[D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis

[JeminiZero]

For those who don't know yet, Spellblades (Players Guide to Faerun) are an enchantment that can be added to any weapon for 6k gold. Spellblades are tuned to a particular spell (or power if you use full transparency), and when you are targetted by that spell/power, the blade absorbs it, and you can redirect the effect next round as a free action.

Lets say I make 2 spellblade weapons tuned to Spell X (X can be any targetted spell). I carry one, and give the other to my psicrystal/familiar/any other intelligent and loyal minion which can follow reasonably complicated instructions.

At the start of the day, I could cast spell X on my minion. It would be absorbed by its spellblade, and then on its next round, as a free action, my minion could redirect Spell X's effects to me. Which would be absorbed by my spellblade. And on my next round I redirect it back at it and so on and so forth. In this manner we can bounce Spell X between one another, every round, as free actions. Spelblades do not state that there is any limit to the number of spells it can absorb in one round, so I could spam spell X, and keep all of it ricocheting between me and my minion (hence the name "Spellblade Tennis").

Upon seeing an enemy, We can stop redirecting spell X at each other, and start channeling it towards the enemy, one spell at a time, as free actions, until said enemy drops dead (assuming spell X can kill the enemy at all, so it might work best if its a "sure-kill" spell like searing orbs of fire. I imagine Tippy's Cindy must be dancing with joy by now).

It is possible to sustain Spellblade Tennis through the night, and build up on it further the next morning, literally letting you accumulate thousands or millions of spells. You need at least 2 individuals with spellblades to sustain it at any one point, so either have some people work in shifts, or get (at least 2) minions that don't need sleep (possibly including yourself).

Of course all this relies on a strict RAW of spellblades. By RAI, it might be argued that since spellblades are enchanted with spellturning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm), they might cause a resonating field when used in such a manner, rather than bouncing around indefinitely.

Charging the Spell Battery
In Essence, Spellblade Tennis provides a means for you to build up spells for later use. Because the spell battery can be transferred between pairs of Spellblades, you don't necessarily have to be present during the charging up process. You could say create a secure location (such as a time accelerated demiplane), and park 2 sleepless minions with spellblades, and a self-resetting trap that churns out the key spell every round. When you need a lot firepower, you can go to this location, order your minions to transfer the spell battery to you, and then go and blow something up.

Edit History:

-Whoops, its Players Guide to Faerun, not Magic of Faerun.
-Added note on sustaining through the night in shifts. Thanks to Lysander
-Added Demiplane Shenanigans. Thanks to Brock Samson

[druid91]

Seems like it would work to me. But I haven't seen the enhancement before so...

Though if it does work you could always just be a druid and give the second one to a bogun, Can psicrystals wield weapons?

[JeminiZero]

Though if it does work you could always just be a druid and give the second one to a bogun, Can psicrystals wield weapons?

Even if they can't you could always give them armor appropriate for their size and shape, add Armor Spikes, and enchant those.

[druid91]

So with this, so long as you and your companion are near each other you can build up an (possibly) infinite number of attacks to use on the first poor shmuck to fight you? Once again good job.

[Tehnar]

Is there a set number of spells a spellblade can absorb? If not, I see nothing wrong with this trick, by RAW.

Even if a single spellblade can absorb only a single spell at one time, it can be a good trick to get a free action spell on the first round of each combat (or two if you are careful with initiative phrasings).

[Darkxarth]

For best effect, have both you and your minion not need sleep (e.g. A Warforged and his Psicrystal). You can sustain the ricochet through the night, and build up on it further the next morning.

Wouldn't taking free actions to redirect a large number of spells every 6 seconds not count as rest? Even if you don't need to sleep, I doubt your DM would allow you to regain spells/power points.

[JeminiZero]

Is there a set number of spells a spellblade can absorb?

Nope.


Wouldn't taking free actions to redirect a large number of spells every 6 seconds not count as rest? Even if you don't need to sleep, I doubt your DM would allow you to regain spells/power points.

Then get 2 sleepless minions and 3 spellblades. :smallwink:

[Asbestos]

Would this work with Warlock generated magic? Infinite Eldritch attacks is still outrageous and you don't need that 'rest' nonsense.

[druid91]

Now I'm imagining an army of effigy soldiers with spellblades paired up with each other, with wizards nearby charging them up. Then they attack and vaporize everything.

[Lysander]

I like to imagine a trio of immortal wizards who have been charging up their spell blades for several hundred years in preparation for an epic battle. Then when the time comes they attack with thousands of spells in one round.

[JeminiZero]

Would this work with Warlock generated magic? Infinite Eldritch attacks is still outrageous and you don't need that 'rest' nonsense.

Unfortunately, Spellblades only work on spells, and Warlock Eldritch Blasts are considered SLAs instead.


I like to imagine a trio of immortal wizards who have been charging up their spell blades for several hundred years in preparation for an epic battle. Then when the time comes they attack with thousands of spells in one round.

Millions of spells. Good point about working in shifts though, I'll add that in.

[Roderick_BR]

I don't know if it works that way. When you "shoot" the spell from your weapon, doesn't it cease to exist in there? It doesn't leave a "copy" behind.

[Flickerdart]

I don't know if it works that way. When you "shoot" the spell from your weapon, doesn't it cease to exist in there? It doesn't leave a "copy" behind.
Yes, it's gone, but then the other spellblade sends it back. You can keep spells going like this indefinitely, so you can add a Scorching Ray a day to the volley and after a year you can loose 365 Scorching Rays as a free action.

[The Glyphstone]

I think what he's doing works like this:

Round 1: Cast Spell X into familiar's Spellblade. Total spells between two blades = 1.
Round 2: Familiar reflects Spell X into owner's Spellblade, owner casts Spell X into familiar's Spellblade. Total spells between two blades = 2.
Round 3: Familiar reflects Spell X into owner's Spellblade, owner reflects spell X into familiar's Spellblade, owner casts spell X into familiar's Spellblade. Total spells between two blade = 3.
Round 4: Familiar reflects 2 Spell X's into owner's Spellblade, owner reflects spell X into familiar's Spellblade, owner casts spell X into familiar's Spellblade. Total spells between two blades = 4.
...
...profit!!!
...
Round N: Familiar and owner stop bouncing between each other, and take N free actions to release N instances of Spell X at target enemy.

[balistafreak]

From a wider viewpoint, this spell doesn't let you break spells-per-day economy. If an enemy takes fifteen Scorching Rays to kill, you're going to need to cast 15 Scorching Rays one-by-one, whether into your foe or into your Spellblade network. This trick doesn't let you get extra spells per day, which is what I (confusedly) thought at first with the whole "millions" number being thrown around.

(Seriously, think about how many spells per day even a Wizard20 gets, then think of a million. You'll probably never even hit 100 "unused" (and then stored) spells during standard adventuring.)

That being said, it does let you break action economy in tactical combat with preparation. Firing your full allotment of spells-per-day (and possibly then some if you had extra spells the day before) within a single turn is still mighty-fine. And by mighty-fine, I mean that's how your enemies will be after that single turn. :smalltongue:

[Mushroom Ninja]

From a wider viewpoint, this spell doesn't let you break spells-per-day economy.

It lets you pump all your unused instances of the spell into the blades at the end of the day, effectively letting you save them. So yes, it does break the spells/day economy to some extent, assuming that you have minions to man the blades through the night.

