Weapon Referance Needed

[0megas]

Ok guys. This is an old issue. One of my players is debating the counter damage type concept. Its been a long time but I am fairly sure its a standard house rule instead of a core rule.

I should note that it is a mechanic that is derived from several similar effects in many books. It is not directly referred to in any chapter, but it sparked a major debate about 5 years ago. The debate lasted several months with good points to support both sides.

I don't remember the whole debate but the nutshell is that opposing energy types [damage types] cancel each other out at a point by point exchange. Fire/ heat vs cold is the most popular types. This is supported by spells like heat or chill metal and wall of fire.

It is opposed by spells like Hell Ball which does 4 types of damage.

Another point is that there are no "Core" weapons with opposing damage types on the same side of the blade. This is my issue.

I am aware of the great axe with ice on one side and fire on the other side but I am looking for a book reference with both fire and ice on the same striking surface.

I am going to allow the counter energy types because its not a bad house rule, and I like how it augments game play, but I have a second player that wants a icy fire weapon and I need the reference to shut the first player up. I realize DM is law and the second player will get their icy fire weapon regardless. Still I want a reference to a weapon so I can refer to it when I need to brake this age old and stupid debate on weapons.

3.5 only - any core or support book would work. A friend suggested artifacts.

 

[Dross]

I don't remember the whole debate but the nutshell is that opposing energy types [damage types] cancel each other out at a point by point exchange. Fire/ heat vs cold is the most popular types. This is supported by spells like heat or chill metal and wall of fire.

Another point is that there are no "Core" weapons with opposing damage types on the same side of the blade. This is my issue.

I'd say a "Flame will work with Frost ability on a single blade" phrase is not there.

There is nothing stopping a Flame + Frost single blade weapon existing.

Actually I'd say the that spells like Heat/Chill metal indicate the opposite, they only affect the opposite when explicitly stated like in those spells. Also the books note that specific trumps general for rules. In this case noting that these two specific spells DO cancel implies that the general rule is that they DON'T.

So:
In the weapon properties there is no mention of any of the elemental damage being canceled out by it's opposite (and what is the opposite to sonic and force?). Therefore there is no cancellation.

In cases where two opposites cancel each other out it is specifically mentioned. Use it only for this instance.

Magic does not have to follow the laws of Logic (It is MAGIC after all ).

IMHO One reason that Flame & Frost don't appear together in a rulebook is thematic. The item you noted has a particular theme to it rather than being a generic item does it not?

I'm sure that people can come up with other examples of "illogical" combinations not existing in the books, simply because there are so many options.

There was a similar Q asked of the sage I believe that made it into the FAQ. It said that there is nothing stopping having both Frost & Flame on the same blade.

 

[frankthedm]

3.5 only - any core or support book would work.

Just Heat Metal :: d20srd.org and Chill Metal :: d20srd.org

Any cold intense enough to damage the creature negates fire damage from the spell (and vice versa) on a point-for-point basis.

 

[0megas]

There was a similar Q asked of the sage I believe that made it into the FAQ. It said that there is nothing stopping having both Frost & Flame on the same blade.

That is kind of my point. This issue pops it's head up every so often. Out of all of the support texts there has to be one good example to eliminate the issue.

Simply say that there is nothing saying you cant is not a good reason. There are hundreds of implied mechanics that have never been formally addressed in the books. Each one barely mentioned to the point that a player would have to searching countless support books for one line of text that is likely well hidden in an unrelated section. Then they would have to compare the inconsistencies and similarities

These finite issues will always be debated. Still online is the best source find gamers that may present good perspectives. I am not fluent with ever last weapon in the books and I am hoping someone knows of or has used a specific example.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Out of all of the support texts there has to be one good example to eliminate the issue.

Simply say that there is nothing saying you cant is not a good reason.

Actually, I've run into this kind of thing in several sections of the rules and with each query to WotC CustServ and the answer is the same: there is no hard & fast rule one way or the other. I've even had some of the game designers' comments quoted to me...

Essentially, they've left these areas open to DM interpretation because there are so many good reasons for things to work one way or another that they didn't want to limit the game.

 

[Jeffrie]

Wha'?

My advice is don't. Don't give the fire/ice on one blade. I mean; artifacts and legacy magic are..ya' know. ..special case. But other than a game changing campaign driving blahcetera, no.

What i would do is pair my unmatched energies and make up a rule for them to cancel.
Example:
"Force", though the beam may be fast, is a 'lack' of vibration. Just "Force"
"Sonic" is an energy that vibrates particles, and 'cancels' the non-vibrating Force.

2%

 

[Dandu]

Food for thought: You can have a spell deal half fire, half cold damage with the right metamagic feats.

 

[Runestar]

Complete mage has a spell which deals both fire and cold damage, for whatever it's worth.

 

[Runewind]

Frostburn - Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow introduces "rimefire," a magical energy that resembles flame with a cold, white glow that deals 1/2 fire, 1/2 cold damage. IIRC that book also introduces that as a weapon enhancement, so you could have both on the blade, no problem.

So, make of that what you will, I suppose.

 

[Empirate]

Problem with limiting stacking energy types is the other side of the medal:
Do Resist Energy (Cold) and Resist Energy (Fire) work at the same time? The first would imply to warm the spell's target against the effects of intense cold, while the second might be said to chill the target to protect it from blasts of flame...

However, this is just fluff stuff, no hard rules. By the rules, you can use both spells simultaneously, and there may be circumstances where that's beneficial. But if you have a universal fluff concept ("opposing energies cancel each other out...") that bleeds over into crunch ("...that means the following [...] for the effects of these spells, effects, and items: [...]"), you have a huge headache on your hands as you go working out the implications.