Spell Storing Ammunition

[jguy]

Is it possible to enchant/craft ammunition with the Spell storing property? Like have a +1 Spell storing arrow with Hold Person cast into it or something?

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's no language in the description of the spell storing quality to suggest otherwise.

Therefore, yes, you can indeed have spellstoring arrows. Just realize that arrows are destroyed when they hit and do damage and, as such, a spell storing arrow is a single use item.

[jguy]

Thankfully I can get 50 spell-storing arrows for 8000g from a vendor, or 4000g from crafting. At the level I'd be crafting them at, 4000 is well worth having 50 extra spells on hand

[Twilightwyrm]

Thankfully I can get 50 spell-storing arrows for 8000g from a vendor, or 4000g from crafting. At the level I'd be crafting them at, 4000 is well worth having 50 extra spells on hand

And somewhere an Arcane Archer is crying to them self.

[Flickerdart]

Note that you still need to cast spells individually into the arrows, so it's only useful if you have loads of downtime.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Note that you still need to cast spells individually into the arrows, so it's only useful if you have loads of downtime.

It certainly depends on the style of campaign but i find it hard to believe that someone consistently burns through all their spell slots at a level where you can afford to dump 8000gp on a bunch of oneshot-items.

[dascarletm]

A wand costs a lot less, and has the same amount of uses

[ahenobarbi]

A wand costs a lot less, and has the same amount of uses

Only if you put low-level spells inside. If you put 3rd level spells wand would cost

3 (spell level) * 5 (caster level) * 750gp = 11250gp

and arrows can hold different spells. And can have better caster level. And you can use many arrows a round (and give them to allies to).

[dascarletm]

Only if you put low-level spells inside. If you put 3rd level spells wand would cost

3 (spell level) * 5 (caster level) * 750gp = 11250gp

and arrows can hold different spells. And can have better caster level. And you can use many arrows a round (and give them to allies to).

I suppose you have a point.... however if you don't have access to a spell on your list (sorcerer) the costs to buy the castings of the spells will kill you.

[jguy]

Well this came from an insane idea of a goblin gunslinger that wanted to shoot magic bullets. I figured when I was able to craft spell storing items at level 13, because for some reason Spell Storing requires caster level 12, 4000 gold would be piddly. I also find it amusing that he could stare down a Old Dragon and then full attack for about 3 shots and they all have Frigid Touch, Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion. Cripple a dragon in a turn.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I suppose you have a point.... however if you don't have access to a spell on your list (sorcerer) the costs to buy the castings of the spells will kill you.

unless you have an allied sorcerer or wizard in your party. Trade him some arrows for some castings or just ask him to fill 'em up during down time.

[jguy]

And somewhere an Arcane Archer is crying to them self.

There is a trope or some phrase that says "a Clerics GMW negates Arcane Archer." Perhaps it should be "8000 gold negates Arcane Archer."

[AmberVael]

Is it possible to enchant/craft ammunition with the Spell storing property? Like have a +1 Spell storing arrow with Hold Person cast into it or something?


There's no language in the description of the spell storing quality to suggest otherwise.

While there is no language in the Spell Storing description against it, I feel it is very much worth noting that Spell Storing does not appear on the list of Ranged Weapon enchantments, nor has errata been made on that subject, nor does it appear on the list of Ranged Enchantments in the Magic Item Compendium.

I think it could very reasonably be argued that Spell Storing is not available on ranged weapons.

[Kelb_Panthera]

While there is no language in the Spell Storing description against it, I feel it is very much worth noting that Spell Storing does not appear on the list of Ranged Weapon enchantments, nor has errata been made on that subject, nor does it appear on the list of Ranged Enchantments in the Magic Item Compendium.

I think it could very reasonably be argued that Spell Storing is not available on ranged weapons.

The tables are only for randomly determining -common- magical weapons. Spell storing arrows may be unusual (you'd have to commision or craft them yourself) but they're not against the rules.

[AmberVael]

The tables are only for randomly determining -common- magical weapons. Spell storing arrows may be unusual (you'd have to commision or craft them yourself) but they're not against the rules.

You mean, the DMG tables are only for randomly determining magical weapons. That argument doesn't particularly apply to the Magic Item Compendium, where no such randomization is given.

[Snowbluff]

There is a trope or some phrase that says "a Clerics GMW negates Arcane Archer." Perhaps it should be "8000 gold negates Arcane Archer."

It doesn't. Imbued Arrows and Spellstoring Arrows can stack. Just get the 2 levels, and if you have a standard action for 2 spells, or full attack for your consumable arrows.

[jguy]

But how good can a Prestige class be if a commoner with a lot of gold can buy its biggest feature?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You mean, the DMG tables are only for randomly determining magical weapons. That argument doesn't particularly apply to the Magic Item Compendium, where no such randomization is given.

For the lists in the MIC it was almost certainly just a matter of using the tables in the DMG as a reference, rather than any actual thought being given in regards to whether those properties were applicable to only one or the other type of weapon.

