Can you have a bow that does both Flame & Frost for +1d6 fire damage +1d6 cold damage. ??
I don't see why not, same reason you can throw an alchemists bomb and catch someone on fire and then throw an icy alchemists bomb and not put out the fire :P
You've made a Frostfire bow! Yep, its fine to do... they won't negatively impact each other.
Yep, no rules against it per RAW. I have run games before where they canceled each other out, but I let people know that ahead of time.
|
Yep, no rules against it per RAW. I have run games before where they canceled each other out, but I let people know that ahead of time.
Ditto; it's legal per RAW, but I also disallow it in my home games.
The same goes for the attributes lawful/chaotic and good/evil. Technically there's no reason you can't have a +1 holy unholy longsword, but not in my game. :)
|
Yep, no rules against it per RAW. I have run games before where they canceled each other out, but I let people know that ahead of time.Ditto; it's legal per RAW, but I also disallow it in my home games.
The same goes for the attributes lawful/chaotic and good/evil. Technically there's no reason you can't have a +1 holy unholy longsword, but not in my game. :)
Hm. Now I have a mental image of a legendary +1 holy unholy anarchic axiomatic longsword, known only as "F' Everybody". The ultimate in True Neutral power.
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
By RAW I'm pretty sure it's legal. But in my games I don't allow any of the elemental damage additions (frost, flaming, shock, ect.) to stack using the excuse that you have to activate them with a command word and when you give a weapon a second command word you over write the first. IE you turn on your flaming ability and when you turn on your frost ability it cancels out the flaming.
Anyway that's for your GM to decide.
Yep, no rules against it per RAW. I have run games before where they canceled each other out, but I let people know that ahead of time.Ditto; it's legal per RAW, but I also disallow it in my home games.
The same goes for the attributes lawful/chaotic and good/evil. Technically there's no reason you can't have a +1 holy unholy longsword, but not in my game. :)
Like Tarlane said, it could make sense. There was an epic weapon in Baldur's Gate 2, called the Equalizer which dealed more damage the further the creature's aligment is from True Neutral:
Such is the age of this sword that its true origin has been lost to time, but markings hint that it was possibly forged in the service of Helm. Also called the "Sword of Neutrality", it seems designed to seek and terminate extremes, to shift the universe closer to harmonious equilibrium. The further the behavior of a target from true balance, the more potent the damage they suffer.
By 3.5/PF rules that would be a Holy Unholy Anarchic Axiomatic weapon.
I've seen games where cold and fire were the same damage type. :P
Frost and fire aren't opposites. They are merely different by degrees.
This is true. It could even be fluffed so that one type of damage occurs milliseconds ahead of the other.
DMs should allow it. Why rule it out? It makes as much sense as half the other stuff in a fantasy world. Why arbitrarily impose rules instead of allowing cool stuff and using your imagination?
Someone already mentioned Frostfire. It was one of the coolest visual things in Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance 2, when you enchanted something with fire and frost damage, you got blue frostfire flames on your weapon.
I love to make Bows that shoot arrows with Dripping, Crackling Frostfire on them. The arrow hits, and arcs of blue, flaming electricity spark from the arrow, hissing and spitting as the melt flesh. (Frost, Fire, Electric, Corrosive Bow ftw)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm. Now I have a mental image of a legendary +1 holy unholy anarchic axiomatic longsword, known only as "F' Everybody". The ultimate in True Neutral power.
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
In ages long past, a crazed hermit and archmage of great power crafted a magical sword. This sword was rumored to be the embodiment of his hatred of all mankind and the extremism they often represented. As such, he designed the sword to attack its wielder as well as its victim. Though merely holding this powerful weapon causes unbearable pain, enough to outright kill lesser men, the power it would unleash upon the target of its attack was always far, far worse. This magical engine of destruction was also said to be an intelligent entity in its own right, an ability some loremasters claim it gained only after its creator died and his soul passed through the blade on its way to hell.
The sword was a +1 anarchic, axiomatic, holy, transformative unholy, vicious longsword which, when held by a non-neutral character, would bestow 5 negative levels (or 4 negative level if the character was partially neutral) upon its owner. Regardless of the wielder's alignment, the sword would still deal 1d6 damage to its owner with each swing. It's name was "Panas Gwaith," a bastardization of dwarvish and elven words, loosely meaning "F~$$ Everybody."