[Milskidasith]

From a wider viewpoint, this spell doesn't let you break spells-per-day economy. If an enemy takes fifteen Scorching Rays to kill, you're going to need to cast 15 Scorching Rays one-by-one, whether into your foe or into your Spellblade network. This trick doesn't let you get extra spells per day, which is what I (confusedly) thought at first with the whole "millions" number being thrown around.

(Seriously, think about how many spells per day even a Wizard20 gets, then think of a million. You'll probably never even hit 100 "unused" (and then stored) spells during standard adventuring.)

That being said, it does let you break action economy in tactical combat with preparation. Firing your full allotment of spells-per-day (and possibly then some if you had extra spells the day before) within a single turn is still mighty-fine. And by mighty-fine, I mean that's how your enemies will be after that single turn. :smalltongue:

The spells don't expire, so you can cast twenty schorching rays today and regain the slots tomorrow.

[DragoonWraith]

Also, "millions" was only thrown around when talking about a trio of Immortal Wizards who have been doing this for millenia in preparation for some final showdown with the apocalypse or whatever.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Also, "millions" was only thrown around when talking about a trio of Immortal Wizards who have been doing this for millenia in preparation for some final showdown with the apocalypse or whatever.

I don't think a trio wizards would even need millenia to get 1,000,000+ spells. If they are 13th level with 24 INT, each wizard could contribute 5110 Orbs of Force each year. That means in ~65 years, you get 1000000 orbs.

EDIT: If they're focused-specialist conjurors, it only gets quicker. :smallbiggrin:

[tonberrian]

Would Repeating Spell and Echoing Spell synergize with this to cascade one spell into a nigh-infinite number of copies?

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

I have already looked at such a thing. My copy of PGtF was sitting on that very page.

Its quite TO, but works RAW, though see below.

Some Thoughts:
1 This only works with one spell
2 It does not multiply spells, so this requires even more outside help from spellcasters to give you a spell. Otherwise if you want to be the caster, you sacrifice your spellcasting for one spell (not a good idea imo)
3 The weapon does not state that it is capable of holding more than 1 of the same type of spell. "When the wielder is next subjected" obviously should be interpreted as a limitation.
(4) This requires a familiar (just like pun-pun) or another party member. Most tricks involving these are not considered by the authors.

The crux here is whether you want to give into an interpretation that screams abuse. Its not the choice between something cool and interesting, its the choice between RAI and NI silliness.

[Fortuna]

You could throw in the Beth-null sorc for even more ludicrous power: as a standard action, produce an infinite number of spells eternally bouncing between the spellblades.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

3 The weapon does not state that it is capable of holding more than 1 of the same type of spell. "When the wielder is next subjected" obviously should be interpreted as a limitation.

Of course, if you read that as a limitation, then you could also read that as meaning it can only absorb and redirect one spell ever: "The wielder of a spellblade weapon is immune to a single spell chosen at the time the weapon is created.[...]When the wielder is next subjected to the chosen spell, the weapon absorbs it."

[Zergrusheddie]

I am failing to see the jumping effect giving an infinite amount of charged between the two. I see the power in dumping all of your Power Points or Spell Slots into the swords and then unloading all of them as a Free Action. Load up with Orb of Fires or something, go into combat, Celerity, shoot out enough balls of fire to make Jerry Lee Lewis jealous.

[druid91]

I am failing to see the jumping effect giving an infinite amount of charged between the two. I see the power in dumping all of your Power Points or Spell Slots into the swords and then unloading all of them as a Free Action. Load up with Orb of Fires or something, go into combat, Celerity, shoot out enough balls of fire to make Jerry Lee Lewis jealous.

Well the idea is that you can pump spells into the loop whenever, so the wizard burn all his 3rd level spell slots on fireballs to send into this loop leaves it to his companions, goes to sleep for hours and does it again, rinse and repeat until you have enough power within that loop to nuke whatever it is you want to kill.

[The Rabbler]

question: if you were to throw in nothing but scorching rays to this tennis, couldnt you also direct all but one ray at something else?

because you're still shooting at least one ray at the other spellblade, it stores up a scorching ray cast by a caster level x. then on the next round the other spellblade-wielder shoots out the scorching ray and aims at least one ray back into the first spellblade.

so you could keep the tennis going and launching extra rays at other people. does this work?

[druid91]

From what has been given here that sounds like it would work, as from what JeminiZero says you can redirect them anywhere, but the only point I could see would be holding back on something. Which you could do normally, so why waist the power?

[tyckspoon]

From what has been given here that sounds like it would work, as from what JeminiZero says you can redirect them anywhere, but the only point I could see would be holding back on something. Which you could do normally, so why waist the power?

If you accept 1 ray worth of the spell=capturing the whole spell, then it allows you to discharge your Spellblades without actually discharging them. You get less output in that one nova-burst round, but because the 'tennis' rally was maintained between the Spellblades you can fire it off next round as well.

[Bucky]

If I'm reading this right, even with only a short lead-in time you can still use the trick with a cheap wand providing the spells to produce a shower of, say, 50 magic missiles at the start of combat. Or with a different wand/spell to have a dozen dispel magics ready for counterspelling as a free action.

In fact, the wand version lets a couple of level-1 noncasters pull it off if they don't have to pay for the Spellblades.

[Brock Samson]

So.... you pay/enslave a few level 1 warforged commoners to do this, give them each a spellblade with something like magic missle stored, give them all eternal wands of magic missle, have them UMD assuming they'll then add 1 spell every 10 days/wand (2 tries/day means rolling a 20 every 10 days). Come back to them centuries later when you're epic level and have to face some monstrosity no one could destroy, and steal the built-up spell-network they've been doing. Proceed to nuke planet. As a monk.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Proceed to nuke planet. As a monk.

Obviously Monk is overpowered.

[Tackyhillbillu]

This + plane where time goes extremely fast + Warforged = ???

[Brock Samson]

Yes. Demi-plane of fast-time FILLED with these warforged minions = nigh-limitless spell-network of destruction to be called upon.

[Private-Prinny]

More importantly, couldn't two Warforged put armor spikes on themselves, enchant them, and then go crazy all on their own?

Just buy a couple wands of Magic Missile, and suddenly you can do this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM)

[JeminiZero]

So.... you pay/enslave a few level 1 warforged commoners to do this, give them each a spellblade with something like magic missle stored, give them all eternal wands of magic missle, have them UMD assuming they'll then add 1 spell every 10 days/wand (2 tries/day means rolling a 20 every 10 days). Come back to them centuries later when you're epic level and have to face some monstrosity no one could destroy, and steal the built-up spell-network they've been doing. Proceed to nuke planet. As a monk.

Level 1 Magic Missle can be stopped by a little SR. Instead try using Searing Lesser Orbs of Fire (level 2, No SR, almost certain damage).

Also, since you are parking them somewhere, it makes more sense to use tippy-esque self-resetting traps to fill up the battery of power. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Added this suggestion to the first post.

[Swordgleam]

Seems like a classy high-level wizard could have pairs of constructs doing this in front of each entrance to his lair. They pretend to be statues until someone tries to get by, and then, boom. Might not be the most efficient trap, but still a cool one.

[Flickerdart]

You'd have to make the spells Invisible, then, so people don't catch on to the fireballs being flung across the hallway.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Also, since you are parking them somewhere, it makes more sense to use tippy-esque self-resetting traps to fill up the battery of power. :smallbiggrin:

You'd still need some minions to do the spell redirecting, but traps would definitely work as a source of spells.

[Swordgleam]

You'd have to make the spells Invisible, then, so people don't catch on to the fireballs being flung across the hallway.