3.5 is chock-full of such sloppy copy-paste jobs. I have little reason to doubt that this is simply another.

[Arundel]

But how good can a Prestige class be if a commoner with a lot of gold can buy its biggest feature?

Well that describes a fair deal of PrCs. I think the entire soulknife base class can be replaced by a feat.

[Snowbluff]

But how good can a Prestige class be if a commoner with a lot of gold can buy its biggest feature?

You weren't listening to what I just said.

Commoner: 1 spell 1 arrow. Has to pay for his spells on his spellstoring rounds.

AA: 2 spells 1 arrow. Can fire more with a better BaB per round. Can infuse his own rounds with spells.

[Tvtyrant]

But how good can a Prestige class be if a commoner with a lot of gold can buy its biggest feature?

The Artificer says "all classes can be replaced by a lot of gold!" Scrolls and wands do a lot of casting :P

[Snowbluff]

The Artificer says "all classes can be replaced by a lot of gold!" Scrolls and wands do a lot of casting :P

You might want to read what I said about stacking class features with items.

Also, Warlocks. Why is artificer as class if a lousy T4 can mimic your best schtick?:smallwink:

[thethird]

Note that arrows per se aren't ranged weapons, they are ammunition. The biggest problem with RAW on Spell Storing arrows is:


Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.


Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

So in order for the Spell Storing weapon to cast the spell the wielder (there is none in case of an arrow) has to will it to cast it, after the weapon hits (the arrow is destroyed after hitting).

Still I houserule it to work in my games. :smallsmile:

[Tvtyrant]

You might want to read what I said about stacking class features with items.

Also, Warlocks. Why is artificer as class if a lousy T4 can mimic your best schtick?:smallwink:

Because everyone can take the Warlock's schtick :P

And the point is that an Artificer gets somewhat more than double the amount of XP for crafting, and thus twice as much gold. Gold really is better than class features; a class whose feature was "gets triple the normal gold as a gift from the gods" would be at least tier 3. It would slack off when the casters get infinite gold, but up until then it would be quite strong.

[Snowbluff]

Because everyone can take the Warlock's schtick :P If you have at-will items and can craft anything. The point is the argument hold no water, because the artificer... holds no water.


And the point is that an Artificer gets somewhat more than double the amount of XP for crafting, and thus twice as much gold. Gold really is better than class features; a class whose feature was "gets triple the normal gold as a gift from the gods" would be at least tier 3. It would slack off when the casters get infinite gold, but up until then it would be quite strong.

Items plus class features is better than just class features which is better than items. Mostly because a DM can screw you on items, so it's best to plan for that happening.

[TuggyNE]

Items plus class features is better than just class features which is better than items. Mostly because a DM can screw you on items, so it's best to plan for that happening.

I guess we're just ignoring the artificer's actual class features like early spell access, infusions, craft reserve, and so on? Those are things the Warlock can't match even at level 12, and they're available basically right out of the box.

[Snowbluff]

I guess we're just ignoring the artificer's actual class features like early spell access, infusions, craft reserve, and so on? Those are things the Warlock can't match even at level 12, and they're available basically right out of the box.
Warlocks don't get the plus 2, unless they just use an item to do so. They can make anything, provided they have the feat. Which they don't normally have, of course.

Also, craft reserve is for the people who don't know to make a Thought Bottle or steal souls. eheheh

The point is that comparisons like this are ultimately pointless. The other, back in my actual context for posting what you quoted rather than the one you adopted for your agenda, is that items are better when combined with class features, like a Spellstoring Weapon, Duskblade's channel, and casting.

Also, I don't like artificer. I've never enjoyed watching someone play one in a game. Especially the warforged ones. It's tedious to watch, and the guy really should have set aside some time with the DM to handle his book keeping. Then he would proceed to lord over with his magic items, even though we really could have just bought some. Imbue Item and Item Creation should never be the keystone of a class. :smallfrown:

[Tvtyrant]

items are better when combined with class features, like a Spellstoring Weapon, Duskblade's channel, and casting.

Also, I don't like artificer. I've never enjoyed watching someone play one in a game. Especially the warforged ones. It's tedious to watch, and the guy really should have set aside some time with the DM to handle his book keeping. Then he would proceed to lord over with his magic items, even though we really could have just bought some. Imbue Item and Item Creation should never be the keystone of a class. :smallfrown:
Given items without class features and the same items with, sure. Given items with class features versus a larger pile of items, I will take the items. Power is based on effects, not sources. An Artificer gets a lot more items, and items are often themselves better than the class features are. Scroll of Wish>Duskblade channeling or fighter feats. A Spellstoring weapon is an item, so I don't see the bearing on the conversation.

I don't think the discussion is about what we like, it is about the power of items vs. class features and whether one can replace the other. They frequently can, and for cheaper than the class feature. An Artificer can also get far more replacement class features than a Duskblade has originals, which is why it is stronger.

