spell-storing and ammunition

[Laniius]

So, spell-storing. I can put it onto 50 (iirc) arrows for the same price as one weapon. Can I then cast, say cure light wounds once and have it be stored in all 50 arrows?

[Cog]

So, spell-storing. I can put it onto 50 (iirc) arrows for the same price as one weapon. Can I then cast, say cure light wounds once and have it be stored in all 50 arrows?
No. They are each individually spell-storing weapons, and the act of crafting them does not put a spell in any of them.

Also, keep in mind:

the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.
You only get any benefit out of spell-storing arrows if you wield them as improvised melee weapons. A fired arrow has no wielder.

[Jack Zander]

No. They are each individually spell-storing weapons, and the act of crafting them does not put a spell in any of them.

I agree with this, a spell storing batch of arrows can be crafted as 50, but each arrow would need its own spell cast into it. However:


You only get any benefit out of spell-storing arrows if you wield them as improvised melee weapons. A fired arrow has no wielder.

If my DM ever ruled that the arrows I am firing are not wielded by me, I'd probably pack up and leave right there. I'm not saying that this isn't RAW, but to me it seems more like a language oversight, as if they didn't expect you to ever put spell storing on a ranged weapon.

[Forged Fury]

Well... the Spell Storing property only appears on the Melee Weapon Enchantment Table and Arrows only appear on the Ranged Weapon table, so a case could be made that Spell Storing Arrows weren't intended in the first place.

[ericgrau]

Not to mention paying 1/50th for spell storing arrows is a bajillion times better than a spell storing melee weapon. So... they only put it on the melee weapon table but you're a bajillion times better off putting it in ranged weapons? I doubt it. Even if you assumed it was ok by RAW the next logical step would be to immediately ban it for being far stronger than any other weapon enchantment.

A reasonable house rule might be spell storing bows that push the spell into the arrow upon firing, but that is a house rule and rather awkward too. I mean normally you will the spell out of the weapon upon hitting but how do you do that at range? Must be a telepathic bond.

I know a lot of people like to make "doesn't say I can't so I can" arguments but there's a point where it really doesn't make sense. And it's pretty weak evidence in the first place.

[Cog]

If my DM ever ruled that the arrows I am firing are not wielded by me, I'd probably pack up and leave right there.
Oh, sure, as you're firing it, you're wielding it. The problem is, Spell Storing checks for release after the attack has been resolved. It seems rather improbable that you're still wielding the thing when it's sticking out of the guy's body and also...

A magic arrow, bolt, bullet, or shuriken that hits is destroyed.
...no longer exists to release the spell. If at the table you would rather leave immediately than discuss any of that, though, then that's your call.

Edit: And as a DM, I would have brought all this up when a player tried to obtain the arrows in the first place. One who didn't... well, walking away might be justified in that case, since this is a slightly fiddly interpretation.

[Jack Zander]

Not to mention paying 1/50th for spell storing arrows is a bajillion times better than a spell storing melee weapon. So... they only put it on the melee weapon table but you're a bajillion times better off putting it in ranged weapons? I doubt it. Even if you assumed it was ok by RAW the next logical step would be to immediately ban it for being far stronger than any other weapon enchantment.

Well a spell storing sword can be used over and over again. Those 50 arrows can only be used 50 times, and just as the sword, they need a spell cast in them each time. I think the arrows are slightly better than a sword, but I wouldn't call them overpowered, not by a long shot. Especially since ranged fighters get shafted even more than melee in most cases.

Edit: And I hadn't looked to see if spell storing was on the ranged table, so that's a pretty solid argument there. But I see nothing more broken than an archer casting spells through his arrows than a mage casting spells through a wand.

[person29]

doesn't cover the value aspect of it and RAW part...but isnt this very similar to the imbue arrow ability of an arcane archer?

[Curmudgeon]

doesn't cover the value aspect of it and RAW part...but isnt this very similar to the imbue arrow ability of an arcane archer?
Yeah; it steals the thunder of the Arcane Archer, and then some. Imbue Arrow can only hold area spells, and the Arcane Archer has to worry about hitting friendlies with their imbued arrow effects. Spell Storing applies to any targeted spell, so (if a DM were foolish enough to ignore both reasons why this shouldn't work) cheap ammunition would be even better than the ability of a PrC with steep entry requirements.

It's both against the rules, and a really bad idea.

[gomipile]

Yeah; it steals the thunder of the Arcane Archer, and then some. Imbue Arrow can only hold area spells, and the Arcane Archer has to worry about hitting friendlies with their imbued arrow effects. Spell Storing applies to any targeted spell, so (if a DM were foolish enough to ignore both reasons why this shouldn't work) cheap ammunition would be even better than the ability of a PrC with steep entry requirements.

It's both against the rules, and a really bad idea.

Well, for one, Arcane Archer is a really bad prestige class in 3.5. It has an unreasonable barrier to entry, and doesn't improve caster level or spell access once you enter it.

Also, if you did have an arcane archer, spell storing ammunition would complement imbue arrow, not supplant it. The two mechanics work with disjoint sets of spells, and are useful in different situations.