That gives me an even better idea: just keep them doing that. Maybe even a row of them. I assume if you walk into a fireball, it's just as bad as if it were targeted at you.

[Flickerdart]

Nah, the "machine" casts the spell at the other receiver, with no heed for what's in between. The repeated volley of spells could dissuade would-be intruders though.

[Swordgleam]

That's what I mean. If you have an entire hallway filled with statues each flinging 10 fireballs at one another per round, it doesn't really matter if the fireballs are aimed at anything.

[balistafreak]

I'm not sure: it's magical fire. I don't think a fireball actually damages anything until it hits. Like a modern torpedo, for example. If it hits something that isn't its intended target, it just breaks (usually).

So no, a hallway full of fireball slinging statues wouldn't be harmful. I'm not even sure if it would be intimidating. It might even make a fun amusement.

"And now, children, here we have the Hallway of Infinite Fireballs. You see, if our highly-trained-and-qualified wizards cast Fireballs on these statues, they just bounce around forever! Now, now, you don't have to worry - unless these statues are specifically ordered, the fireballs won't hurt you - look! But if our boss decided one day to go to war against those evil goblins, he'd get these statues to come to life, and all that fire would be directed towards those monsters... and it would burn..."

"Next up, we have the Fountain of Infinite Wine..."

/tourguide

[JeminiZero]

That gives me an even better idea: just keep them doing that. Maybe even a row of them. I assume if you walk into a fireball, it's just as bad as if it were targeted at you.

Actually, since Fireball is not a targetted spell, it cannot be put into a Spellblade.


Just buy a couple wands of Magic Missile, and suddenly you can do this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM)

Alternatively, try the following:
1. Grab Spell Thematics. This feat lets you shape the physical manifestation of your spell according to a given theme. Make your searing orbs of fire look like Neon Green Drills (or something else).
2. Build up a spell battery of Searing Drills of Fire.
3. When facing down your apocalyptic enemy, throw it all at him while shouting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s65n0PmvIm4&fmt=18) Giga (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVdV1FHPSk&fmt=18) Drill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ylKMSKyOqE&fmt=18) Breaker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ4CSzkIbAk&fmt=18).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

If someone TWF'd a pair of Spellblades set to the same spell, would you have a duplication effect? Thus, if you targeted him with Spell X, would BOTH spellswords automatically trigger and store the spell, for double the fun?

If so, this could get silly quick...

[The Rabbler]

If someone TWF'd a pair of Spellblades set to the same spell, would you have a duplication effect? Thus, if you targeted him with Spell X, would BOTH spellswords automatically trigger and store the spell, for double the fun?

If so, this could get silly quick...

technically you can target yourself with spells...

wouldn't it get absorbed by the same spellblade that launched it?

therefore storing itself forever in only one spellblade?

[Adumbration]

Actually, since Fireball is not a targetted spell, it cannot be put into a Spellblade.



Umm. Neither are orb spells or scorching rays? (IIRC, away from books)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Umm. Neither are orb spells or scorching rays? (IIRC, away from books)

Yea, in fact both require ranged touch attacks against said target.

[JeminiZero]

technically you can target yourself with spells...

wouldn't it get absorbed by the same spellblade that launched it?

therefore storing itself forever in only one spellblade?

The wording of Spellblade is that when you are targetted by the spell, the blade absorbs it, and you can "direct it at a new target". The term "new target" can probably be construed to mean "sent at something other than original target (you)".


If someone TWF'd a pair of Spellblades set to the same spell, would you have a duplication effect? Thus, if you targeted him with Spell X, would BOTH spellswords automatically trigger and store the spell, for double the fun?

If so, this could get silly quick...

Indeed it would. However the description of spellblade states that it absorbs the spell, and that the wielder can then redirect it (rather than being targetted by the spell simply activating the weapon). In view of this, even if you TWF spellblades, when targetted by the spell, it is more likely that only one weapon absorbs the spell.

I have tried to make infinite loops out of this, but unfortunately the Lens of Ray Doubling only works 9 times. :smalltongue:


Umm. Neither are orb spells or scorching rays? (IIRC, away from books)

The orb spells apparently do not specify a target in the header segment, but does state that you aim the orb at a target in the text description.

[Fortuna]

Why make an infinite loop out of this? As I said earlier, just direct an infinite loop into it in the first place, as with the Arcane Fusion sorcerer tricks.

[Aharon]

@Orb
that doesn't change that it doesn't have a target... If you're using infinite free action silliness, you shouldn't argue that a spell that doesn't have a target line in its header is targeted. There are probably enough targeted spells to use this with, anyway.

[Emmerask]

Umm. Neither are orb spells or scorching rays? (IIRC, away from books)

Orb spells are not magical after creation so they should not be bouncable anyway :smallsmile:

[JeminiZero]

Why make an infinite loop out of this? As I said earlier, just direct an infinite loop into it in the first place, as with the Arcane Fusion sorcerer tricks.

What is this Arcane Fusion trick you are referring to?


@Orb
that doesn't change that it doesn't have a target... If you're using infinite free action silliness, you shouldn't argue that a spell that doesn't have a target line in its header is targeted. There are probably enough targeted spells to use this with, anyway.

It could be argued either way. There are a lot of implications with Orbs not being targetted spells. Not least the fact that they cannot be blocked by magical defences that specifically fend off targetted spells (namely the ever popular spell turning, effulgent epuration) which makes Tippy's Cindy even scarier.

[term1nally s1ck]

J-Z:

Arcane Fusion + Sanctum spell lets you cast an Arcane Fusion within an arcane fusion. Which is within an arcane fusion.

Infinite L1 spells.

[Person_Man]

DM would probably Rule 0 this. But it's still a great find.

At low-mid levels when the range of spells is a non-trivial issue, two party members could work together to "relay" a spell forward. This lets the caster stand back from combat, while the Meat Shield stays in front.

And I'm not sure how it's worded, but if the Spellblade lets the blade's holder roll to attack with the spell, then you could also theoretically use it to improve the To-Hit on a spell. Caster with piss poor BAB attacks friend with targeted spell. Friendly Meat Shield lets the caster hit him. Then the next round the Meat Shield attacks the true enemy with the spell, but with his awesome BAB and Str or Dex.

[2xMachina]

I load the arbalest, you fire it.

[herrhauptmann]

I'm not sure: it's magical fire. I don't think a fireball actually damages anything until it hits. Like a modern torpedo, for example. If it hits something that isn't its intended target, it just breaks (usually).




You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Getting in between the statues would cause a detonation for each one that struck you. But getting hit by one wouldn't cause the others to go off. That's a line for a necklace of fireballs.

If you're a swiftblade, you could boost this up to infinite levels a bit faster. Before their capstone, they get the ability to use a full round action, AND a standard action when under the effect of their own haste. That's two spells a round. Great, just what the SB needs, another way to go supernova. The quickened timestop + DBF + Cloudkill + everything else is already a good way to spend all your slots within 2 encounters.

[herrhauptmann]

A followup question to this thread.

What spell would everyone say is best for the intended use of this enchantment?
I don't think the writers intended you to play tennis to build this up to ridiculous proportions. Though I do like the "I load, you fire" idea of giving it to the party beatstick.

Personally, I'd probably put it on a dagger or something for my Casters, and have the triggering spell be feeblemind. That penalty to the save for arcane casters makes me nervous, and a DM who would feeblemind the only person in the party able to remove it, is a DM who would build an NPC with high enough DC's that an autopass is unlikely.

[term1nally s1ck]

Greater Dispel Magic. Or something like that.