Typical damage:
1d8 + 6d6 + 1 + Str mod vs. CE, CG, LE, or LG creatures
1d8 + 4d6 + 1 + Str mod vs. CN, LN, NE, or NG creatures
It's stats are as follows:
Alignment: Neutral
Abilities: Int 20, Wis 20, Cha 20; Ego 31
Languages: Empathy (common)
Senses: 30 ft. (as human)
Powers: Can use magic aura on itself at will (used to make victims think it is a relatively harmless mundane sword)
Purpose: Defeat/Slay all, but diametrically opposed alignments in particular (that is, all characters not of neutral alignment)
Special Purpose Power: Item can detect any non-neutral foe within 60 feet (generally alerting its wielder of any chaotic evil, chaotic good, lawful evil, or lawful good creature of CR 10 or higher within range, often manipulating the wielder's emotions against those detected).
CL 20th
Panas Gwaith does not seek to kill every creature with an alignment extreme that it encounters, nor does it force its wielder to do so. Neither does the sword believe it is possible to kill every extremist in the world. However, it does hate such narrow-minded creatures, and it does wish to bring the local terrorist cult to ruin, as well as to topple the paladin king of a nearby land, for example. Panas Gwaith wants to be used in furthering its own cause (maintaining balance in all those around it while obtaining power for itself) and to stamp out extremists. Panas Gwaith's desire to bring ruin to all isn't just a matter of self-preservation. It means that the item won't rest (or let its wielder rest) until it places itself above all others. Once it has done so, it often betrays its wielder to their doom in order to restore balance and to begin the vicious cycle all over again. Panas Gwaith will never attack a true neutral creature (or let its wielder do so) while it is in control.
|
|
Yeah, I'm surprised at the number of people who say they don't allow frost and fire.
Holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic are logical contradictions that shouldn't be allowed in the same weapon even in a fantasy world, but frost and fire are not contradictory in that way. They may be inhospitable to one another, but not so much so that they can't exist together through use of magic in a fantasy world.
Yeah, I'm surprised at the number of people who say they don't allow frost and fire.
Holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic are logical contradictions that shouldn't be allowed in the same weapon even in a fantasy world, but frost and fire are not contradictory in that way. They may be inhospitable to one another, but not so much so that they can't exist together through use of magic in a fantasy world.
When you're running a game that's heavily element influenced (think Avatar, Last Airbender world), then mixing elements is a really really game-snorking thing.
|
|
When you're running a game that's heavily element influenced (think Avatar, Last Airbender world), then mixing elements is a really really game-snorking thing.Yeah, I'm surprised at the number of people who say they don't allow frost and fire.
Holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic are logical contradictions that shouldn't be allowed in the same weapon even in a fantasy world, but frost and fire are not contradictory in that way. They may be inhospitable to one another, but not so much so that they can't exist together through use of magic in a fantasy world.
Well, if it's going to cause problems in a particular campaign then I don't see a problem with ruling that elemental magic just doesn't work that way.
But frost/fire shouldn't be put in the same category as holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic, which are logical contradictions.
|
When you're running a game that's heavily element influenced (think Avatar, Last Airbender world), then mixing elements is a really really game-snorking thing.Yeah, I'm surprised at the number of people who say they don't allow frost and fire.
Holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic are logical contradictions that shouldn't be allowed in the same weapon even in a fantasy world, but frost and fire are not contradictory in that way. They may be inhospitable to one another, but not so much so that they can't exist together through use of magic in a fantasy world.
Well, if it's going to cause problems in a particular campaign then I don't see a problem with ruling that elemental magic just doesn't work that way.
But frost/fire shouldn't be put in the same category as holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic, which are logical contradictions.
As opposed to Fire/ Frost which is a physical contradiction?
*stirring the ice cubes in my scalding hot coffee in a frosted mug
|
|
As opposed to Fire/ Frost which is a physical contradiction?*stirring the ice cubes in my scalding hot coffee in a frosted mug
And even without the aid of magic, the ice cubes would remain for a short while in the coffee.
You could also use ice as a cage compound to trap methane or propane. Put a match to it and it catches fire. As it melts, more gas is released and it continues to burn -- without even using magic.
My point is, even though it is counter-intuitive, frost/fire is not a logical contradiction.
As for "physical contradiction," people flying around shooting lightning bolts is a physical contradiction in my experience.
Except that one time...
(...) But frost/fire shouldn't be put in the same category as holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic, which are logical contradictions.
Personaly, I have no problem seeing an Abadarian (LN deity) Holy-Unholy-Axiomatic Crossbow built against all "imbalanced and/or chaotic beings" by an extremist.
|
|
(...) But frost/fire shouldn't be put in the same category as holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic, which are logical contradictions.Personaly, I have no problem seeing an Abadarian (LN deity) Holy-Unholy-Axiomatic Crossbow built against all "imbalanced and/or chaotic beings" by an extremist.
