Stacking fire and ice magical effects for weapons.

[Caliban]

In the real world? yes. In d&d? it is magic, it doesnt have to do so. Even if it does, adamantine as written doesnt really exist, so who can say how it reacts in a physical sense? Maybe it doesnt react like a metal at all, maybe it conducts all heat to its sharpest point always, who knows? So that isnt necissarily 'the way things work'.



You can rule any way you wish in your games, you could even say that magic destroys the world and casting spells causes you a d6 damage per spell level. But that doesnt mean that it should be done, nor does it mean that is the way it works in the core.



Luckily it doesnt have to be.



Ahh.. so since it isnt a cost 'sometimes' then the cost obviously isnt there. come on now

a weapon with these enhancements shouldnt be so obviously inferior to those weapons that dont require a standard action to activate dont you think?

Since there are a great deal of situations where the character will need to activate it, and the cost at that time is enormous, then they shouldnt be penalized more.



They are not anymore powerful than any other weapon enhancement. If you require them to be activated like that then they are quite a bit 'less' powerful. Incredibly so.



No, it does not. It merely 'almost' puts them on equal footing, but still in a worse position for needing that extra standard action.



I have, you do the math sometime. Being able to hit roughly 15% more often while doing extra damage and having a weapon with a ton more hp and hardness. vs the enhancements which are incredibly easy to negate by various energy resistances and, apparently, require several rounds to activate. So, with both on all of the time the weapons are somewhat equal, each are better in certain situations. With the restriction of a single standard action the pendulum swings very much in favor of the straight +'s, with multiple standard actions there isnt even a comparison anymore.



so you think it is overpowered because you only look at the damage? not even the damage type, or any of the other problems? All right then, fair enough, if you wish to have such tunnel vision then yes indeed in that case you will be correct. However, looking at the bigger picture with the +'s granting extra to hit (which can be converted into damage with power attack btw), extra hardness and hp (making it harder to sunder), and not needing to be activated.... Well.. let me know what you think about those extra things tossed on there

What's the point? You've already made up your mind, and aren't willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint.

If it makes you feel any better, you can put on your "The Sage agrees with me, therefore I'm right" hat. I checked the 3.5 FAQ, he see's it your way.

But your both wrong.

 

[0-hr]

The rules as written are pretty darn clear (for once). House rules belong in a different forum.

 

[Scion]

What's the point? You've already made up your mind, and aren't willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint.

I could of course say the same about you caliban However, I think my question was valid.

d6 elemental damage, most creatures have resistance, standard action to activate vs

+1 attack/+1 damage, extra hardess (2), extra hp (10), and doesnt require a standard action to activate.

I just dont see why you think the d6 is so great while the other is so bad

ahh well though.. want to see who customer service agrees with so that we can all ridicule whatever C.S. says with brotherly love? lol

 

[Caliban]

I could of course say the same about you caliban However, I think my question was valid.

No, I responded to your original points, and answered each one. When you responded, you chose to ignore or misrepresent almost every point I made. Example: I never said that there "was no cost at all" to the energy enhancements, I pointed out that it wasn't a "huge cost" because most of the time it doesn't affect you. You chose to misrepresent my words.

Since you aren't going to do me the courtesy of responding to the actual points I made, I really don't feel the need to address your so called "valid" points. I don't really care anymore.

 

[Mahf]

Sure, I often describe frost brands as wreathed in 'cold flame'. The silly thing is saying it can be both hot & cold at the same time. Only on the Rules forum would such a thing be considered IMNSHO.

Actually, if an object is a thermal insulator, it means it doesn't conduct heat very well, so an object can be both hot and cold. Normally that wouldn't work for something like a sword, since metal conducts heat very well, but perhaps the magic involved prohibits thermal conduction on a quantum level. So you could have a sword that was cold on one side and hot on the other, and perhaps being struck by a sword like that would cause cold damage on parts of the body immediately the left of the blow and heat damage immediately to the right of the blow. This is sensible, as long as we accept that magic could prevent thermodynamic conduction.

The people who are saying this "doesn't make sense" are not arguing from a scientific/logical standpoint, but from a "common sense" standpoint, but as a wise man once said, "Common sense is the sum total of all the biases we accumulat from birth to age 18."

 

[Scion]

No, I responded to your original points, and answered each one.

You are joking right? I will assume so, since I have made sure to go through your post point by point. You may not like my responses, but that doesnt mean that I didnt respond to your points. If the point you were trying to make was fairly meaningless for the problem at hand then I labled it as so and stated why.

When you responded, you chose to ignore or misrepresent almost every point I made. Example: I never said that there "was no cost at all" to the energy enhancements, I pointed out that it wasn't a "huge cost" because most of the time it doesn't affect you. You chose to misrepresent my words.

I responded to each point, again, just because you dont like my response doesnt mean that it wasnt there and valid. and you said, 'oh come on, most of the time it isnt a cost at all'. If that doesnt mean, 'not a cost at all most of the time' then I am afraid we are speaking completely different languages.

Again, there are times when it is a huge cost. As such, and since such a cost is completely unnecissary, it is overkill.

Since you aren't going to do me the courtesy of responding to the actual points I made, I really don't feel the need to address your so called "valid" points. I don't really care anymore.

Right, whatever you say caliban. I have responded to each of your points and shown that there was a problem with your logic about the amount of extra benefit each gets.

The extra d6 enhancement always on vs the +'s always on is fairly equal, but in most cases I would think that the +'s are actually stronger. If you would like to go through some math to show how your d6 does so much more damage that it would be unbalanceing to allow them to activate with a single command word, which is a huge cost for just the single one, then go for it. Otherwise.. ::shrugs::