I'd probably grab spellblades for anything that breaks my character's build.

[herrhauptmann]

So I guess targeted spells that are Save or Die, Save or Lose, and Save and still suck. But a lot of the ones which spring to mind for me are aura or area effects. Like blasphemy

Not sure I'd use it on dispel/greater dispel. At least for a warrior character. It's the area effect version which greatly screws a warrior. The targeted spell affects the spells on a creature, can be used to dismiss a summoned creature, or to dispel an individual item.
The spell blade can't be used against the area effect, and the counterspell version I think is the most common use of dispel/greater dispel.

[PhoenixRivers]

Doesn't work. Effects such as a Ring of Spell-Battle, which alter the target, allow a spellblade to absorb. However, effects such as Spell turning, and other redirections, don't change the target. Just the effect.

Since the Spellblade only works on spells that target the wielder, other spells that are redirected from a spellblade are not eligible to be absorbed by another spellblade.

[JeminiZero]

Since the Spellblade only works on spells that target the wielder, other spells that are redirected from a spellblade are not eligible to be absorbed by another spellblade.

Actually the exact wording of the text, suggests that the Spellblade changes the target itself entirely.


direct it at a new target as a free action.

[PhoenixRivers]

Actually the exact wording of the text, suggests that the Spellblade changes the target itself entirely.

Hm. So it does.

[The Mentalist]

I may have an infinite loop for it (I'm sure everyone's come to it but no-one's posted) Twin or Repeated spells, each one becomes two, or stack for double the fun.

Away from books, tell me if there are any flaws in the plan.

[JeminiZero]

I may have an infinite loop for it (I'm sure everyone's come to it but no-one's posted) Twin or Repeated spells, each one becomes two, or stack for double the fun.

Away from books, tell me if there are any flaws in the plan.

Well the reading of the text can be taken that you retarget the effect that you absorb. So if someone hits you with twinned Spell X, you get 2 instances of Spell X in your Spellblade, rather than 2 twinned instances.

[PhoenixRivers]

Echoing could be fun though.

[term1nally s1ck]

So I guess targeted spells that are Save or Die, Save or Lose, and Save and still suck. But a lot of the ones which spring to mind for me are aura or area effects. Like blasphemy

Not sure I'd use it on dispel/greater dispel. At least for a warrior character. It's the area effect version which greatly screws a warrior. The targeted spell affects the spells on a creature, can be used to dismiss a summoned creature, or to dispel an individual item.
The spell blade can't be used against the area effect, and the counterspell version I think is the most common use of dispel/greater dispel.

Say what? The targetted version can try to dispel ALL buffs, AND suppress all magic items. It RUINS a character's build, if it goes off, and at the very best leaves you useless for a few rounds.

[gbprime]

I have a mental image of a party sleeping around their campfire in the woods. Two familiars are volleying a dozen fireballs back and forth with a pair of spellblades, keeping them "warm" for their sleeping masters. The rogue and the cleric are on watch with them, and are so used to the zip-zap-foop of energy back and forth, they're largely ignoring it.

But the familiars sure are attracting the attention of other things with their light show. A pack of them jumps out of the darkness, crits one of the familiars, and it dies. "Ow!" says the one wizard, suddenly waking up. Everyone rolls initiative, and wonders if the rogue can dive on that fully charged spellblade laying on the ground before it releases a dozen fireballs on the PC's and monsters alike! :smallamused:

[The Mentalist]

Well the reading of the text can be taken that you retarget the effect that you absorb. So if someone hits you with twinned Spell X, you get 2 instances of Spell X in your Spellblade, rather than 2 twinned instances.

I could see how you'd read it that way, I see it as you absorb the spell itself, metamagic and all. Like I said no books for reference, I'll have to come back to it when I get home.

Maybe outfit the Emerald Legion with them. (Speaking o' which you wouldn't happen to have the previous incarnations of that project would you? I'd like something not quite so invincible)

[tyckspoon]

Say what? The targetted version can try to dispel ALL buffs, AND suppress all magic items. It RUINS a character's build, if it goes off, and at the very best leaves you useless for a few rounds.

Only if you Chain it. A targeted Dispel Magic can target 1 creature or 1 object. If you go with the creature, you can make an attempt at all of the buffs on him, but his gear is all separate targets for purposes of the spell and is entirely untouched. If an object is targeted, well, 1 object is targeted. All the personal buffs are fine and most of the gear is left alone. It can suck to have a particular item disactivated (Boots of Flying/Ring of Freedom of Motion/Mind Blank come to mind as favorite subjects) but you should be generally ok.

Area Dispels.. are kind of weird. They'll take one buff and leave magic items alone.. unless your buffs are on your items, in which case you can also have one buff taken off each of your items. So that can suck pretty hard if your party makes heavy use of Greater Magic Weapons and Magic Vestments, especially if you're using them to qualify for augment crystals (but then, if you're using this as a regular party buff, you should have CL boosts and dispel-resistance items used when casting to make most dispels unthreatening.)

[PhoenixRivers]

Another issue:

Spell Immunity in D&D is pretty particular (and peculiar). When you have immunity to a spell, the mechanic for it is "unbeatable SR". Therefore, if a spell does not allow SR (such as Reciprocal Gyre, or Greater Dispel Magic), you cannot be immune to the spell.

The Spellblade does not explicitly contradict this, so there's reasonable arguments for making it unable to grant immunity to spells that do not allow Spell Resistance.

[JeminiZero]

(Speaking o' which you wouldn't happen to have the previous incarnations of that project would you? I'd like something not quite so invincible)

The Strengths section provides a fairly comprehensive overview of which template provides which immunities. Just remove a particular template to remove a particular immunity (or set of immunities).


Spell Immunity in D&D is pretty particular (and peculiar). When you have immunity to a spell, the mechanic for it is "unbeatable SR". Therefore, if a spell does not allow SR (such as Reciprocal Gyre, or Greater Dispel Magic), you cannot be immune to the spell.

It doesn't say it grants "Spell Immunity" to a certain spell. It says you are "immune to a single spell". I would argue that it is in fact, not referring to the Spell Immunity (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Spell_Resistance_and_Spell_Immunity) mechanism. It is simply uses the word "immune" because there is no other simpler way to describe a single spell having no effect on you. The fact that the blades are based off spell turning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm) rather than spell immunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellImmunity.htm) also supports this intepretation.

[Doc Roc]

Spellblade just got a ToS Entry. The fact that there is serious debate regarding its wording means that it is obviously time to clarify it.

[Asheram]

Anyhow, A little warning.
This enchantment should Never exist in a campaign that've got Artificers. :P

[PhoenixRivers]

It doesn't say it grants "Spell Immunity" to a certain spell. It says you are "immune to a single spell". I would argue that it is in fact, not referring to the Spell Immunity (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Spell_Resistance_and_Spell_Immunity) mechanism. It is simply uses the word "immune" because there is no other simpler way to describe a single spell having no effect on you. The fact that the blades are based off spell turning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm) rather than spell immunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellImmunity.htm) also supports this intepretation.

"Spell Immunity" and "Immune to a Spell" are functionally identical. Look at the reading of the spell "Spell Immunity".

Yes, it's based on Spell Turning.

No, it's not identical to it. For one, Spell Turning does not retarget the effect. For another, Spell Turning bounces it immediately. For another, spell turning has limits. For a final part, spell turning does not make you immune to a spell.