Your point about the steep entry of arcane archer is valid, but I see it as working against your stated position, not for it.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, for one, Arcane Archer is a really bad prestige class in 3.5. It has an unreasonable barrier to entry, and doesn't improve caster level or spell access once you enter it.
Yes, AA is a badly designed prestige class, but it has one useful ability. The PrC doesn't need to advance spellcasting to be worth a 2-level dip to get Imbue Arrow. (The higher-level once per day abilities aren't worth continuing in the class, and Greater Magic Weapon easily supplants the Enhance Arrow class feature.) Being able to extend the range of area spells to Long+ range, without metamagic spell level increase, is significant.

I do disagree about the "unreasonable barrier to entry" part. It's a PrC made for Elven archers with some minor spellcasting ability, and the entry requirements for them are pretty reasonable. It only seems unreasonable if you're trying to make the class more about spellcasting than archery.

[gomipile]

Yes, AA is a badly designed prestige class, but it has one useful ability. The PrC doesn't need to advance spellcasting to be worth a 2-level dip to get Imbue Arrow. (The higher-level once per day abilities aren't worth continuing in the class, and Greater Magic Weapon easily supplants the Enhance Arrow class feature.) Being able to extend the range of area spells to Long+ range, without metamagic spell level increase, is significant.

I do disagree about the "unreasonable barrier to entry" part. It's a PrC made for Elven archers with some minor spellcasting ability, and the entry requirements for them are pretty reasonable. It only seems unreasonable if you're trying to make the class more about spellcasting than archery.

Actually, I think it is unreasonable because in D&D, the spells with a bow archetype shouldn't be restricted to elves.

[Jack_Simth]

But I see nothing more broken than an archer casting spells through his arrows than a mage casting spells through a wand.You're not seeing the Nova potential. You can pretty much only activate one wand in a round (unless you want to be burning charges like there's no tomorrow), and you have to buy wands in stacks of 50 charges in most campaigns. Spell-storing arrows, on the other hand, you can put any spell into them in down-time, and a Full Attack with them can put out quite a few arrows imbued with save or lose effects. Oh yes, and the Spell Storing property doesn't have that 'minimum save dc' clause that spellcasting items do.

[Laniius]

Balls. I really wanted a long-range hypodermic needle. I thought that the table wasn't an example of the be all and end all enchantments, just what could be randomly found, i.e. most likely? The spell-storing enchantment doesn't say in its description that it can't be put onto ammunition. Hell, even if I have to cast the spell each time to store it in the ammo, it would be useful to have a few arrows handy that can have special effects.

[faceroll]

Not to mention paying 1/50th for spell storing arrows is a bajillion times better than a spell storing melee weapon.

I think it's only 50 times better.

[Laniius]

You're not seeing the Nova potential. You can pretty much only activate one wand in a round (unless you want to be burning charges like there's no tomorrow), and you have to buy wands in stacks of 50 charges in most campaigns. Spell-storing arrows, on the other hand, you can put any spell into them in down-time, and a Full Attack with them can put out quite a few arrows imbued with save or lose effects. Oh yes, and the Spell Storing property doesn't have that 'minimum save dc' clause that spellcasting items do.

Spell storing arrows don't come with spells pre-cast into them, so I thought the save dc would be the same as whomever put the spell in there, in my case it would be me.

[faceroll]

Spell storing arrows don't come with spells pre-cast into them, so I thought the save dc would be the same as whomever put the spell in there, in my case it would be me.

That's what he's saying.

[Laniius]

Yeah; it steals the thunder of the Arcane Archer, and then some. Imbue Arrow can only hold area spells, and the Arcane Archer has to worry about hitting friendlies with their imbued arrow effects. Spell Storing applies to any targeted spell, so (if a DM were foolish enough to ignore both reasons why this shouldn't work) cheap ammunition would be even better than the ability of a PrC with steep entry requirements.

It's both against the rules, and a really bad idea.

I don't buy the "steals the thunder of the Arcane Archer" argument. You can just as easily argue that divine power steals the thunder of fighters or that find traps spell steals the thunder of fighters rogues, or that multiple wands of blasty-type spells steal the thunder of a (poorly played, I suppose) sorcerer.

Edit: though if the range table is all the enchantments that could ever be put onto ranged weapons and not just a random loot table, then I guess I've been beaten. I just thought that if it didn't say in the description of the enchantment that it was only melee or only ranged that it could be used on both.

[Jack_Simth]

Spell storing arrows don't come with spells pre-cast into them, so I thought the save dc would be the same as whomever put the spell in there, in my case it would be me.
Exactly.

The spells stay in there until expended. So with a week of down-time, if you have, say, Wizard-5 spellcasting and can manage 3 spells a day of 3rd level, you fill 21 arrows - all of which use your caster level and save DC. You then hand them off to the party ranger, who fires 2+ per turn with ease.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't buy the "steals the thunder of the Arcane Archer" argument. You can just as easily argue that divine power steals the thunder of fighters or that find traps spell steals the thunder of fighters rogues
No, you actually can't argue those points as easily.

