Energy substituted Frostburn damage, against cold subtype creatures...

[ksbsnowowl]

An interesting quirk came up in my game last night.  In the end it was inconsequential as to the death of a white dragon (at least I treated it as such), but now I'm curious about the interaction, for future reference.

Frostburn
In addition to coldfire, certain weapons and spells of ice and cold can deal frostburn damage, burning the tissues with extreme cold. Like normal damage, frostburn damage results in the loss of hit points or ability score points. Unlike normal damage, however, frostburn damage does not heal naturally and may only be healed magically with a successful DC 25 caster level check as long as the victim remains in cold or colder temperatures. If the victim reaches an area of moderate or warmer temperature, his frostburn damage becomes normal damage that can then be healed naturally or magically in the usual manner. Spells such as control temperature become invaluable when encountering creatures that can deal frostburn damage.

A creature’s resistance or immunity to cold also applies to frostburn damage. This includes characters protected by spells such as resist energy [cold] and protection from energy [cold]. Endure elements spells and effects confer no protection against frostburn damage.

Creatures vulnerable to cold take +50% damage from frostburn.

Okay, so normally a white dragon would be immune to the damage of a spell that dealt frostburn damage (such as Frostfell).

However, if the Frostfell spell was treated with the Energy Substitution feat to instead deal Electricity damage...

Does it deal electricity damage, which would affect the white dragon, but no longer has the "can't be healed in cold" clause, since it was changed from frostburn damage to electricity damage?

Or does it do electricity damage, and still retain the "can't be healed in cold" clause?

Or does it do electricity damage, but a cold subtype creature is still immune to the "can't be healed in cold" clause?

Is there some other legitimate interpretation I'm not thinking of?

I treated it as the second option, though the dragon never had a chance to heal such that it would make a difference which of the above interpretations I had used.  But, now I'm leaning toward the first interpretation, because you changed the damage type to electricity, so it is no longer frostburn, and thus doesn't maintain the properties of frostburn damage.

Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level. The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.

Frostfell does has the [Cold] descriptor, so you can change it to use electricity instead, meaning it is no longer frostburn damage, and thus has none of the properties of frostburn damage.

[Garryl]

Frostburn damage is not actually cold damage. Although it is resisted similarly to cold damage, it's not actually described as cold damage,nor even as energy damage. Ergo, I'm not sure Energy Substitution would actually change the frostburn damage to electricity. That being said, if it does change, then it's just electricity damage, nothing special, same as a lightning bolt, no special clauses about healing or anything. Not being healable in the cold is a function of being frostburn damage, so if it changes from frostburn damage, it obviously doesn't retain that function.

[NunoM]

Personally, i interpret Frostburn damage as something that depends on ice and cold to work... Energy substitution effectivelly changes the descriptor of the affected spell, so the result of "Frostfell" would be a really cool electric storm (pun intended ), but with no extra damage from frostburn, or other cold related consequences, unless those would apply to electricity as well (ex.: the extra +1 to CL for spells cast within the area would apply to those of the electricity descriptor, rather than cold)...

[ksbsnowowl]

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing preventing energy substitution from working.

Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead.

The spell to be transformed only has to have an energy descriptor, which Frostfell does.  It then uses the appropriate (in this case, electricity) energy for damage instead.  It doesn't care what type of damage the spell dealt before; it doesn't actually have to have been energy damage.

Hmm....

Though I suppose by that interpretation, you could turn a Flamestrike into a spell that did all electricity damage, not half divine/half energy...

Hmm....  Yeah, now I'm not sure...

[faeryn]

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing preventing energy substitution from working.

Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead.

The spell to be transformed only has to have an energy descriptor, which Frostfell does.  It then uses the appropriate (in this case, electricity) energy for damage instead.  It doesn't care what type of damage the spell dealt before; it doesn't actually have to have been energy damage.

Hmm....

Though I suppose by that interpretation, you could turn a Flamestrike into a spell that did all electricity damage, not half divine/half energy...

Hmm....  Yeah, now I'm not sure...

With spells like flamestrike that deal multiple damage types, you would only replace the energy damage.

[ksbsnowowl]

With spells like flamestrike that deal multiple damage types, you would only replace the energy damage.

But that's my point... technically Frostburn damage isn't energy damage.  Although it can be resisted with an elemental resistance.

[SorO_Lost]

With spells like flamestrike that deal multiple damage types, you would only replace the energy damage.

But that's my point... technically Frostburn damage isn't energy damage.

You kind of have the answer right there don't you?

You can also use Snowcast & Energy Substitution to change Shapechange to a Spell with a Fire descriptor, which seems useless until you build a character with +2 CL to Fire Spells. So maybe a good question to ask is how can stuff like this be useful, not hashtagselfdoubt.

[linklord231]

So, um, here's a potentially stupid question:
Where does it say that an Energy Substituted (Cold) Fireball deals Cold damage instead of Fire damage?  Or is that what the "use the chosen energy type" line is supposed to mean?

It's hard to figure out the RAW in wonky situations like the one in the OP when you have to make inferences even for standard situations. 

[ketaro]

So, um, here's a potentially stupid question:
Where does it say that an Energy Substituted (Cold) Fireball deals Cold damage instead of Fire damage?  Or is that what the "use the chosen energy type" line is supposed to mean?

It's hard to figure out the RAW in wonky situations like the one in the OP when you have to make inferences even for standard situations.

Admittedly, Energy Substitution by RAW doesn't say it changes the type of damage dealt by the spell, yes. And that is stupid. Stupid stupid.
But oh well.
http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-arcane--55/energy-substitution--880/

No I did not just say that is how that is supposed to work. That is not how that is suppose to work 

[SorO_Lost]

Where does it say that an Energy Substituted(Cold) Fireball deals Cold damage instead of Fire damage?

You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead.

Right there.

[ketaro]

Where does it say that an Energy Substituted(Cold) Fireball deals Cold damage instead of Fire damage?

You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead.

Right there.

I don't see the word "damage".
*coughnitpickcough* 

But you're right. But that's also more inference that declaration