It's IRRELEVANT what the base spell for creating it is. What is relevant is the exact reading of the text. All instances of Spell immunity (or immunity to spells) apply to SR: Yes spells only. Check the Golem's Immunity to Magic entries, or any other, as well as the base text for immunity to spells. In order to be considered a deviation from the standard, it must explicitly state that it can apply to spells which do not allow SR. In that case, it's an exception, and can be considered primary source for its effect. However, it does not contradict the restrictions for immunity.

When a creature is immune to a spell, it gets unbeatable SR to that spell, by RAW. That means that spells that do not check for SR are not possible to grant immunity to (though you can be immune to their effects, such as being immune to fire as a defense against an Orb of Fire.)

The argument that being immune to a spell is not a form of spell immunity is not only hair-splitting, it's incorrect hair-splitting.

[Aharon]

@Phoenix
actually, the demi-lich in the ELH wasn't updated and retained its old immunity, so while it was the intention of the designers to make all instances of immunity to magic equal to unbeatable spell resistance, they didn't do it thoroughly enough. As the spellblade enchantment, like the demi-lich's, doesn't have any limits (which are clearly stated in the explanatory texts of both the golems' magic immunity and in the spell), it should probably be considered to be the demi-lich kind of spell immunity.

[PhoenixRivers]

@Phoenix
actually, the demi-lich in the ELH wasn't updated and retained its old immunity, so while it was the intention of the designers to make all instances of immunity to magic equal to unbeatable spell resistance, they didn't do it thoroughly enough. As the spellblade enchantment, like the demi-lich's, doesn't have any limits (which are clearly stated in the explanatory texts of both the golems' magic immunity and in the spell), it should probably be considered to be the demi-lich kind of spell immunity.

Ah, so in the absence of any text referencing or correllating this 6000gp ability with the epic ability of an epic creature, we should automatically make the correlation ourselves, and grant the same level of power to a 6000gp enchantment?

No. Unless an ability explicitly states that its spell immunity applies to SR: No spells, it DOES NOT. That's RAW. That's the only valid interpretation of this RAW. For a Spell immunity to apply to SR: Yes spells, it needs EXPLICIT text to that effect.

[Aharon]

I agree that this is sensible, but this is not what the text says.

1) there are two kinds of spell immunities in the game, one is unbeatable SR, the other is not.
2) Spellblade doesn't specifically say it is unbeatable SR, as all other instances where spell immunity is unbeatable SR do.
3) Therefore, Spellblade confers real immunity, regardless of what other creature/ability bestows it.

(By the way, there are other instances besides the demi-lich one that went unnoticed. The Savage Species flesh golem racial progression still has the old immunity, as does the Rakshasa.)

And it's 6000 for one spell. That's hardly the same as the epic every spell in existence. You'll have to get lots of spellblades to achieve that...

[PhoenixRivers]

I agree that this is sensible, but this is not what the text says.

1) there are two kinds of spell immunities in the game, one is unbeatable SR, the other is not.
2) Spellblade doesn't specifically say it is unbeatable SR, as all other instances where spell immunity is unbeatable SR do.
3) Therefore, Spellblade confers real immunity, regardless of what other creature/ability bestows it.
I agree that your interpretation is what you WANT to be true, but THIS is what the actual text says:
A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity.The Spellblade grants spell immunity. It is conditional to "One selected spell". We're on the same page so far. Now apply the next part. "Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity."

Now, you're arguing that since other effects are redundant, and reiterate this, that effects which do not reiterate this do not apply it.

That's not how rules work. There are two kinds of spell immunity, true.

Ones which follow the text that I quoted above, and ones that explicitly make exceptions to it.

Spellblade is not the latter. Therefore, it must necessarily be the former. Full stop.


(By the way, there are other instances besides the demi-lich one that went unnoticed. The Savage Species flesh golem racial progression still has the old immunity, as does the Rakshasa.)Does the Savage species Flesh Golem explicitly state that it applies to spells that are SR: No?

Does the Demilich? NO. The demilich is not immune to "spells". It is immune to "all magical and supernatural effects". Guess what? That explicitly includes effects which are SR:No.

It is different from a spellblade.

Next time you want to correlate an epic creature's ability with the ability of a chump change item, please make sure that the wording is at least similar. A demilich does not have spell immunity. It has immunity to magic effects. All of them. Regardless of SR. The two abilities are not even REMOTELY similar.

Incidentally, this also means that it cannot heal itself with Harm, as it is immune to the effect. (if it was treated as unbeatable SR, however, it could, because you automatically overcome SR for any spell that you cast)


And it's 6000 for one spell. That's hardly the same as the epic every spell in existence. You'll have to get lots of spellblades to achieve that...True. However, "every spell in existence" does not apply, since that's not the demilich's wording. It's immune to just about every magical and supernatural effect. That is the wording, and the difference is significant.

[Aharon]

I'm not as invested in this topic as you seem to think. I don't want one interpretation to be true, I just wrongly believed one to be true and argued the point. Now you proved me wrong. Fair enough :smallsmile:

To explain why I first shared JZs opinion:

I made the mistake of equating spell immunity with magic immunity.

Both the Demi-Lich template and the Golem Racial progression confer Magic immunity, not spell immunity, which not only includes SR:No spells, but also all kinds of other stuff.

(If you're interested, the entry in the flesh golem progression is
Magic Immunity (Su): At 9th level, a flesh golem
becomes immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural
abilities (except fire, cold, and electricity effects, as
described in the Energy Vulnerability entry). This ability
supersedes the golem’s spell resistance ability.)

The Rakshasa has spell immunity, though:
Spell Immunity (Su): Starting at 4th level, a rakshasa is
immune to all effects of all 1st-level spells. As it advances in
level it becomes immune to higher-level spells. Like spell
resistance, a rakshasa may suppress this ability in order to
accept its own spells or spells from allies.

This Spell immunity makes an explicit exception to the spells it applies to (it applies to all spells).

But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to rakshasa spell immunity, I conceed :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm not as invested in this topic as you seem to think. I don't want one interpretation to be true, I just wrongly believed one to be true and argued the point. Now you proved me wrong. Fair enough :smallsmile:

To explain why I first shared JZs opinion:

I made the mistake of equating spell immunity with magic immunity.

Both the Demi-Lich template and the Golem Racial progression confer Magic immunity, not spell immunity, which not only includes SR:No spells, but also all kinds of other stuff.

(If you're interested, the entry in the flesh golem progression is
Magic Immunity (Su): At 9th level, a flesh golem
becomes immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural
abilities (except fire, cold, and electricity effects, as
described in the Energy Vulnerability entry). This ability
supersedes the golem’s spell resistance ability.)

The Rakshasa has spell immunity, though:
Spell Immunity (Su): Starting at 4th level, a rakshasa is
immune to all effects of all 1st-level spells. As it advances in
level it becomes immune to higher-level spells. Like spell
resistance, a rakshasa may suppress this ability in order to
accept its own spells or spells from allies.

This Spell immunity makes an explicit exception to the spells it applies to (it applies to all spells).

But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to rakshasa spell immunity, I conceed :smallbiggrin:
Savage species Rakshasa was superceded by the SRD entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm). Notice anything?

No spell immunity, for one. And it was replaced by what?

SR 27.

Look at that. Spell immunity replaced by Spell Resistance. Imagine that. Are we looking for more correlation between SR and Spell Immunity? Thanks for arguing that case.

Oh, and Here's flesh golem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#fleshGolem). Monster classes based on monsters that were updated are no more valid than interpretations of haste that grant extra standard actions.

