Elemental Damage Stacking on Weapons: Pros and Cons

[wayfare]

Hey All:

A friend of mine is considering allowing elemental damage enchntments (flaming, frost, shock, thundring, etc) stack on weapons. So, you could have a weapon that was +1d6 fire and +1d6 frost on a successul hit, or you could have a weapon that inflictes +2d6 fire. I run stuff between levels 1-10, andd i can honestly say that it has never come up in my games. So i turn to the palyground:

1) Is this RAW legal (a citatian would be appreciated)

2) What are the pros and cons of llowing this kind of stacking

Thanks for the help!

[CaladanMoonblad]

It will buff up melee people a bit more. The weapon design will matter less, and the more cash you have matters more (to invest in your weapons). So your Barbarian is gonna the wizard for an Enlarge Person so he can do 3d6 base greatsword damage + 1d6 fire + 1d6 shock... but the rogue is still gonna laugh at him at mid to higher levels with their bucket of SA damage. Oh, and they will use Daggers of Flaming Shock to boot... or Frost Shock...

I've always run my game without stacking energy types- so no flaming shock longswords... you have to choose between each kind for a round if you have both abilities on the weapon, similar to Metaline. Most of my players use Energy Crystals from Magic Item Compendium anyway to swap energy types so they don't have to use up a +1 cost modifier out of +10. There are of course, Flaming to Flaming Burst, and Shocking to Shocking Burst increases if you want to increase an inherent power (both weapon and crystal types).

This sort of question is asked in this Paizo thread (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jx9a&page=2?Can-a-weapon-be-enchanted-with-both-frost-and) for pathfinder.

But it's your game. Play what seems fun to you.

[Frathe]

I'm not sure if you can stack two of the same enhancement, but the different elemental ones are different enhancements, and the SRD says this:


Magic Weapon Special Ability Descriptions
In addition to enhancement bonuses, weapons can have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

[Matticussama]

In my games I allow stacking elemental effects, so long as they're not diametrically opposed. So flaming, shocking longswords are ok, but flaming frost longswords are not. It gives melee characters a little bit of an extra umph, without seeming silly (which, to me, a flaming frost shocking acidic weapon is quite silly).

[Urpriest]

There's nothing to stop multiple elemental types from stacking on the same weapon. There's also currently no way to have the same type twice on a weapon, since there's no way to have the same weapon ability twice.

In terms of the effect on the game, the problem is there are lots of enemies (in particular outsiders) who have small resistances to a lot of different energies. Against those sorts of guys a weapon like this loses almost all effectiveness.

[wayfare]

The part that seems sketchy to us is this:



From the SRD

Flaming
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

I read that as, you can have one elemental damage enchantment active at a time, and activating another deactivates the first.

Now, i think you could argue that you could have a +2d6 fire damage weapon, maybe... And you can definitely have something like an Axiomatic Flaming weapon, because Axiomatic doesnt require a command word (i think)...

[Urpriest]

The part that seems sketchy to us is this:




I read that as, you can have one elemental damage enchantment active at a time, and activating another deactivates the first.

Now, i think you could argue that you could have a +2d6 fire damage weapon, maybe... And you can definitely have something like an Axiomatic Flaming weapon, because Axiomatic doesnt require a command word (i think)...

Flaming and Frost are separate enchantments. If you interpret that as meaning that commands tied to other magical effects can turn off your weapon, then any other command-activated magic item could do so, which seems rather silly. In CS terms, the command described has to be a local variable.

[wayfare]

Flaming and Frost are separate enchantments. If you interpret that as meaning that commands tied to other magical effects can turn off your weapon, then any other command-activated magic item could do so, which seems rather silly. In CS terms, the command described has to be a local variable.

Sorry, I'm not following that?

I think that its just like a multi setting weapon. So you could make it fire or frost but not both. Am I misinterpreting the language?

[rockdeworld]

1) Is this RAW legal (a citatian would be appreciated)

2) What are the pros and cons of llowing this kind of stacking
1. Yes it's RAW legal. The rules of magic item creation support it and nothing specifically denies it.

In addition to enhancement bonuses, weapons can have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
So you can have a Flaming Frost longsword the same way you can cast Fireball in an Ice Storm.

2. I think the reason this doesn't come up very often is because there are better abilities to put on a weapon than the +1d6 ones. A flaming enchantment will add, on average, 0 damage at higher levels because of resistance, whereas a Holy enchantment will add +2d6 against a lot of enemies. This post (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870606/The_Fighters_Handbook_--_2007?post_num=6#338357374) by Dictum Mortuum lists some.


I think that its just like a multi setting weapon. So you could make it fire or frost but not both. Am I misinterpreting the language?
I would say you're interpreting it, not misinterpreting it. But I don't think that's the intended interpretation. I believe the intended interpretation (and most playable) is:
Command word A turns the Flaming enhancement on.
Command word B turns the Flaming enhancement off.
Command word C turns the Frost enhancement on.
Command word D turns the Frost enhancement off.
etc.

[wayfare]

1. Yes it's RAW legal. The rules of magic item creation support it and nothing specifically denies it.

So you can have a Flaming Frost longsword the same way you can cast Fireball in an Ice Storm.

2. I think the reason this doesn't come up very often is because there are better abilities to put on a weapon than the +1d6 ones. A flaming enchantment will add, on average, 0 damage at higher levels because of resistance, whereas a Holy enchantment will add +2d6 against a lot of enemies. This post (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870606/The_Fighters_Handbook_--_2007?post_num=6#338357374) by Dictum Mortuum lists some.

Maybe I'm phrasing it wrong?

