Can you stack Flaming and Frost weapon enhancements?

Infiniti2000 said:
Acid and sonic are left out for a reason. What that reason is, I couldn't tell you. On the other hand, isn't sonic (at least) in another book, doing 1d4 damage?

Well it could cost more, or be less effective (like sonic/thundering), but who doesn't want a weapon that splashes acid everywhere?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


PowerWordDumb said:
It's not just good in combat, it really helps soothe those aching back muscles when the fight's over! :)
However, from personal experience, do NOT use immediately after a hot shower.
 

Infiniti2000 said:
They never harm the "wielder". You'd be hardpressed to prove that while sheathed you are wielding them. You possess them in that case, you don't wield them. If you sheathe a flaming sword, you better have fire resistance active. :)

They also don't harm things just by touching them. If no one is wielding a sword, no one's attacking with it, either, and it is incapable of doing damage (well, except falling damage, I suppose). Otherwise, players could use enchanted weapons to make touch attacks that do elemental damage.
 

The acidic energy damage qualities have appeared in several WOTC products, including recent ones like DMG II. The correct name is "corrosive" and "corrosive burst", if I recall. Sonic energy qualities deal less damage than the other types (+1d4 and +1d8, or something) because there are fewer items and spells that provide resistance to sonic attacks.

Cheers,
Cam
 

Well ye remembered that acidicburst didn't officially exist.. but it made my example much better as i needed as many different bursts and i could fit in. Acidic Power or something is mentioned in the Epic handbook... thats why i saw reason enought for writing a burst version there to illustrate my example... but.. a +2 4xFlamingBurst Scythe would work just as well...
 


I don't allow stacking elemental damage on items in my campaign. The idea of fire and ice on a weapon is just to contradictory in my view.
 

Deset Gled said:
They also don't harm things just by touching them.
That's debatable.
Deset Gled said:
If no one is wielding a sword, no one's attacking with it, either, and it is incapable of doing damage (well, except falling damage, I suppose). Otherwise, players could use enchanted weapons to make touch attacks that do elemental damage.
Allowing a touch attack is a nonsequitur to whether the fire of the weapon is damaging. If you don't extrapolate to that point, your argument against allowing the fire to damage things doesn't hold. The problem, of course, is how much damage. The damage associated with a normal attack by the weapon is clear. The damage associated with grabbing the weapon is not.

Of course, realize that if you don't allow the fire on the weapon to damage anyone, then you shouldn't allow the weapon to damage anyone if they grab the blade with all their strength and run their hand up and down its razorsharp edge. :)
 

was said:
I don't allow stacking elemental damage on items in my campaign. The idea of fire and ice on a weapon is just to contradictory in my view.

Really?

From a game I'm running:

Me said:
Staff of Frost and Flame: This +1 darkwood quarterstaff is imbued with elemental powers: one end blessed by fire, the other powered by ice (as per the Flaming and Frost enhancements). Activating either end is a standard action; activating both requires a full-round action. Additionally, once per day, as a free action, you may apply the Energy Admixture metamagic feat to any [Fire] or [Cold] spell you cast. When applied to a [Fire] spell, the admixture is [Cold]; when applied to a [Cold] spell, the admixture is [Fire]. (When applying the Energy Admixture feat, roll damage twice. The first amount is the same energy type as the spell; the second amount is of the admixtured type. For example, an admixtured [Cold] fireball from a 5th-level caster would do 5d6 Fire and 5d6 Cold damage.)
 

Remove ads

Top