[Aharon]

The big difference? Haste was actually updated, the racial progressions were not. Unless updated, 3.0 material stays valid. Racial Progression =/= Monster Manual entry.

[PhoenixRivers]

The big difference? Haste was actually updated, the racial progressions were not. Unless updated, 3.0 material stays valid. Racial Progression =/= Monster Manual entry.


As noted above, a monster class has a maximum number of levels equal to its starting ECL. At the highest level for the class, the monster character should have all the powers and abilities of the base creature, as given in the Monster Manual.


On the pages that follow are monster classes designed to be compatible with the corresponding monsters in the
Monster Manual. They were built with the same methodology used for the minotaur class described in Chapter 3 of this book. Each class has a number of levels equal to the monster’s starting ECL. As a monster attains new
levels in its class, it becomes gradually more powerful (just as a member of any other class does) until it attains the maximum level in its class and thereby gains all the abilities of the creature as described in the Monster
Manual.

This is the primary source for monster classes. While the tables for the classes do provide useful tools, ultimately, the final level of a monster class provides the person who takes it with all the abilities of the creature as described in the Monster Manual.

While Savage Species wasn't updated (due in part to the entire book being a mental abortion by the designers of the game; the equivalent of Highlander 2, best apologized for and then ignored, in hopes that everyone will forget it ever existed), the monster manual was.

The rules for monster classes explicitly state in more than one location that monster classes, over the course of the class, provide a character with the abilities of the monster entry. When the monster entry is updated, so too must the final level of the monster class, to comply with existing rules.

The biggest difference is trying to use 3.0 patchwork of one potential rules abuse which mentions "all spells" to justify one that does not.

"Choose a spell" (spellblade's wording) does not necessitate SR: No spells. The other examples, which are inclusive of all spells of a certain level or below, do.

This means that even if you are correct about the savage species progression, it bears no relevance to the spellblade.

So congratulations on arguing a point that has no relevance whatsoever on the original argument I made.

[Aharon]

Uh, hello? You were the one who continued arguing after I conceded.

I thought you were starting a new argument, about wether the progressions offer these abilities or not. If you don't wish to continue that discussion (which I agree would derail the thread), I'm fine with that.

[PhoenixRivers]

Uh, hello? You were the one who continued arguing after I conceeded.

After you conceded... and then continued to try to contradict and argue a point?

One cannot concede an argument and still continue to argue.

It's like saying, "I give up, I'm not racing any more..."

Then crossing the finish line and yelling, "I win!"

Your record and your rhetoric don't match.

[Aharon]

I propose you reread my post.

I explicitly said that my post only served to explain why I made the mistake I had made.


To explain why I first shared JZ's opinion:
I made the mistake of equating spell immunity with magic immunity.

My very last sentence in the relevant post was


But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to rakshasa spell immunity, I conceed.


How you can argue that this isn't a concession, I don't understand.

[PhoenixRivers]

I propose you reread my post.

I explicitly said that my post only served to explain why I made the mistake I had made.



My very last sentence in the relevant post was



How you can argue that this isn't a concession, I don't understand.

Because your point is invalid. If it referred to Rakshasa spell immunity, it would be talking about the Updated Monster manual entry... Not the abortion that was monster classes.

Even if it explicitly stated that it functioned as the monster class entry, the monster class entry no longer complies with the rules for monster class entries.

So even in your concession, you're incorrect in multiple ways.

It's like if I said "blueberries are yellow.

See? The sky on a clear day is yellow too. But since blueberries aren't the same shade of yellow as the sky, I concede."

Using a completely incorrect reasoning for explaining why your incorrect view is incorrect is still incorrect.

[Aharon]

Phoenix, I conceded that the spell immunity conferred by the spell blade is the same as the normal ability. Why do you try to keep arguing? It was a hypothetical situation. It's not the case. It doesn't matter. Please understand that I didn't continue to try to make a point with that remark.

I made a mistake by referring the rakshasas spell immunity instead of the rakshasa racial progression's immunity. Obviously, my wording of the hypothetical version was not correct. I will update it, and all your concerns with the incorrectness of my concession should be gone.

But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to the spell immunity of the rakshasa racial progression, I conceed.

It doesn't refer to this one instance of that kind of spell immunity in a rather low-regarded book. So we don't have anything to discuss.

Unless you really want to drag me into a discussion about the legality of 3.0 rules material that wasn't updated.

[PhoenixRivers]

Phoenix, I conceded that the spell immunity conferred by the spell blade is the same as the normal ability. Why do you try to keep arguing? It was a hypothetical situation. It's not the case. It doesn't matter. Please understand that I didn't continue to try to make a point with that remark.

Was my wording of the hypothetical version not explicit enough? I will update it then.

But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to the spell immunity of the rakshasa racial progression, I conceed.

It doesn't refer to this one instance of that kind of spell immunity in a rather low-regarded book. So we don't have anything to discuss.

Unless you really want to drag me into a discussion about the legality of 3.0 rules material that wasn't updated.

I don't want to drag you into anything. Even in the current statement, there is a conflict between the classes you presented and the rules for monster classes.

You're now saying, "I concede that lemons are yellow because bratwurst is made of cotton candy."

Your point is utter nonsense, and shows a complete and shows exactly why Savage Species isn't allowed... well, pretty much anywhere. It's contradiction after contradiction, poorly thought out material, and, as I hinted at before, WotC's mental poop. Yeah, it feels good when it comes out, but that doesn't change the fact that it's utter crap.

[AmberVael]

Why do you try to keep arguing?
Because you keep replying to him.
Best way to stop an argument, if you really concede, is just to stop talking. Continuing to post in response is just going to provoke more responses, and it will turn into a frustrating loop.


More on topic, I like this exploit. I think the next thought should be, what happens if you get two Intelligent Item spellblades. Could they maintain it on their own? :smallbiggrin:

(In fact, could an intelligent spellblade and its wielder maintain a loop on their own?)

[Aharon]

@Vael
That would probably be the wise thing to do, but I actually would like this to be resolved in a way that doesn't feel like I'm wrong even after conceding :smallwink:

@Phoenix
Then let's just forget about Savage Species. It isn't relevant in any way to our discussion, and I will again reformulate my last sentence:

But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to a kind of spell immunity that includes immunity to spells that don't allow spell resistance, I conceed.

That should convey what I meant, and we don't have to discuss that pile of mental poop :smallsmile:

Or do you still spot any incorrectness?

[PhoenixRivers]

@Vael
That would probably be the wise thing to do, but I actually would like this to be resolved in a way that doesn't feel like I'm wrong even after conceding :smallwink:

@Phoenix
Then let's just forget about Savage Species. It isn't relevant in any way to our discussion, and I will again reformulate my last sentence:

But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to a kind of spell immunity that includes immunity to spells that don't allow spell resistance, I conceed.

That should convey what I meant, and we don't have to discuss that pile of mental poop :smallsmile:

Or do you still spot any incorrectness?

Mostly accurate.

[JeminiZero]

Before I begin, let me clarify the position I am arguing:
-"Spell Immunity" is a property.
-"Immune to Spell" is a description, and one which does not automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property.
-Hence "Immune to Spell" does not automatically infer a limitation to SR:yes spells.



"Spell Immunity" and "Immune to a Spell" are functionally identical.


