multiple energies on one sword

[Elder-Basilisk]

Note that, although flavorful, the axe of neutrality is
1. Impossible to create according to the rules (it requires Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Order's Wrath, and Chaos Hammer to cast--all of which are only available as Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos domain spells respectively and not on the general cleric spell list, and are consequently impossible for a neutral aligned caster to use and it is unlikely that any aligned caster could cooperate with their opposite aligned foe in order to create such a weapon.
2. A royal waste of effort. You spend a +9 cost equivalent for a weapon which will usually do 2d6 or 4d6 damage to your foes--just get Flaming/Screaming/Frost/Shock for 4d6 to everything for a +5 equivalent cost.
3. A bit silly--the weapon of neutrality does holy and unholy damage; shouldn't that be concordant damage to both or something.
4. Overpriced (see section 2).

As to the original question, carrying such a weapon fully activated is practical in a standard dungeon situation (or in any situation if you have gloves of storing--that solves all your problems). Its real problems would be outsiders and templated creatures which often have energy resistance 5 or 10 (enough to shrug off the puny d6) to at least half of the available energy types.

Well, In the standard dungeon situation (expecting combat at any time), such a weapon would normally be carried in hand fully activated. Now in ambush situations, you have a problem, unless...

Now that I think of it, such a weapon wouldn't harm it's scabbard as long as the scabbard was worn by the character ("does not harm the bearer" counting bearer's possession's as part of the bearer, as magic tends to do). Of course, that's fairly open to interpretation.

EDIT: Full Disclosure: I allowed a character to have a +1 Chaotic Holy Lawful Unholy Weapon. Although that comes out a lot worse than a 5xElemental weapon. Love that Axe of Neutrality.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Just for fun I think I'll toss out an idea I've had. What about a double Flame weapon? (Ironic that this may result in a flame. )

A +2 total cost, +2D6 fire damage. You get the benefits of multiple elemental enhancements without the oddity of diferrent elemental types. It focuses on the intent the blade was made for as opposed to just tacking on a cheap modifier. You would even have an easier time letting all the damage activate in one round, it is after all the same type. I certainly don't think it's over powered.

Actually, looking at it now, I cannot find the reference I thought kept you from doing this. Oh well, I'll toss it out anyway. I haven't heard of it being done before.

 

[reiella]

Well Elder-Basilik, it isn't necessarily impossible.
Just takes multiple spellcasters to create. Blah blah spells that msut be know by the item's creator blah blah (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

Or even more broadly not agreeing with that, creating a Chaotic Holy weapon with some CG deity cleric, and then get another item crafter (LE) deity cleric to add the Unholy Lawful aspects. (Adding new abilities on p246).

 

[trix]

...

Shouldn't a fire and cold effect cancel each other?

Aside from that, yes, I'm sure you cn do it. In some case, the mix probably look cool; Acid + Fire for example. I'd picture a unusually dark flame and acid and call it hellfire.

I would rule that fire and cold produces a sword of 'steam' +2 giving the player a ranged attack if the player 'activates' both at the same time, save as per dragonbreath / whatever.

Heheh...

Fire and Lightnight is a bit of an intresting one one since that produces a plasma.

See the elemental combinatorial charts that were somewhere. (Not sure if they're still there, but there is a table that details combinations and or the structure of elemental planes and their edges).

I would also rule that effects of the same domain combine to form some unique effect.

Otherwise, what happens if you've got two swords:

1) Sword +1 of Acid and Fire
2) Sword +1 of Fire and Fire

Hehe, u can see that both swords have two 'effects', but the second sword is a bit odd since the effects should combine. The magical construction of swords with two effects are a bit odd if they're both on at the same time.

Hence, they should produce unique combined effects where reasonably possible.

-Tim

 

[0-hr]

Whenever someone says that opposing effects should cancel out, I think of the guy who suggestsion "Let me throw a beaker full of liquid nitrogen (cold) and a beaker full of lava (hot) at your face and we'll see if they cancel each other out."

 

[Crothian]

Whenever someone says that opposing effects should cancel out, I think of the guy who suggestsion "Let me throw a beaker full of liquid nitrogen (cold) and a beaker full of lava (hot) at your face and we'll see if they cancel each other out."

Bad analogy. Since they are both on the sword at the same time, you'd need to mix the lava and the liquid nitrogen together, then throw it.

But, then again, it is Magic!

 

[Ferret]

They would instantly freeze then crack to tiny pieces! Very hot to very cold does that.

Sort of on the subject, how would you make the equalizer?

Always considered +3 when determining what it can hit.
THACO & Damage:
vs True Neutral: +0 to hit, +0 damage
vs Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral +1 to hit, +2 damage
vs Neutral Good, Neutral Evil: +2 to hit, +4 damage
vs other alignments: +3 to hit, +6 damage??

 

[apsuman]

Note that, although flavorful, the axe of neutrality is
1. Impossible to create according to the rules (it requires Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Order's Wrath, and Chaos Hammer to cast--all of which are only available as Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos domain spells respectively and not on the general cleric spell list, and are consequently impossible for a neutral aligned caster to use and it is unlikely that any aligned caster could cooperate with their opposite aligned foe in order to create such a weapon.
2. A royal waste of effort. You spend a +9 cost equivalent for a weapon which will usually do 2d6 or 4d6 damage to your foes--just get Flaming/Screaming/Frost/Shock for 4d6 to everything for a +5 equivalent cost.
3. A bit silly--the weapon of neutrality does holy and unholy damage; shouldn't that be concordant damage to both or something.
4. Overpriced (see section 2).

You could get scrolls that have those necessary spells, right?

g!

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Whenever someone says that opposing effects should cancel out, I think of the guy who suggestsion "Let me throw a beaker full of liquid nitrogen (cold) and a beaker full of lava (hot) at your face and we'll see if they cancel each other out."

Hum yeah. Could you please mix them in the same bowl and shake them well before throwing them?

While I don't think the result would be safe, it certainly wouldn't be twice as dangerous either.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You could get scrolls that have those necessary spells, right?

g!

If the spells are not on your spell list, you can't cast them from a scroll either.

But perhaps a rogue with use magic device could assist? I wonder if it's legal.