If something is simultaneously holy and not-holy, then those words have no meaning. It disregards a fundamental principle of logic.
I am fine with holy/unholy not like the two are ever active at the same time, the weapon just has two magical reservoirs to draw from
|
|
If something is simultaneously holy and not-holy, then those words have no meaning. It disregards a fundamental principle of logic.(...) But frost/fire shouldn't be put in the same category as holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic, which are logical contradictions.Personaly, I have no problem seeing an Abadarian (LN deity) Holy-Unholy-Axiomatic Crossbow built against all "imbalanced and/or chaotic beings" by an extremist.
If something can be simultaneously hot and frozen then those words have no meaning...
Im going to call frost and flaming "dry ice" its cold as hell and burns to touch
I can´t believe nobody has mentioned the two most relevant words to this topic: ICY HOT
Im going to call frost and flaming "dry ice" its cold as hell and burns to touchThat is exactly what a Frost blade does... without the fire.
I said that's what I am gonna call it xP I think of a frost blade as just lowering the body temperature wherever it hits not cold enough to eventually break metal if left there long enough
|
|
If something can be simultaneously hot and frozen then those words have no meaning...
Well, putting aside that we -- in this world -- can make ice that burns, cold flames or hot ice is fantastic and takes a little bit of imagination, but it is not non-sense like holy-unholy.
Frost not-frost is nonsense, but frost-fire is not nonsense -- it's just counter-intuitive in a mundane world.
Fire is not the negation of frost like unholy is the negation of holy.
|
|
Heat is the negation of cold and the heat/ or extreme cold is what damages you not just having a flame. I love the white hot swords Jim Butcher uses in his Codex Alera series... really awesome stuff.
As for the Holy/ Unholy thing, they aren't happening at the same time. I can see a half crazy neutral god like Nethys creating something like that just to prove it can be done. Imprison a demon and an angel...
As for the holy/unholy and axiomatic/chaotic issue... just rename them.
Don't think of it as 'holy', think of it as Evilbane, and don't think of it as 'unholy', think of it as Goodbane. When you do that, a neutral deity creating banes of both good and evil in one weapon works fine.
Same for axiomatic/chaotic, Lawbane and Chaosbane.
By flipping it from alligned with (holy/unholy/axiomatic/chaotic) to alligned against (bane) it all makes it click.
|
|
Heat is the negation of cold and the heat/ or extreme cold is what damages you not just having a flame. I love the white hot swords Jim Butcher uses in his Codex Alera series... really awesome stuff.
As for the Holy/ Unholy thing, they aren't happening at the same time. I can see a half crazy neutral god like Nethys creating something like that just to prove it can be done. Imprison a demon and an angel...
Heat and cold are just two usually incompatible physical properties, but most of the magic in Pathfinder is about manipulating the world in fantastic ways; so I don't see why frost and fire would be that much of a hang-up. Though people are free to do whatever with their campaigns, of course. I only wanted to point out that frost-fire is not in the same category as holy-unholy.
As for negation, what I mean is that a thing cannot be something that it is not. Unholy by definition is not holy, so to say you have an holy-unholy sword is to say that you have something that is itself and not itself.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be holy-unholy swords in PF -- that should be its own thread. I just wanted to point out that it's a different kind of contradiction than frost-fire.
Edit: And as mdt points out, just renaming holy-unholy as something else would do away with the logic problem.
For the alingment part, I think mdt is right. They can work together if you don't look at it as a real "holy" sword.
I think in Baldurs Gate II, there was even an artifact "the equalizer" that made more damaged the further you were away from complete neutral.
For the bow, there was someone who said the the creator can choose when happens what (though it has to happen very fast), that sounds likely.
I would allow it because very fast heating something and then bringing it down to very low degrees (or the opposite) would shock it and does do more damage than only 1 element.
With shock I mean that 2 layers of the same element (metal/flesh) have a very different temperature, thus tears it apart.
Anyway, I'm no physics expert and even less of a metaphysics expert, but I think that one should try to find reasons to make sense of RAW even if it harder than to take the obvious and dissallow it.
|
|
Heat and cold are just two usually incompatible physical propertiesNo they are not, heat and cold are just relative measures of one physical property called temperature.
And because they are relative they do not logically negate one another.
To say something is cold and not-cold is nonsense like holy-unholy, but to say that something is both cold and hot is not nonsense, though it be highly unusual, improbable, fantastic, or magical.
My point is that you can't make the same argument about frost-fire as you can about unholy-holy or axiomatic-anarchic. The first is unusual and/or fantastic, while the latter are logical nonsense.
Now I have a mental image of a legendary +1 holy unholy anarchic axiomatic longsword, known only as "F' Everybody". The ultimate in True Neutral power.