No they are not. Here is a list on how they are different:

-"the spell doesn’t affect the creature": This term is used by Spell Resistance/Immunity. Spellblades on the other hand does not say this because the spell DOES have an effect on the creature: It either powers his spellblade if he is targetted. Or it has normal effect if an area version is used.
-"Immune to Spells": This term is ONLY used by Spellblades. It does NOT actually appear in the Spell Immunity entry. Also see my note on golem magic immunity below.
-Targetted: Both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) also work against area spells that do not target the creature. Whereas Spellblades can only work against spells that specifically target the creature.
-Spell Like Abilities: Again, both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) work against Spell Like Abilities. Spellblades do not. (Witness the fact that golems explcitly state that their magic immunity works against SLAs, whereas spellblades do not).


All instances of Spell immunity (or immunity to spells) apply to SR: Yes spells only. Check the Golem's Immunity to Magic entries, or any other, as well as the base text for immunity to spells.

This can actually be taken as evidence that "Immune to Spell" description does not equal "Spell Immunity" property.
1) Golems which say thay are "Immune to ... Spells" also always state that it only applies to stuff with SR.
2) It can be therefore inferred that being "Immune to... Spells" in the description DOES NOT automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property (and the associated limit to SR:yes spells).
3) Because if it did, the designers would not have needed to add the limitation of "SR:Yes spells only" to EVERY SINGLE golem entry.

[herrhauptmann]

More on topic, I like this exploit. I think the next thought should be, what happens if you get two Intelligent Item spellblades. Could they maintain it on their own? :smallbiggrin:

(In fact, could an intelligent spellblade and its wielder maintain a loop on their own?)
Don't think an intelligent blade and wielder could do this by themselves. Even if it IS a greater intelligent item with the ability to cast the spell in question at will. Partly because the DM would throw a book at you. But you're trying to have a spell get redirected out of a weapon. And instantly the spell rebounds and goes back into the weapon.
(I view it like this. Someone launches Shivering touch at me, and I interpose my blade in front of the ray at the last second. Rather than the burning a hole in the metal, the spell hits my sword and gets absorbed. I smirk at the wizard. Next round, I launch his own spell back at him. Then charge as he lays there flopping from the effects of his own spell.)
At best, you and an ally have intelligent spellblades. Every turn those blades cast the spell at the other wielder, AND launch the redirected spell. This could work even if the weapons don't have the ability to cast spell X every round.

[PhoenixRivers]

Before I begin, let me clarify the position I am arguing:
-"Spell Immunity" is a property.
-"Immune to Spell" is a description, and one which does not automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property.
-Hence "Immune to Spell" does not automatically infer a limitation to SR:yes spells.
Synonyms for your argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairsplitting)


The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.
Look! Immune to the effects of one spell = effectively has unbeatable Spell Resistance.

This is the DEFAULT method that 3.5 uses to process immunity to a spell. That means that for anything to deviate from that default, it must explicitly state it.

Immunity to a spell's effects = Unbeatable SR to that spell.

You can argue all you like for a Spellblade that can store greater dispel magic.
But it does not work that way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_alien_characters_from_Futurama#M orbo).

You have no text supporting your stance. Nothing to state that Spell Immunity and Immunity to spells is different. No text showing that immunity to a spell's effects is NOT unbeatable spell resistance. Nothing other than your desire to make a 6000gp enhancement able to absorb any spell you want.

If desire and want were enough, believe me, you'd have a gold star right now. But it's not. You need actual honest-to-goodness rules to support your position. And you haven't brought any. You haven't brought anything more than a slightly more verbose version of "Nuh uh!"



No they are not. Here is a list on how they are different:

-"the spell doesn’t affect the creature": This term is used by Spell Resistance/Immunity. Spellblades on the other hand does not say this because the spell DOES have an effect on the creature: It either powers his spellblade if he is targetted. Or it has normal effect if an area version is used.
-"Immune to Spells": This term is ONLY used by Spellblades. It does NOT actually appear in the Spell Immunity entry. Also see my note on golem magic immunity below.See above on Hairsplitting.

Your argument is akin to saying "a claustrophobic is NOT the same as someone who is afraid of enclosed spaces". The standard rules disagree with you, and the only defense you've brought is that "A doesn't equal A".


-Targetted: Both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) also work against area spells that do not target the creature. Whereas Spellblades can only work against spells that specifically target the creature.Irrelevant. The mechanic it uses is immunity to a spell. That it applies other restrictions as well does not obviate it from following the standard restrictions common to ALL spell immunity.


-Spell Like Abilities: Again, both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) work against Spell Like Abilities. Spellblades do not. (Witness the fact that golems explcitly state that their magic immunity works against SLAs, whereas spellblades do not).Again, additional restrictions do not obviate an immunity's need to follow restrictions already in place.

To demonstrate:

Say I have a group of people from shadowdale. Some of them are butchers. Your argument is like saying "No, the butchers aren't from shadowdale, because all these other people from shadowdale don't have to deal with meat". Most spell immunities have differences. That does not mean that they do not need to follow the things they do have in common.


This can actually be taken as evidence that "Immune to Spell" description does not equal "Spell Immunity" property.
1) Golems which say thay are "Immune to ... Spells" also always state that it only applies to stuff with SR.
2) It can be therefore inferred that being "Immune to... Spells" in the description DOES NOT automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property (and the associated limit to SR:yes spells).
Unfortunately, the rules DIRECTLY contradict you, unless you buy into the concept that milkmen are not men who deliver milk, and bookbinders are not people who bind books. If you believe that, sure, you may have a point. If you don't? The rules explicitly contradict you.


3) Because if it did, the designers would not have needed to add the limitation of "SR:Yes spells only" to EVERY SINGLE golem entry.
Hm. Guess what? Let's apply your argument to ability damage.


Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Why, by this, you could infer that undead can have their mental ability scores damaged, right?


Constitution

Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).
...but wait. I'm confused. Why did the designers need to put in that all undead were immune to physical ability damage... if they were already immune to ALL ability damage? Surely they wouldn't put something in that's redundant, would they?

And that's why "it's written here, so if it's not there, it must not be true" holds no weight. Because there are many cases where it's not there, and it's STILL true.

[JeminiZero]

Synonyms for your argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairsplitting)


I disagree. And I would note that you had to excerpt that text from Spell Immunity (the Cleric Spell) rather than from Spell Immunity (the Property), hence supporting my point that "Immmune to Spells" does not automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property. And the fact that there are 2 things called "Spell Immunity" in the game (within core alone) that requires such careful disambiguation in a debate such as this, also shows that differentiating "Spell Immunity" (the property) and "Immune to Spells", in a debate which brings in things outside of core isn't hair-splitting by any means.

Fact of the matter is that so many things in D&D have the similiar name with differing effects (Golem vs Demilich "Magic Immunity", multiple differing versions of the Incantatrix, Mettle etc) that the disambiguation you call hairsplitting is in fact a vital necessity.

Edit: one other thing of note. Spell Immunity is a Special Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm), much lke Spell Resistance, Regeneration, Fast Healing, Darkvision, etc.

Whenever the text of a monster gives it a certain special ability, it always refers to it by its exact name. They don't give similiar sounding abilities or descriptions e.g. calling "Fast Healing" as "Rapid Healing", or calling "Blindsight" as "Radar" etc. This further supports the intepretation that saying "Spell Immunity" the property/special ability is NOT the same as "Immune to Spells" the description. Or they would use the exact name e.g. "Gives Spell Immunity to X".



Look! Immune to the effects of one spell = effectively has unbeatable Spell Resistance.


Yes, but your logic extends it beyond merely that. You are essentially saying:
1) Spell Immunity (the spell) makes you immune to the effects of one (or more) spell
2) Spellblades (the weapon) makes you immune to one specified spell
3) Therefore Spellblades must be based on Spell Immunity (the Spell).

