheesy. Main relevance is bypassing DR.

Majuba wrote:

To join the crowd... legal and cheesy.

I do believe you're the only one who has claimed cheese here. I certainly don't see it as remotely questionable.

Pardon that, I should be more cautious on the Rules forum. I merely meant cheesy in flavor (cold and fire at once), not so much cheesy on a broken/strength level.

I'm pretty sure that's not how most people interpret claims of "cheese", so maybe something like "silly" or "weird" would be a better term for that, Majuba. :)

Isn't that what I said I should have done? :)

Personally I differentiate "cheese" vs. "cheesy" along those lines, but I should know better here.

Although, I *do* think it was strength-cheese back in core 3.0/3.5. A lot fewer ways to increase damage reliably meant that stacking frost/flaming/shocking all on a weapon (about the only options in 3.0) was a very large increase in damage potential. I don't feel the same for Pathfinder.

Isn't that what I said I should have done? :)

Personally I differentiate "cheese" vs. "cheesy" along those lines, but I should know better here.

Although, I *do* think it was strength-cheese back in core 3.0/3.5. A lot fewer ways to increase damage reliably meant that stacking frost/flaming/shocking all on a weapon (about the only options in 3.0) was a very large increase in damage potential. I don't feel the same for Pathfinder.

3.5 martial characters actually did more damage than Pathfinder ones due to certain splat books. Power attack allowed you to choose your number. You could take that number from your AC instead of your attack roll. Leaping attack increased the damage power attack did, and there was a way to get pounce, so whatever you were attacking would normally die, and your lack of AC did not matter on many occasions if you chose to that route. <----That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I once made a sword that was a +1 flaming in the day and a +1 frost in the night. Was cool.

Majuba wrote:

Isn't that what I said I should have done? :)

Personally I differentiate "cheese" vs. "cheesy" along those lines, but I should know better here.

Although, I *do* think it was strength-cheese back in core 3.0/3.5. A lot fewer ways to increase damage reliably meant that stacking frost/flaming/shocking all on a weapon (about the only options in 3.0) was a very large increase in damage potential. I don't feel the same for Pathfinder.

3.5 martial ... stuff...

<----That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Thus my qualifier.

I think the idea of opposing elements to be limiting on the imagination. The various mephitis and elementals provide interesting inspiration to fluff the weapons: a flaming/acid sword (vaguely fire/earth) could be dripping with caustic magma. A shock/acid (air/earth) could be a crackling dust storm that strips flesh (acid). I can't think of a great idea for a fire/cold one, but imagination is your limit.

There was a sci/fantasy book series about coldfire before... you could probably find a few stories with a concept similiar in fact, deadfire or burning ice... whatever, i like the idea, go for it!

Actually, I was right.

"The effect remains until another command is given."

This means you have to choose between the 2 enchantments, as you can only use one command at a time.

I read that as the flame stays on until you use that enchantments command word to turn off. so if you are fighting something that absorbs fire you dont have to heal it to death. Each enchantment would have different command words. Or all would have the same on and the same off i suppose. Be specific on your order form when working with your local enchanters guild.

Actually, I was right.

"The effect remains until another command is given."

This means you have to choose between the 2 enchantments, as you can only use one command at a time.

If you honestly think that flaming turns off whenever you use another command word for a different effect, then it turns off when you use ANY command word item, not just another elemental weapon enhancement.

Yeah I take that to mean "until you deactivate it", not "limit 1 effect at once".

I read that as the flame stays on until you use that enchantments command word to turn off. so if you are fighting something that absorbs fire you dont have to heal it to death. Each enchantment would have different command words. Or all would have the same on and the same off i suppose. Be specific on your order form when working with your local enchanters guild.

Seconded.

Yeah, it means it stays on till you choose to deactivate it. Not that you're limited to only one effect.

I swear I read at some point (maybe the 3.5 DMG, maybe a FAQ response, who knows) that there's nothing wrong with stacking energy types. Wouldn't even know where to begin to look for it, though.