I understand that the weapon could have both enchantments, but the specific wording of the elemental damage enchantments makes it seem like you could only have one effect active at a time. So you could have a +3 weapon that is +1, Frost and Flaming, but you could only activate frost or flaming at any individual point. Activating one seems like it would deactivate the other, because the enchantment says that "the effect remains until another command is given".

Edit: Ahhha, gotcha. So different command words could be used to turn the thing on and off. I just realized that I always thought it would just be teh same command word. Saying "fuego" would turn it on and off.

Thanks for the help!

[Malak'ai]

I would say you're interpreting it, not misinterpreting it. But I don't think that's the intended interpretation. I believe the intended interpretation (and most playable) is:
Command word A turns the Flaming enhancement on.
Command word B turns the Flaming enhancement off.
Command word C turns the Frost enhancement on.
Command word D turns the Frost enhancement off.
etc.

This is the way I interpret it.
They are two separate enchantments with their own separate command words. Saying or the other for enchantment 1 will have no effect on enchantment 2.

[Rubik]

If you have access to the Magic Item Compendium (MIC), look at the weapon crystals. Depending on the crystal, they have quite a lot of very nice effects for really cheap, such as +1d6 elemental damage of the primary types (flaming, frost, etc), and did I mention that they're cheaper than the exponential cost increases of adding +'s to your weapons? Much, much, MUCH cheaper. And furthermore there are rules in the book for stacking item qualities, so you could have flaming, frost, and shock all three for a mere +50% cost to two of them.

And that's not even including the fact that weapon crystals can be transferred between weapons, so if you need to switch out your standard issue sun blade for a +1 brilliant energy longbow, you can use a move action to remove the weapon crystal from the former and another to add it to the latter. One round later and you're putting some serious hurt on those bandits lying in wait to ambush you.

[CaladanMoonblad]

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
Click on the 3.5 FAQ. Head to page 55. WotC's fAQ suggests you can stack all energy types without it being illogical, and powered on in just a single round (or 1 round per energy type depending on who constructed it)

I found the answer unsatisfactory.

I'm still sticking with 1 energy type each round for my game, under the logic that energy type is similar to an item slot, and because none of the NPCs in my main books have multiple energy types on their weapons, even leaders of nations who could afford it without taxing too many peasants.

[Rubik]

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
Click on the 3.5 FAQ. Head to page 55. WotC's fAQ suggests you can stack all energy types without it being illogical, and powered on in just a single round (or 1 round per energy type depending on who constructed it)

I found the answer unsatisfactory.

I'm still sticking with 1 energy type each round for my game, under the logic that energy type is similar to an item slot, and because none of the NPCs in my main books have multiple energy types on their weapons, even leaders of nations who could afford it without taxing too many peasants.Nice way to limit mundanes.

Stupid fighters! No nice things for you!

[wayfare]

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
Click on the 3.5 FAQ. Head to page 55. WotC's fAQ suggests you can stack all energy types without it being illogical, and powered on in just a single round (or 1 round per energy type depending on who constructed it)

I found the answer unsatisfactory.

I'm still sticking with 1 energy type each round for my game, under the logic that energy type is similar to an item slot, and because none of the NPCs in my main books have multiple energy types on their weapons, even leaders of nations who could afford it without taxing too many peasants.

Thanks for the citation, that settles it rather definitively!

As for the crystals, I love those, but we are working out of Core and expanded psionics handbook alone.

That said, a Wounding 5 weapon is gonna be killer, lol!

[Malak'ai]

Nice way to limit mundanes.

Stupid fighters! No nice things for you!

Fighters getting nice things? BLASPHEMY!!! :smallwink:

[rockdeworld]

I'm still sticking with 1 energy type each round for my game, under the logic that energy type is similar to an item slot, and because none of the NPCs in my main books have multiple energy types on their weapons, even leaders of nations who could afford it without taxing too many peasants.
Note that by the same rules cited above, you could have one command word to turn on all your enhancements, and one to turn them all off.

Honestly, I think the most playable legal interpretation is just to have the player decide how they want their command words to work with their magic items when they go and buy them/have them crafted at the shop.

"And this one has flaming frost shocking holy enhancements, each with a different command word."

"Do you have the same thing with one command for all of them?"

"Ah, you're interested in our more popular model!"

[Urpriest]

Sorry, I'm not following that?

I think that its just like a multi setting weapon. So you could make it fire or frost but not both. Am I misinterpreting the language?

Your evidence that it works like a "multi-setting weapon" is based solely on the fact that Flaming contains this line:


The effect remains until another command is given.

What you are assuming is that "another command" refers not only to the command to activate Flaming, but also the commands to activate Frost and Shock.

Here's the problem: suppose that the language indeed means that, if you give the command to activate Frost or Shock, Flaming turns off, because giving the command to activate Frost or Shock counts as "another command is given". What's to stop it there? What is special about Frost and Shock? Why doesn't the wording apply to other commands as well, like the command to activate a Ring of Invisibility, or a Wand, or even the Command spell? By what logic are you limiting the wording specifically to Frost and Shock, neither of which is mentioned in the text for Flaming?

[Greenish]

I think that its just like a multi setting weapon. So you could make it fire or frost but not both. Am I misinterpreting the language?If it's a multi-setting weapon, why is the increased cost quadratic instead of linear?

In other words, why do the various settings not have flat cost if they can't stack?

[rockdeworld]

If it's a multi-setting weapon, why is the increased cost quadratic instead of linear?

In other words, why do the various settings not have flat cost if they can't stack?
Weapon enhancements costed according to usefulness? Now let's not go crazy here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#brilliantEnergy)