Thats like saying
1) An apple is a fruit
2) An orange is a fruit
3) Therefore an apple must be an orange.

Similiar description does not mean same basis.



This is the DEFAULT method that 3.5 uses to process immunity to a spell. That means that for anything to deviate from that default, it must explicitly state it.


No it isn't, and you have not shown it to be the case in any way so far. All you've done is state that things with "immune to spells" also specify that they only apply to "SR:yes" spells. Which as I mentioned previously supports the point that the 2 are not automatically linked such that former infers the latter.



You have no text supporting your stance. Nothing to state that Spell Immunity and Immunity to spells is different.


You are twisting words here. I never referred to the ability as "Immunity to Spells" (and for good reason, because that term is not used, not by golems, nor by spellblades). I have been using the term "Immune to Spells", the exact wording used by all the above.



Nothing other than your desire to make a 6000gp enhancement able to absorb any spell you want.


Now this is a personal attack.



You haven't brought anything more than a slightly more verbose version of "Nuh uh!"


And for that matter, neither have you.



Your argument is akin to saying "a claustrophobic is NOT the same as someone who is afraid of enclosed spaces". The standard rules disagree with you, and the only defense you've brought is that "A doesn't equal A".




Unfortunately, the rules DIRECTLY contradict you, unless you buy into the concept that milkmen are not men who deliver milk, and bookbinders are not people who bind books. If you believe that, sure, you may have a point. If you don't? The rules explicitly contradict you.


See above. D&D, many things with similiar names, etc

To paraphrase my argument a little, Immune to Magic might be taken as the descriptive end result, and Spell Immunity is the title of a property. In this case lets say that "Kills People for a Living" is the descriptive end result, and "Assassin" is the title of an occupation. You are arging that because "Assassins" are people who "Kill People for a Living", ALL people who "Kills People for a Living" MUST be "Assassins". But that is not the case, some are called "Executioners"... or sometimes "Soldiers" (which has an entirely different job scope and requirement).



Irrelevant. The mechanic it uses is immunity to a spell. That it applies other restrictions as well does not obviate it from following the standard restrictions common to ALL spell immunity.

Again, additional restrictions do not obviate an immunity's need to follow restrictions already in place.


Wrong Intepretation. I am citing the above as an example on how "Spell Immunity" the property is different from "Immune to Spells" the description. You simply assume they are the same and argue based on that.



To demonstrate:
Say I have a group of people from shadowdale. Some of them are butchers. Your argument is like saying "No, the butchers aren't from shadowdale, because all these other people from shadowdale don't have to deal with meat". Most spell immunities have differences. That does not mean that they do not need to follow the things they do have in common.


Inccidentally thats a terrible argument. Firstly my analogy is nothing like that. You are saying that a person who deals in meat must be a butcher (i.e. an effect that makes you "Immune to a Spell" the description must invoke "Spell Immunity" the property). I'm saying thats not the case

Incidentally, butchers are not the only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting) professionals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishermen) who deal in meat.



Hm. Guess what? Let's apply your argument to ability damage.

Why, by this, you could infer that undead can have their mental ability scores damaged, right?

...but wait. I'm confused. Why did the designers need to put in that all undead were immune to physical ability damage... if they were already immune to ALL ability damage? Surely they wouldn't put something in that's redundant, would they?


I always intepreted this particular segment as follows:
1) Undead are non living
2) They should automatically inherit the "immune to ability damage" property of non living creatures.
3) However the SRD specifies that they are *only* immune to physical ability damage.
4) Therefore it is stating that Undead are specific exception to the "immune to ability damage" property of non-living creatures (i.e. they are only immune to physical ability score damage, but not mental ability score damage.
5) However because almost everything that causes ability score damage is poison, disease or mind-affecting, this limitation hardly comes up.
6) Compare this to the ToS houserule where undead lose their immune to mind-affecting, and it has been ruled that Ego Whip does cause them charisma damage

[herrhauptmann]

You know how you can use a metamagic version of a spell to counter a non meta version, and vice versa.

Does it work the same way with the spellblade? I can get a spellblade for ray of enfeeblement, which is also good for a maximized twinned ray of enfeeblement, right?

[Wings of Peace]

This made me laugh. I love the mental image. It seems like a lot of work though compared to just turning into/finding some other way to abuse Immoths who also can be manipulated for the ability to cast free action spells.

[JeminiZero]

You know how you can use a metamagic version of a spell to counter a non meta version, and vice versa.

Does it work the same way with the spellblade? I can get a spellblade for ray of enfeeblement, which is also good for a maximized twinned ray of enfeeblement, right?

As you say, the only precedent we seem to have is Counterspelling. My brief search turned up this Rules of the Game Article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050524a)


because a spell altered with a metamagic feat doesn't change a spell into a different spell.

Based on this I would think that RAI is that unless the metamagic changes the spell's parameters such that spellblades can no longer be used at all (e.g. changing a target spell into an area spell), it can still be absorbed by Spellblades.


This made me laugh. I love the mental image. It seems like a lot of work though compared to just turning into/finding some other way to abuse Immoths who also can be manipulated for the ability to cast free action spells.

Mainly, because its easier to add a 6,000 gp enchantment to a bunch of weapons than gating/dominating a bunch of Ice Giants. :smalltongue:

Also, Immoths can't seem to actually use their own abilities. Ice Runes specifically only works on spells that they prepare, whereas they cast spells naturally as sorcerers. Which means that an Immoth can't naturally use his own Ice Runes without either the Arcane Preperation feat, or by taking class levels of one of the prepared casters (Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Archivist). So simply gating/dominating an Immoth doesn't work unless you somehow specifically get one with either of the above.

[Bakkan]

I'm trying to figure out what the fastest way of getting NI spells stored is.

Suppose we have eleven creatures with Spellblades absorbing Twinned Magic Missiles. One of the creatures call it A, with a caster level at least 9, casts this spell, targeting each of the other creatures. Now assuming that being hit by part of a multi-target spell allows the wielder to cast the spell at full effect, then the next round each of those ten creatures will launch a Twinned Magic Missile at each of the other creatures. Now A has ten Twinned Magic Missiles stored, while each of the other creatures has nine, for a total of 100 Twinned Magic Missiles at the end of round two.

Every round, each missile will essentially "generate" nine more as the ten missiles from each casting each create a whole new Twinned Magic Missile stored.

So on round 3, 900 Twinned Magic Missiles
On round 4, 8100 Twinned Magic Missiles
.
.
.
On round N, 9^(N-2)*100 Magic Missiles

In one minute (10 rounds), the eleven creatures will have 4,304,672,100 Twinned Magic Missiles prepared, for an average damage (vs a 0 SR creature) of about 150 billion. Every minute they keep this up multiplies the average damage by about 3.5 billion.

After one hour, the average damage is 6.6 x 10^583. This is enough to deal over 10^496 damage to every particle in the universe.

Add Repeating or Echoing for even more silliness.

PO Note: Your DM may enforce the limit on the number of free action a round if you try this trick (or most of the other ones in this thread). In this case "enforcement" will most likely involve the brachial aerial projection of reading material.

[Kansaschaser]

Yeah, my DM gives us a total of about 1-2 free actions per round. So this trick wouldn't work in our game.

If we tried this, once we tried to put a 3rd spell into the spellblade, it would probably dissapate or hit us instead, depending on what our DM said.

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Thread necromancy.