Really though, there shouldn't be any reason why it doesn't work. Because, you know, magic.

Actually, I was right.

"The effect remains until another command is given."

This means you have to choose between the 2 enchantments, as you can only use one command at a time.

SKR explains command word activation,here

They can all run off the same command word to activate and deactivate but you have to will each one as a standard action. A lot of gms are friendly overly nice and let a player leave it always active since it says it remains active once activate until commanded to deactivate. That where the cheese comes in because it never gets turned off, making it always one constant power.

It up to the GM to manage that power by making sure the players don't camp with those powers always activated. I think a realistic approach balances it out. By only allowing players in dungeons, sewers, areas with no roads ect.; areas where dangers are expected to be or that ability can also be used as a tool. Such as the Flame property providing light source otherwise they take the risk of burning down tents, sleeping bags, who knows what else, Scaring npcs on the road, having the town guard, arrested the pcs for being public nuisances ect. It really put a kill switch on the players from adding more then one elemental property to a weapon. Because they don’t want to waste 2 or more rounds of 4 to 5 round combat for a d6 damage that may or may not do damage.

the David wrote:

Actually, I was right.

"The effect remains until another command is given."

This means you have to choose between the 2 enchantments, as you can only use one command at a time.

SKR explains command word activation,here

They can all run off the same command word to activate and deactivate but you have to will each one as a standard action. A lot of gms are friendly overly nice and let a player leave it always active since it says it remains active once activate until commanded to deactivate. That where the cheese comes in because it never gets turned off, making it always one constant power.

It up to the GM to manage that power by making sure the players don't camp with those powers always activated. I think a realistic approach balances it out. By only allowing players in dungeons, sewers, areas with no roads ect.; areas where dangers are expected to be or that ability can also be used as a tool. Such as the Flame property providing light source otherwise they take the risk of burning down tents, sleeping bags, who knows what else, Scaring npcs on the road, having the town guard, arrested the pcs for being public nuisances ect. It really put a kill switch on the players from adding more then one elemental property to a weapon. Because they don’t want to waste 2 or more rounds of 4 to 5 round combat for a d6 damage that may or may not do damage.

I think a simple solution that avoids bogging down play is to say that the abilities can be on constantly, but are automatically turned off when sheathed (or the equivalent put-away). You can keep them on as you explore the dungeon, and even put them down for a moment if you need to, but if you put the weapon away it turns off.

yeah but if you are going to rule that the flame does fire damage to everything around it you pretty much have to agree to allow the players to use the weapon as a touch attack to just deal the elemental damage as well.

I never caught the bit about it being a standard action just to turn on your weapon. Thats a real bummer.

yeah but if you are going to rule that the flame does fire damage to everything around it you pretty much have to agree to allow the players to use the weapon as a touch attack to just deal the elemental damage as well.

No you don't. :)

Well no you don't HAVE to, but arguing physics to punish your players and then disallowing physics when it gives them benefits makes you a bit of a jerk.

Well no you don't HAVE to, but arguing physics to punish your players and then disallowing physics when it gives them benefits makes you a bit of a jerk.

That's the thing... I don't argue physics I argue magic. Magic has no need to be consistent by numbers or physics, only by it's own particular theme. I simply tell them that the spirits of Fire and Ice won't be embodied in the same place. I also don't allow things like placing holy and uholy on a non-artifact weapon.

If you are going to argue physics than i am going to be that player who makes an infinite energy steam engine out of a +1 flaming dagger... coupled with my knowledge engineering skills to build electro canons. Slippery slope man, just sayin'.

It's also worth noting that there are sound tactical reasons to want to turn some effects off; consider fighting golems, say, where you might want to be sure you do electrical damage but not fire damage.

I think we're headed for a serious derailment here, but I feel I've got what I need from the question.

There are a lot of familiar names in here and if no one is able to find RAW against it with the communal level of system mastery in this thread I am fairly confident that it can be done legally.

