Stacking fire and ice magical effects for weapons.

[niteshade6]

I find if you use your imagination enough you can justify anything no matter how silly it is.

With that being said, I try to keep my silly thing justifying to a minimum and as a result I probably wouldn't allow a weapon that was hot and cold at the same time.

 

[Benben]

niteshade6 and the other nay sayers,

What about the other elemental enchantments sonic, acid, or lightning would you let them stack on a single weapon?

 

[Bauglir]

If you use your imagination you can prohibit anything you want as well..

Why should fire & acid stack - the acid would be boiled away?

Why should lightning and sonic stack - the vibrating blade would stop it making a good electrical contact?

Why should a weapon's enhancement stack with BAB - both deal with how skilfully the sword is guided?

And so on. The question is why should you disallow something just because it doesn't sit well in your imagination (which is entirely subjective) when you have an objective measure right there?

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'd apply the heat/chill metal rules, if I allowed it. Or instead of making it flaming freezing, just make a new enchantment, like Pendragon said-blackfire, +2 bonus, +2d6 cold damage. Or just laugh at anyone who suggests it

 

[paulewaug]

I'd allow it in games I Dm.

The first line of explanation is always the most useful "it's 'Magic', it doesn't Have to follow the laws of physics."

Also as has been said there are plenty of ways to work it out in a fluff sense to work too.

In the campaign I am playing in I have a pc with a bow that has shocking, flaming, and frost. However the Dm of that campaign does Not allow them to stack, I have to "pick one" if I want to use one of them. Pretty disappointing...It would be so much lethal if they did stack.
Another pc has a greatsword with keen, speed, and a +3 bonus.
They all work together at the same time- why not the elements too then?
It makes sense that a freakin sword can have Sentience but not that something could both freeze and burn? Say what?!
Heck they could go off consecutively instead of the "exact same time", sort of a "double tap." blam blam-

Sorry if that sounds rantish- (although it is so I'm sure it probably does!! ha-ha) and then he wonders why I never use the thing
-go figure...

 

[Black Omega]

Actually, a flaming/frost weapon I can see plenty of ways to justify. But using the arrows created by Flame Arrow with a Frost bow, IMHO, is a different thing. The arrow is on fire when it's picked up, then shot. When it's fired, frost is imbued into the arrow. I can easily see these effects canceling.

I do have to disagree with Pendragon and others about special damage being simply flavor text. You really wouldn't let a flaming sword set something on fire? A shocking sword wouldn't zap the person carrying it if they dived into a lake?

 

[hong]

And so on. The question is why should you disallow something just because it doesn't sit well in your imagination

Why not?

(which is entirely subjective)

You say this like it's a negative thing.

when you have an objective measure right there?

You say this like it's a positive thing.

 

[Bauglir]

Because they are. I've played with dms who just randomly overrule things because 'they don't make sense' and it's not much fun.

At least with an objective measure everyone knows what to expect..

 

[S'mon]

I definitely wouldn't allow it. It breaches my suspension-of-disebelief, ie it's silly.

 

[Gort]

Yeah, I wouldn't allow it either. Makes very little sense to me. It's either hot, or it's cold. Can't be both.

But the "blackfire" or whatever doing 2d6 cold damage would be fine by me.