D&D 5E Would you allow this combo?

[Sacrosanct]

Whenever a player uses a significant resource I am happy to allow interesting interactions. It's not like they can do this all day, and they are doing these actions instead of other actions. I don't see any reason why such an interaction would be suspect. the effect they are achieving is cool but not broken. if it feels strong it is because you are seeing the end result of preparation and the use of more actions than just the one attack. imagine instead each action was used to cast another damaging effect and see if it leads to similar damage. Maybe the sorcerer fireballs a half dozen enemies. Is the flame arrow giving much more damage to the combination than that?

Pretty much. Like how the end result of my tempest cleric having spiritual hammer up, spiritual guardians up, and then casting another spell. Yeah, it's really good. But it took me plenty of resources and actions to get to that point in the first place. I encourage player creativity, so I'd at least see how it worked in game play first. I don't see how it's game breaking at this point. And if it is? Then we talk it out as a table.

 

[Coroc]

Hm i would allow a combo of cold and the flame arrow, the sorc is spending his action to buff the ranger, that is fair play. The cold damage comes from the bow, the flame adds to the arrows damage. But now comes lightning arrow on top of that, i would rule no, it is only one enchantment of a kind on a normal weapon item it does not stack if done that way.

Imagine two wizards each casting enchanted weapon on the same weapon. Only one of the pluses works, it is the same Thing like OPs scenario but with plain + instead of elemental damage. I believe even 3.5 would not allow it in that way.



I do not have the spell description of lightning arrow at hand, is it that it enhances the arrows damage or is it turning the arrow into a lightning bolt?
I would not allow it either way in addition to flame arrow, but especially not if lightning arrow turns the missile into a lightning bolt.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I'm curious why one wouldn't allow it? I am AFB so can't read the spells, but is there something in the rules that precludes multiple spells on an item? There isn't anything that precludes multiple buffs on a PC (aside from Concentration).

I notice most of the "I would allow it" responses give actual reasons (including at least one "It's RAW", which really should be the only answer one needs). The "No" responants give no reasons whatsoever beyond "I'm the DM! *pout*"

So why wouldn't you? I am more interested in rules reasons than DM power plays over players.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[TwoSix]

I would 100% allow. I'd have never even considered disallowing it till this thread.

This. Magic be magic, yo.

 

[jaelis]

Sorcerer casts flame arrows on rangers quiver.
Ranger casts lightning arrow.
Ranger has a magic bow that does cold damage.

Would you allow this to work and deal piercing fire cold and lightning damage?

I would allow it per the rules, but I'd pull the player aside and have a little talk about how crappy Lightning Arrow is and that he should never cast it

Actually though, I wouldn't say RAW was clear. Lightning Arrow says

The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell’s duration, the weapon’s ammunition, or the weapon itself if it’s a thrown weapon, transforms into a bolt of lightning. Make the attack roll as normal. The target takes 4d8 lightning damage on a hit, or half as much damage on a miss, instead of the weapon’s normal damage.

A DM would be in their rights to rule that the flame arrow spell and cold bow effect contribute to the arrow's "normal" damage and would thus get replaced. In any case, you wouldn't deal any piercing damage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would allow it per the rules, but I'd pull the player aside and have a little talk about how crappy Lightning Arrow is and that he should never cast it

Actually though, I wouldn't say RAW was clear. Lightning Arrow says

A DM would be in their rights to rule that the flame arrow spell and cold bow effect contribute to the arrow's "normal" damage and would thus get replaced. In any case, you wouldn't deal any piercing damage.

Ah...now that I actually read that spells, I would still probably allow it, because while lightning arrow changes the arrows, it's still technically a projectile fired from the quiver. And all flame arrow says is that any projectile fired from the quiver gets extra fire damage.

Just my interpretation of course

 

[TwoSix]

Ah...now that I actually read that spells, I would still probably allow it, because while lightning arrow changes the arrows, it's still technically a projectile fired from the quiver. And all flame arrow says is that any projectile fired from the quiver gets extra fire damage.

I'd also rule the fire damage doesn't work on a miss, and probably the cold damage as well. (No idea how the bow works).

Hit: 4d8 lightning + 1d6 fire + X cold
Miss: 4d8 /2 lightning.

 

[snickersnax]

Ah...now that I actually read that spells, I would still probably allow it, because while lightning arrow changes the arrows, it's still technically a projectile fired from the quiver. And all flame arrow says is that any projectile fired from the quiver gets extra fire damage.
Just my interpretation of course

Flame arrow: When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage.

When the arrow transforms into a lightning bolt, the original piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver never hits the target. I wouldn't allow it to stack.

I also wouldn't allow fire and cold to add on the same weapon attack. Rather they would subtract.

That's how I would call it, but I have a bug for realism.

 

[MechaPilot]

I would allow it.

Also, for me (as a DM), the real fun here would be describing the effect. I think (albeit with a more evocative description) I'd go with something like the arrow hitting, the lightning discharging, the impact area catching fire and then the charred are freezing over.

 

[Dausuul]

I would allow it.

Also, for me (as a DM), the real fun here would be describing the effect. I think (albeit with a more evocative description) I'd go with something like the arrow hitting, the lightning discharging, the impact area catching fire and then the charred are freezing over.

Agreed. I would not only allow it, I would think it was extra cool and go out of my way to describe the elemental chaos of the attack. A dart of lightning wreathed in blue fire that simultaneously burns and freezes... good stuff.