For what it's worth, the question was academic, at least at this point. A player in my group is angling for AA PrC and his fighter archer has a flaming bow at present. It got the group talking about the nature of opposing elements delivered from the same source, and if there was a difference based on permanency vs temporary effects.

I appreciate all the responses.

My sword drips igniting liquid ethane/propane... and ethane/propane accessories.

Glad you got what you needed but just for reference

The Elemental Spell meta magic feat lets you create fireballs that do 1/2 fire and 1/2 cold...that was enough for my GM to not argue the case lol

So lets say u have a weapon does a 1d6 of fire dmg and does a 1d6 of ice dmg. So when it hits, it does 2d6 of the extra dmg? I thought the damage bonuses don't stack that only one of them goes off but not both? Or am I completely wrong on this?

2D6, so long as they aren't the same enchantment (I.e. double flaming) they will stack. Go nuts with it :)

So lets say u have a weapon does a 1d6 of fire dmg and does a 1d6 of ice dmg. So when it hits, it does 2d6 of the extra dmg? I thought the damage bonuses don't stack that only one of them goes off but not both? Or am I completely wrong on this?

1d6 fire and 1d6 cold, yes. Subject to either or both forms of resistance, as you might expect. It's probably not a *great* choice of weapon because almost everything resists one or both, but nothing prevents such a weapon from existing.

Actually now I have a fun idea for a homebrew specific weapon, the phase blade. This +3 longsword's temperature seems to change randomly, sometimes being icy to the touch and other times searing hot, but the temperature never harms the wielder. It deals an extra 2d6 damage per hit. This damage counts as fire, lightning, and cold damage. If a creature possesses resistance or immunity to any of these types, only the weakest resistance applies. For example, the weapon deals the full 2d6 damage to a Barbazu, because it is immune to fire, has cold resist 10, but electric resist 0.

Redneckdevil wrote:

So lets say u have a weapon does a 1d6 of fire dmg and does a 1d6 of ice dmg. So when it hits, it does 2d6 of the extra dmg? I thought the damage bonuses don't stack that only one of them goes off but not both? Or am I completely wrong on this?

1d6 fire and 1d6 cold, yes. Subject to either or both forms of resistance, as you might expect. It's probably not a *great* choice of weapon because almost everything resists one or both, but nothing prevents such a weapon from existing.

Actually now I have a fun idea for a homebrew specific weapon, the phase blade. This +3 longsword's temperature seems to change randomly, sometimes being icy to the touch and other times searing hot, but the temperature never harms the wielder. It deals an extra 2d6 damage per hit. This damage counts as fire, lightning, and cold damage. If a creature possesses resistance or immunity to any of these types, only the weakest resistance applies. For example, the weapon deals the full 2d6 damage to a Barbazu, because it is immune to fire, has cold resist 10, but electric resist 0.

Eh, that sounds way to good. Make it 1d6 but applies as whatever element the attacked creature is weakest against for a +2 enhancement bonus and that would seem decently balanced to me. The fact that you'll pretty much bypass any resistance or immunity unless a creature has all four makes it awesome, but it is only 1d6 worth of damage so it's not too crazy.

Talcrion wrote:

yeah but if you are going to rule that the flame does fire damage to everything around it you pretty much have to agree to allow the players to use the weapon as a touch attack to just deal the elemental damage as well.

No you don't. :)

Well you can already do that vs swarms, with a torch.

Actually now I have a fun idea for a homebrew specific weapon, the phase blade. This +3 longsword's temperature seems to change randomly, sometimes being icy to the touch and other times searing hot, but the temperature never harms the wielder. It deals an extra 2d6 damage per hit. This damage counts as fire, lightning, and cold damage. If a creature possesses resistance or immunity to any of these types, only the weakest resistance applies.

Sounds like a good +3 enhancement bonus to me. Give up 1d6 of damage to have the 2d6 dealt together vs. weakest.