Divine Power lets a Cleric match the BAB of a Fighter, and possibly its Strength. It doesn't duplicate the feats, weapon proficiencies, or shield proficiencies.

Find Traps will let a Cleric Search for traps for a few minutes per casting, but with a lower skill modifier than a maxed-out Rogue. A few minutes per casting isn't nearly as good as the always-available Rogue ability.

But a full attack with arrows can crank out 5 shots per round (assuming Haste). The Arcane Archer's Imbue Arrow ability will never work more than once in a round, and uses up the Arcane Archer's spells in the process. Spell storing applied to arrows in weeks of down time is vastly superior to a class ability that's got a steep cost to acquire.

It's not even close.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Spell Storing is a melee weapon enhancement. Last I saw, Ammunition, properly used, is not a melee weapon. Ergo, no.

The fact that it is explicitly NOT on the ranged weapon enhancement table should be an indication that this is not something intended by RAI.

Fortunately, in this instance at least, RAW supports it.

[slaydemons]

well Imo I would allow only arcane archers be able to make such an object just to add to the class and the imbued spell would be something they do on the fly with none spell storing arrows

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The problem with this is it lets you give non-casters the ability to cast up to 3rd level spells. Hell, just imagine the 'fun' caused when your archer lets loose a volley (with Splitting) of arrows imbued with Poison. Damage aside, the Con damage alone will kill anything.

[ericgrau]

Besides what's been said so far all you have to do is calculate damage output to see that spell storing arrows would trump other arrows by a mile. I lol'd at "50 times better not a bajillion times better". Ya, I suppose that's so. If you want to give the ranged guys some fun too then see the more balanced option I proposed via a spell storing bow.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Besides what's been said so far all you have to do is calculate damage output to see that spell storing arrows would trump other arrows by a mile. I lol'd at "50 times better not a bajillion times better". Ya, I suppose that's so. If you want to give the ranged guys some fun too then see the more balanced option I proposed via a spell storing bow.

Spell storing bow would definitely be more powerful than a melee weapon, but could be made to work if it were handled properly. At least you couldn't store up a bunch of 1d10 con damage arrows ahead of time... to say nothing of what would happen with Shivering Touch arrows...

[Arbitrarious]

Spell storing bow would definitely be more powerful than a melee weapon, but could be made to work if it were handled properly. At least you couldn't store up a bunch of 1d10 con damage arrows ahead of time... to say nothing of what would happen with Shivering Touch arrows...

Why would it be better on ranged weapons rather then melee any more then shocking or frosting? The only advantage is that the bow would it's range. Certainly a plus but not unbalanced when you consider that a large number of spells already work at range, ranged weapon users have a feat tax on their range and still pay for trying to use their preferred weapon in melee, and there simply aren't as many ways to increase range damage as melee.

You could also look at the inverse that spell storing is more powerful on melee because it allows a melee character a chance to use a spell that would normally provoke (casting/ranged attack roll) without penalty in melee. I think it's fairer to say they would have different advantages.

[ffone]

I once accidentally broke a campaign by buying a highish-level Quick Draw character (very unoptimized) six +1 spell storing javelins and having a party caster repeatedly put Shivering Touch in them.

Which is b/c of Shivering Touch, not Spell Storing, but still. Even when restricted to melee weapons, Spell Storing can be quite powerful if the character uses least augment crystals, Quick Draw, or another draw-hit-drop-draw-hit-drop strategy to go nova. Give them to your TWF rogue or something so she can go nova when she can't sneak attack.

Javelins appear in the Ranged Weapon segment of the Weapons table, so that probably wasn't RAW, but using a throwable weapon from the "melee" section (probably a hammer for the 20' range increment) probably is? (Although I empathize with some other posters that it feels odd, since you declare it after the hit - implies a remote telepathic bond with the item, as it were). In general, are melee-only abilities useable when the weapon is thrown?

[Cog]

The melee-only abilities seem to have some sort of interaction between the wielder and the target - for example, Ki Focus lets you use Monk abilities and stunning through it, while Vicious saps the wielder's health as well as the target's. It seems most of those wouldn't work for thrown weaponry either, then, though I'd consider it case by case.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Why would it be better on ranged weapons rather then melee any more then shocking or frosting? The only advantage is that the bow would it's range. Certainly a plus but not unbalanced when you consider that a large number of spells already work at range, ranged weapon users have a feat tax on their range and still pay for trying to use their preferred weapon in melee, and there simply aren't as many ways to increase range damage as melee.

You could also look at the inverse that spell storing is more powerful on melee because it allows a melee character a chance to use a spell that would normally provoke (casting/ranged attack roll) without penalty in melee. I think it's fairer to say they would have different advantages.

Shocking and Frosting don't do 3d6 Dex damage at a range increment of 110'.

And really, that's why spell storing on a ranged weapon is so overpowering. You can load up a touch spell (like Shivering Touch or Touch of Idiocy) and hit someone with it at the range of a fireball. Considering even Reach Spell only lets you hit a target out to 30', that's quite a lot more powerful, don't you think?