fire/cold subtype at the same time!?

[Ashtagon]

A creature with cold immunity never takes cold damage. It has vulnerability to fire, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from fire, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.

Some creatures have vulnerability to a certain kind of energy effect (typically either cold or fire). Such a creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from the effect, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.

Under RAW, both of these would stack. It's kind of undefined how they stack though.

Personally, I'd count the number of times vulnerability is gained from spells/templates/whotnots, and the number of times immunity is gained from spells/templates/whotnots, and if one is greater than teh other, the character has that one. If the count is equal for both, I'd treat is as no overall effect (they cancel each other out). In other words, while teh templates don't sp[ecifically cancel each other, their effects do. Subtle distinction, but could be important if the character gets a spell/template/whatnot that grants one of those effects without the other.

 

[Mark1733]

I'm really surprised to have that many answers so quickly, thanks everyone

I tend to believe that by raw you do take more damage but its nullified anyway, i was just not too keen on having a character with regeneration bypassed only by fire, be immune to the same element.

I have to admit that i liked your idea Obistahr, it sounds like a solid idea, neither hampering his character and neither making him invincible

One more thing to continue that idea to ensure the right balance for you and that PC...if he is flanked, what happens? Again, the 50%/50% could work...he knows how to fight and protect the appropriate side unless he is flanked. Full immunity in normal mono-e-mono, but 50/50 when flanked. On the other hand, you could play that the 50/50 is the typical combat, but in a flanked situation it is completely negated...the enemies got him coming and going so he likely cannot protect the correct side (they see him favoring it). Again, this is for when they are attacking with energized weapons or similar.

I am curious to know what you decide and how it plays out.

 

[Ashenboychild]

With regaurd to the peircing energy feats, he would technically take normal damage: both deal half damage to targets normally immune and double (instead of +50%) damage to targets of the opposite type, which cancel out.

Having both subtypes is a good investment.

 

[Corsair]

negation of the life of the recipient sound reasonable to me

I can only assume you liked the mixing potions table in 2E as well.

That does not sound reasonable at all. Coming up with a rule that a player has no reason to expect, resulting the death of a character basically at the DM's whim?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I can only assume you liked the mixing potions table in 2E as well.

That does not sound reasonable at all. Coming up with a rule that a player has no reason to expect, resulting the death of a character basically at the DM's whim?

I chose to assume he was kidding so as to not get upset, even though he probably was sincerely proposing arbitrarily killing a PC just because you don't like his character build.

 

[frankthedm]

I can only assume you liked the mixing potions table in 2E as well.

Yeah, i do.

Coming up with a rule that a player has no reason to expect

He is elemental cold. If he doesn't suspect adding elemental fire into the mix could be a Bad Idea, i'd be glad to see the character dead.

 

[Corsair]

Yeah, i do.He is elemental cold. If he doesn't suspect adding elemental fire into the mix could be a Bad Idea, i'd be glad to see the character dead.

From my perspective, that sounds a lot like punishing a player because he expected the rules to just do what he expected them to do, and nothing more.

 

[frankthedm]

From my perspective, that sounds a lot like punishing a player because he expected the rules to just do what he expected them to do, and nothing more.

Player of an icy spirit, let Mantle of the fiery spirit be cast on him. Punishment is what's called for.

 

[Vinom]

Now now, I'm going to have to interject here. Firstly, the player is just having a permanent buff transmutation spell applied to his person, not a template. Secondly, the player has no reason to expect this spell to go amiss. Thirdly if the DM was set on not letting the PC get the fire subtype, the spell could have fizzled due to invalid target.

From this we have must considering how it works mechanically and if a side effect should be applied.

I think we can agree that mechanically speaking the damage taken by fire and/or ice spells would be multiplied by a factor of 1.5, and then completely negated. So fire and ice spells do no damage, unless such metamagics as Searing Spell were applied. In the example of Searing spell, The damaged is multiplied by a factor of .75, which is uneffected by any fire resistance the PC may have.

As for side effects, it is a possibility, given the nature of the combination. But nothing in RAW would mandate it, so it's purely at the Dm's discretion.

 

[Dandu]

I shall swallow your soul and vomit it into the ever-filling chamberpot of the ages.