That would have to be a +1, holy, unholy, anarchic, axiomatic weapon, which adds up to +9.
I was in a game once with a +1, Bane vs Evil Outsiders, Bane vs Good Outsiders, Bane vs Lawful Outsiders, Bane vs Chaotic Outsiders, longsword, which only adds up to +5. Most outsiders are aligned on both axis, which means it was usually +5 +4d6 against outsiders.
|
|
And because they are relative they do not logically negate one another.Heat and cold are just two usually incompatible physical propertiesNo they are not, heat and cold are just relative measures of one physical property called temperature.
They don't negate each other, they are the same thing you cannot be both. You could just as easily talk about 2pm not contradicting midnight.
Regardless, as I said, house rule. Have fun.
If I may point out, there is quite a bit of 'over scientififying' going on about temperatures.
Please remember that elements are, at their base, a very primitive concept.
The classical four elements (which annoys me to no end that D&D and PF warped and mutated almost beyond recognition) are Earth, Wind, Fire, Water. In D&D terms, this would be Acid, Lightning, Fire, Ice. Note, this is for western lore, not eastern with it's five elements (earth, air, fire, water, wood/metal/spirit, depending on which one we're talking about).
Traditionally, there were two ways of thinking about these elements. Either the 'great circle' or the 'great cross' (my own names for it).
The Great Circle concept was, each element is trumped by another element. Fire trumps Air, Air trumps Earth, Earth trumps Water, Water trumps Fire.
The Great Cross concept was, each element has a polar opposite. Earth and Air are opposites, and trump each other (too much earth, say dust, in the air slows the wind while too much wind eats away at earth). Fire and Water are opposites, too much fire evaporates the water, and too much water puts out the fire.
Primitive belief systems (which magic was based on) didn't have the concept of 'heat and cold are the same', they were polar opposites to them.
The D&D elements are actually a mix of main and merged elements in classical element mythology. Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, Lightning (Fire & Air), Lava (Fire and Earth), Mud (Earth and Water), and Mist (Water & Air). Ice and Acid would have just been types of water, solid water and angry water.
So, from that sort of perspective, fire & ice are opposites, not two different things. Injecting modern science into a fantasy elemental mythology discussion is sort of pointless. There's no 'elemental plane of temperature'. There's the elemental plane of water, and the elemental plane of fire.
EDIT: Fixed Acid & Mist comment
|
|
They don't negate each other, they are the same thing you cannot be both. You could just as easily talk about 2pm not contradicting midnight
Saying that an object can have two different temperatures is not the same as saying that it can inhabit multiple locations in space-time.
The shaft of the arrow could be cold ice and the flames coming off of it could be hot, because... magic!
Again, my point isn't that you have to allow frost-fire in your game; my point was just that you can't use the same argument against frost-fire that you can use against holy-unholy or axiomatic-anarchic, two phrases that are logical nonsense.
Frost and fire are just two physical characteristics that are usually inhospitable toward one another.
They don't negate each other, they are the same thing you cannot be both. You could just as easily talk about 2pm not contradicting midnightSaying that an object can have two different temperatures is not the same as saying that it can inhabit multiple locations in space-time.
The shaft of the arrow could be cold ice and the flames coming off of it could be hot, because... magic!
Again, my point isn't that you have to allow frost-fire in your game; my point was just that you can't use the same argument against frost-fire that you can use against holy-unholy or axiomatic-anarchic, two phrases that are logical nonsense.
Frost and fire are just two physical characteristics that are usually inhospitable toward one another.
I could see a Holy/Unholy sword. Works both on good or evil. Only a Neutral person could get the most use out of it tho. After all, is that not what a "Witchblade" in the Comic book does.
........................
Without magic... they would neutralize each other over time.
With magic.... I could see having both on at the same time.
Either way, i could see both effect happening at the same time. (Example: Someone being shoot with a flamethrower on one side, while being sprad with liquid nitrogen on the other.).... or better yet (Something that shoots liquid nitrogen and shoots flamer thrower at same object... would both burn & Freeze the object before neutralizing each other Flame/Cold).
|
|
Please remember that elements are, at their base, a very primitive concept.
The classical four elements (which annoys me to no end that D&D and PF warped and mutated almost beyond recognition) are Earth, Wind, Fire, Water. In D&D terms, this would be Acid, Lightning, Fire, Ice. Note, this is for western lore, not eastern with it's five elements (earth, air, fire, water, wood/metal/spirit, depending on which one we're talking about).
I agree, Really bugs the heck out of me that D&D at some point decided to adopt their twisted idea of elementals. Acid is not earth, Lightning is part of air but not the bulk of it.