It occurs to me that what we are debating is basically the existence of opportunity costs. The reason a Warlock isn't as good as an Artificer is it takes it 12 levels to get the effect of a couple Artificer levels, and then it does not gain either an xp pool or the bonus feats for making items.

This same issue is apparent with the Arcane Archer; you give up two levels including caster levels to do what a caster could have done for a fraction of the price in gold. A wizard loses much less just making items than losing two levels to do the same thing.

[ArqArturo]

And somewhere an Arcane Archer is crying to them self.

Unless it's the Pathfinder version. Then he's cool with it.

[Snowbluff]

Tvtyrant, Artificer is T1, but I would never play it on purpose. I'm not even arguing about the artificer. It was just an example about how bad the comparison is. :smalltongue:




This same issue is apparent with the Arcane Archer; you give up two levels including caster levels to do what a caster could have done for a fraction of the price in gold. A wizard loses much less just making items than losing two levels to do the same thing.

This is wrong. It just it. Using the arrow makes any subject spell a standard action. Benefit? Yes. Spells like Fimbulwinter are great for this. The imbued arrow can potentially be used to increase range quite a bit.

The spellstoring Arrows may not be RAW legal, and if they are, the Arcane Archer is straight up better at using them, but being able to provide her own spells and being able to produce more spells/round with it.

2 levels of lost casting is well within acceptable losses of CL, by the way. 3 is where you will have issues for sorcerers, and 4 is the point where Wizards have a permanent issue, remember?

[Tvtyrant]

Tvtyrant, Artificer is T1, but I would never play it on purpose. I'm not even arguing about the artificer. It was just an example about how bad the comparison is. :smalltongue:



This is wrong. It just it. Using the arrow makes any subject spell a standard action. Benefit? Yes. Spells like Fimbulwinter are great for this. The imbued arrow can potentially be used to increase range quite a bit.

The spellstoring Arrows may not be RAW legal, and if they are, the Arcane Archer is straight up better at using them, but being able to provide her own spells and being able to produce more spells/round with it.

2 levels of lost casting is well within acceptable losses of CL, by the way. 3 is where you will have issues for sorcerers, and 4 is the point where Wizards have a permanent issue, remember?

Assuming that shooting magic arrows is the only trick worth losing a CL for, maybe. I am also going to get my spells 2 turns later of get this trick at the tail-end of the game, and losing a heap of upper lecel spell slots for it.

I know all about the Move Earth/Control Weather/Fimbulwinter effect. It is a decent one, I just don't think it is worth delaying my casting for, especially as the time it takes for the spells to take effect is not altered. Cutting 20 minutes down to 10 is rarely going to be as useful as it sounds.

[Rubik]

them self....really?

[Snowbluff]

Assuming that shooting magic arrows is the only trick worth losing a CL for, maybe. I am also going to get my spells 2 turns later of get this trick at the tail-end of the game, and losing a heap of upper lecel spell slots for it.

I know all about the Move Earth/Control Weather/Fimbulwinter effect. It is a decent one, I just don't think it is worth delaying my casting for, especially as the time it takes for the spells to take effect is not altered. Cutting 20 minutes down to 10 is rarely going to be as useful as it sounds.

That's up to you, but an Arcane Archer doesn't not cry at spell storing ammo. Besides, elven wizards can cast 9ths at level one, if you want to be pedantic about opportunity cost.

You don't even need to use that trick. It's any spell that affects an area, and it's made a standard action with a potentially large range. There are a bunch of spells that force you into their own range, so being able to be clear of the effects is really useful.

[Twilightwyrm]

You weren't listening to what I just said.

Commoner: 1 spell 1 arrow. Has to pay for his spells on his spellstoring rounds.

AA: 2 spells 1 arrow. Can fire more with a better BaB per round. Can infuse his own rounds with spells.

I know, I was saying this mostly tongue-in-cheek. Flat out replacing the Arcane Archer's capabilities with gold would be both costly, and really not worth the effort when you could just put a couple levels in the class and get one of its best features. But the idea of casting spells from your arrows is kinda the Arcane Archer's thing, so a person doing essentially the same thing with a mound of gold, even if it isn't necessarily as well, is still kind of depressing.

[Siosilvar]

Spell Storing arrows are technically legal, but questionable in an actual game. DM might rule that they're OP - Vampiric Touch arrows, for instance, are cheaper and easier to use than a wand of the same.


Well that describes a fair deal of PrCs. I think the entire soulknife base class can be replaced by a feat.

What, Martial Weapon Proficiency?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Spell Storing arrows are technically legal, but questionable in an actual game. DM might rule that they're OP - Vampiric Touch arrows, for instance, are cheaper and easier to use than a wand of the same.



What, Martial Weapon Proficiency?

He may be thinking of ancestral relic. You have to pay cash for the weapon in that case but it's still a customizable weapon that you don't have to ask a spellcaster to make for you or help you make.

There's also that bonded weapon ACF for psychic warriors in the one WotC web article.

I like the soulknife though. :smallfrown: