Bloodstone enchantment + spell storing

[j_spencer93]

For a build for a player, someone recommended the bloodstone with spell storing...however after reading the prior i am not sure that works.

"A bloodstone weapon can store no more than one such spell at any time, and it cannot store a spell other than vampiric touch."

This seems, to me, to clearly say a bloodstone weapon (any weapon enchanted with bloodstone) can hold only one spell at any time and that spell has to be vampiric touch. Ok...spell storing would make it hold two, would it not, breaking the rules for the first enchainment.

[Extra Anchovies]

Hm. This is tricky. Also, is it known whether a spell storing weapon can release its spell on the same hit as a Duskblade's channeled spell? If all three of these stack, that's some serious burst-damage potential.

[drack]

Indeed, an age old question with no real answer. tends to depend on the gm. :smallbiggrin:

[j_spencer93]

Well as DM i read it as not being able to possess another spell in the blade. To answer this first I must ask, is their a way to;

Put a second spell into a bloodstone weapon (ignoring the restriction). Like how would you put a second spell into it, the only thing that comes to mind is spell storing and the duskblade/RB abilities.

[drack]

I suppose there are things like the spellstaff druid spell which stores a spell in it, but that doesn't discharge on a hit so it's a different ballpark. i think the only way to bypass it is for the GM to interpret any effect that could potentially bypass it (like the above) to work. it all does come down to interpretation though which is one of the GMs most powerful tools with which to balance the game. :smallsmile:

[j_spencer93]

well i think RAW then no spellstoring or spells saying they do "store spells" into it would work.

[drack]

Well if you're going RAW raw, then

"A bloodstone weapon can store no more than one such spell at any time"
any such spell is any other spell through the enchantment

" and it cannot store a spell other than vampiric touch."
Means by Raw you might be able to get away with it. :smallconfused: (I say might because I'm not a rules lawyer and the interpretation of "such" is by necessity RAI else it's too vague to really rule either way)

Also since that would still be on the fence a bit I'd mention that the duskblade ability
"Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. "
does not state that it stores the spell in the weapon so regardless of how the above raw goes duskblade and it together would fly. :smallconfused: I'm more of an RAI kind of person, lets me customize the rules to the power level of my game. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: but yes, by raw spells like spellstaff would also fail on it. :smallsmile:

[j_spencer93]

Wow i even copied and pasted that and missed the "such" part lol. Although it seems redundant wording. I may allow it, don't really see a way for it to become game breaking so "no harm, no foul".

[drack]

Yup, seems my eyes haven't gone bad yet... :smallbiggrin:

Anywho as I said the "such" could be interpreted either way. *shrugs* Back to being in your court and your call. :smallbiggrin:

Personally I'd feel the same way as a GM. It makes for an extra little trick for a character type that could probably use it. That said that's allot of dice if they use it right. :smallsmile: