Stacking Flaming and Shocking?

[kreynolds]

Let me guess, wizards customer service?

No, no, no. He's talkin' about that guy from that place in that state up thataway that owns that company that publishes those books about that rpg. You know the one.

 

[Boone]

Well, it does take multiple rounds to 'spell up' normally. A wizard who wants to have shield and mirror image on before entering combat still has to use actions to either cast the spells or use a wand. Why should a melee type get a free ride when everyone else has to spend time prepping.

That is a good point.........

In thinking about it from a rogues point of view... I would rather have it take a while for an opponent to get up to "full power" if I had just given him a good suprise stick.

 

[Macbrea]

Normal scabbards would be quickly destroyed. Even specially made scabbards would eventually heat up or freeze to the point that you would start taking damage through it.

The most common solution I have seen is to get a Glove of Storing.

Are you so sure about this statement. Lets look at the rules and see if a sheath made of wood would ever actually be damage by a flaming sword.


Max damage in a round for fire off a flaming sword is 6 damage.

To quote the SRD on damaging objects.


Energy Attacks

Objects take half damage from acid, fire, and lightning attacks. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one- quarter damage to objects. Sonic attacks deal full damage to objects.



So, this brings the max damage down to 3.
Wood has a hardness of 5 and can never be set on fire by a flaming sword.

 

[kreynolds]

Are you so sure about this statement.

I'm sure he's pretty possitive about that statement. You forgot this quote from the PH under Damage to Objects...

Vulnerability to Certain Attacks: The DM may rule that certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. For example, it's easy to light a curtain on fire or rip up a scroll.

It makes since that wood is especially vulnerable to fire, so I would rule that wood takes full damage from fire. I'll let you have a scabbard made of wood, but I promise you, if you put an activated flaming sword in there, I'll set your butt on fire.

 

[Macbrea]

Ah, but would that hold true of the frost sword?

I as a gamemaster would simple say that you have to activate the item and the action of putting it in a sheath automaticly deactivates it.

 

[kreynolds]

Ah, but would that hold true of the frost sword?

Not really. Wood can sustain quite a bit of punishment from cold. Unfortunately, unless you're in a very cold climate as well, the wood will soak of the water from the condensation, swell, and continue to freeze until it is eventually just a bloated block of ice. However, if you put an activated frost sword in a metal scabbard, that's gonna get painful eventually. Acid will chew threw anything. Once again, wood is good for electricity, but metal most certainly is not, and absolutely nothing is good against a sonic weapon, as sonic energy deals full damage to all objects.

I realize that what I posted is based on reality and that D&D is a fantasy setting, but that's what happens when someone asks "Why can't I put my Flaming Broadsword in my Obdurium scabbard without hurting myself?"

I as a gamemaster would simple say that you have to activate the item and the action of putting it in a sheath automaticly deactivates it.

I, as a DM, wouldn't say that. Magic items generally either stay activated until deactivated in the same method in which they are activated, or they automatically deactivate after a given amount of time. Since drawing a flaming weapon is not what activates it, sheathing it won't turn it off.

 

[shurai]

One important thing to remember with regard to all these arguments which read "d6 fire damage cannot damage a scabbard of material X" is that the sword isn't actually dealing damage to its scabbard like an attack.

For the situation your rulings describe, someone would be, once per round, touching the flaming weapon to the scabbard for a moment or two and then pulling it away. That would mean d6 fire damage to the scabbard once every six seconds. I can see how this wouldn't really damage a wooden scabbard very much, aside from blackening it a bit. But the fire is exposed to the scabbard continuously so it shouldn't work like a normal damage-an-object attempt, especially since the heat energy is added to the heat that the fire is already having to dissipate.

With this in mind, if a player in any of my games tried to pull scabbard shennanigans like that, this is how I'd RP it:

DM: The flaming sword in the scabbard is on fire continuously, you realize that right?

Player: Yeah, but the rules say . . . Hardness 10 . . . only d6 damage per round . . . blah blah blah.

DM: Okay, after a second or two the scabbard is getting awfully warm on your outer thigh. (Meanwhile, the sword is about to take 6d6 fire damage per round, to be administered after the player ingores the warning)

Player: Whatever. I ignore it, after all 6 damage can't possibly . . . blah blah blah . . . rules very clear . . .

DM: Your scabbard gets very hot, it's starting to burn you actually.

Player: Uh, this can't happen . . . wooden things exposed to fire continuously can't possibly burn up! Wait . . . uh, I draw the sword!

DM: (I'm too nice sometimes . . . ) Okay. Make a reflex save. +5 if you have Quickdraw.

Player: But I couldn't take Quickdraw because I would've had to wait a level to gain Whirlwind Attack! (rolls, fails)

DM: Too bad. (roll, roll) Your scabbard bursts into flames. (roll) You take 4 damage from it this round.

You get the idea.

-Shurai

 

[kreynolds]

You get the idea.

-Shurai

LOL

 

[0-hr]

Ok then; consider a frost weapon in an iron scabbard. You go ahead and apply your 6d6 per round. That's 36 max, which is still plenty short of the 41 per round it would take to cause actual damage. So I guess you have to allow "always-on" frost weapons in your campaign eh?

And BTW, there are actually rules for something (or someone) being "on fire"; and it says you take d6 damage per round. Note that this is a continuous 6 seconds of being on fire, and it does a whopping d6 damage.

Anyway, I'd rather have players have to turn off their weapons; but I'm not going to introduce a house rule just to force them to do it. As written, you may as well just leave that sword burning.

 

[Caliban]

Ok then; consider a frost weapon in an iron scabbard. You go ahead and apply your 6d6 per round. That's 36 max, which is still plenty short of the 41 per round it would take to cause actual damage. So I guess you have to allow "always-on" frost weapons in your campaign eh?

Sure, if you don't mind a block of ice frozen to your hip. In case you weren't aware, metals conduct heat (or the lack thereof) pretty well.

After a few rounds in the scabbard you would be taking cold damage (but the scabbard would be fine, even if the blade was frozen into it).

Anyway, I'd rather have players have to turn off their weapons; but I'm not going to introduce a house rule just to force them to do it. As written, you may as well just leave that sword burning.

Sometimes you have to use a little common sense. Silly of the authors to assume that most people are capable of this.

Trying to claim that you won't take any damage for having a flaming brand strapped to your hip, just because the scabbard may not be damaged, what will these kids think of next?