I think it relates to the simple fact that they wanted to enhance weapons with all four elements and there is no simple way to add 'earth' damage or air damage.
If you've read the Furies of Caulderon, Butcher does an amazing job describing how a set of elemental powers should work in a fantasy setting. I'm certain there are tons of other sources, the Avatar/ air bender series comes to mind but I'm not as familiar with that.
Please remember that elements are, at their base, a very primitive concept.
The classical four elements (which annoys me to no end that D&D and PF warped and mutated almost beyond recognition) are Earth, Wind, Fire, Water. In D&D terms, this would be Acid, Lightning, Fire, Ice. Note, this is for western lore, not eastern with it's five elements (earth, air, fire, water, wood/metal/spirit, depending on which one we're talking about).
I agree, Really bugs the heck out of me that D&D at some point decided to adopt their twisted idea of elementals. Acid is not earth, Lightning is part of air but not the bulk of it.
I think it relates to the simple fact that they wanted to enhance weapons with all four elements and there is no simple way to add 'earth' damage or air damage.
If you've read the Furies of Caulderon, Butcher does an amazing job describing how a set of elemental powers should work in a fantasy setting. I'm certain there are tons of other sources, the Avatar/ air bender series comes to mind but I'm not as familiar with that.
Yep, Acid is water, but I disagree on lightning, I've always read (and thought) of it as part of fire (heat), and most of the myth stories (native american, greece, etc) put it firmly in the fire court.
Avatar is an excellent example of it. I agree it's a bit harder to show earth and air, but as you say, there are ways. Sand dripping from the swords, a constant whirl of air around a blade.
I'm seriously seriously seriously making elements in my game the four classic, and then stuffing sub-elements into the main four (although I think I'll go for five, partial to asian myth).
Fire (Fire, Lightning, Light)
Water (Water, Cold, Acid)
Earth (Metal, Earth)
Air (Air, Sonic)
Spirit (Positive Energy, Negative Energy)
Then just redo the elemental spells, and the resistance spells so they have two levels, lower level that only resists vs sub-element, existing defensive spell bumped a level that protects against all sub-elements (All fire, all water, etc).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If something can be simultaneously hot and frozen then those words have no meaning...If something is simultaneously holy and not-holy, then those words have no meaning. It disregards a fundamental principle of logic.(...) But frost/fire shouldn't be put in the same category as holy/unholy and axiomatic/anarchic, which are logical contradictions.Personaly, I have no problem seeing an Abadarian (LN deity) Holy-Unholy-Axiomatic Crossbow built against all "imbalanced and/or chaotic beings" by an extremist.
There, it's hot, and frozen solid :P
As to the weapon itself, I guess you could call it Equinox
The problem you run into there is that 'earth' and 'air' are implausible damage types. What is 'earth' damage? Is it just bludgeoning damage propelled by magic? There are already rules for that. If it's not, then what makes it differ? Is there something special and mystical about 'earth' that makes it impossible to imagine the effects of when it hits someone?
|
|
I could deal with lightning being part of fire. In the furies books he has it as part of the whole storm/ wind thing... but it's very hard to accomplish, in fact the vast majority of direct damage effects in the Furies of Calderon is due to fire.
The 'elemental' forces in Furies of Calderon:
Fire: (Fire, inciting emotions)
Air: (Wind, flying, speed/ haste, invisibility, to a small extent lightning)
Water: (Water, Cold - though cold is rarely used directly, healing, transformation, empathy, and divination)
Earth: (earthworks, strength, passion)
Steel: (Literally steel, endurance, pain tolerance, bladework)
Wood: (Wood, archery, stealth)
So I guess there are six forces and they all have fairly discreet powers that... make sense in context. Most of the forces don't deal with damaging you directly, an earth, steel, or air crafter are much more likely to stab you than blast you. A woodcrafter will just put an arrow in you from half a mile away...
I've been meaning to build a system around the Furies books but just haven't had the time yet. I know you wouldn't like it but most of the classes would be based on the summoner since "Furies" are usually physical manifestations of elements.
All that said... the Avatar/ more asian based elementals would be a fine replacement for the silliness that is D&D/ Pathfinder elemental magic.
|
|
The problem you run into there is that 'earth' and 'air' are implausible damage types. What is 'earth' damage? Is it just bludgeoning damage propelled by magic? There are already rules for that. If it's not, then what makes it differ? Is there something special and mystical about 'earth' that makes it impossible to imagine the effects of when it hits someone?
Why do all the elemental forces need to have some direct damage type associated with them? That is a construct of the D&D world that doesn't exist anywhere else in mythology or fiction.