Correct me if I am wrong...

[ZhanStrider]

The spell "Threesteel" destroys a weapon, and magically makes 3 exact copies that all fly out and make one attack at a designated target.
"Extra damage from class features like sneak attack or smite evil" also apply.
If I use a weapon like a Holy Weapon, would all three duplicates deal +2d6 holy damage?

[Aegis013]

Yes. The only difference between the original and three duplicates is if it didn't have an enhancement bonus, it gains a +1. The duplicates have all the same properties as the original otherwise.

[ZhanStrider]

Yes. The only difference between the original and three duplicates is if it didn't have an enhancement bonus, it gains a +1. The duplicates have all the same properties as the original otherwise.

So if I have a Spell Storing weapon with "vampiric touch" at caster level 10 in it, I could destroy it and do 30d6?

[Twilightwyrm]

So if I have a Spell Storing weapon with "vampiric touch" at caster level 10 in it, I could destroy it and do 30d6?

In theory that could work, and is actually a pretty cool trick. However, due to the dramatic potential for abuse, a cautious DM might rule that the spell duplicates the enchantments, not the spell itself, so one would have a Vampire Touch and the other two would be blank. I'm thinking to prevent multi-death arrows, abuse of a Luck Blade's wishes (granted, not entirely sure if this would work), abuse of Intelligent item's 1/day powers, stuff like this.

[Fouredged Sword]

Keep in mind, there is a once per standard action rule that applies to sneak attack. You may apply sneak attack once per attack roll on a full round action, but for any effect that attacks multiple times with a standard action, your sneak attack only applies to the first hit (not the first miss though, the first attack that actually does damage).

[Blackhawk748]

In theory that could work, and is actually a pretty cool trick. However, due to the dramatic potential for abuse, a cautious DM might rule that the spell duplicates the enchantments, not the spell itself, so one would have a Vampire Touch and the other two would be blank. I'm thinking to prevent multi-death arrows, abuse of a Luck Blade's wishes (granted, not entirely sure if this would work), abuse of Intelligent item's 1/day powers, stuff like this.

Remember you are destroying the weapon, so this particular trick is not spammable. Its cool and kinda fun for an "Oh god we are gonna DIE" moment, but its not something that can be done on a day to day basis.

[ZhanStrider]

Remember you are destroying the weapon, so this particular trick is not spammable. Its cool and kinda fun for an "Oh god we are gonna DIE" moment, but its not something that can be done on a day to day basis.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Unless you have infinite gold.

[Zakerst]

Keep in mind, there is a once per standard action rule that applies to sneak attack. You may apply sneak attack once per attack roll on a full round action, but for any effect that attacks multiple times with a standard action, your sneak attack only applies to the first hit (not the first miss though, the first attack that actually does damage).

I'm not sure where that ruling is and I'm away from my books right now could you tell me what book/page it's on so I can show it later as I'm sure I'll come up soon with my group

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not sure where that ruling is and I'm away from my books right now could you tell me what book/page it's on so I can show it later as I'm sure I'll come up soon with my group
Rules Compendium. Under Precision Damage, I believe.

[Willie the Duck]

The spell "Threesteel" destroys a weapon, and magically makes 3 exact copies that all fly out and make one attack at a designated target.
"Extra damage from class features like sneak attack or smite evil" also apply.
If I use a weapon like a Holy Weapon, would all three duplicates deal +2d6 holy damage?

Where is the spell from? I'm wondering about the wording...

[nyjastul69]

Rules Compendium. Under Precision Damage, I believe.

This correct. RC page 42.

[Jack_Simth]

Where is the spell from? I'm wondering about the wording...
Dragons of Faerun, page 119. Very far from the most broken spell out there. A large greatsword only deals 3d6, and while yes, it does duplicate the enchantments... both the old and the new weapons are destroyed in the casting. It does say sneak attack on each, incidentally. The wording is "Each duplicate that hits deals damage as if you had struck the target with the weapon in melee (including any special effects such as bane, smite evil, critical hits, sneak attack, Weapon Focus, and so on). Your strength bonus does not apply, since the force of the weapon comes from the spell, not your own strength"

[Abithrios]

Keep in mind, there is a once per standard action rule that applies to sneak attack. You may apply sneak attack once per attack roll on a full round action, but for any effect that attacks multiple times with a standard action, your sneak attack only applies to the first hit (not the first miss though, the first attack that actually does damage).

So it would still work if you make it some other type of action?

[ZhanStrider]

Remember you are destroying the weapon, so this particular trick is not spammable. Its cool and kinda fun for an "Oh god we are gonna DIE" moment, but its not something that can be done on a day to day basis.

Jade Pheonix Mage can make the spell amazing.
Arcane Wrath for a 3rd level spell and cast Threesteel on a SpellStoring weapon with Vampiric touch in it.

9d10+30d6+weapon damage.

[Jack_Simth]

Jade Pheonix Mage can make the spell amazing.
Arcane Wrath for a 3rd level spell and cast Threesteel on a SpellStoring weapon with Vampiric touch in it.

9d10+30d6+weapon damage.

Note, however, that your basic +1 Spell Storing weapon costs 8k in enchantments, and takes a little over a week to make.

You're generally not going to be casting it in that manner very often.

[Amphetryon]

Note, however, that your basic +1 Spell Storing weapon costs 8k in enchantments, and takes a little over a week to make.

You're generally not going to be casting it in that manner very often.

"Hello, Artie's Artificer Emporium? I have this project for you. . . ." (Might be somewhat more viable if there is an Artificer in the party, but only 'somewhat more' viable).

[Cruiser1]

Remember you are destroying the weapon, so this particular trick is not spammable. Its cool and kinda fun for an "Oh god we are gonna DIE" moment, but its not something that can be done on a day to day basis.
It's a great way to guaranteed destroy a powerful magic weapon though, such as that evil epic intelligent weapon the party is trying to get rid of (as long as it's not an artifact).

If you want to keep the weapon, cast Threesteel on a copy of the weapon produced through Astral Projection. (Of course, there the broken spell isn't Threesteel, but Astral Projection.)

[ZhanStrider]

Note, however, that your basic +1 Spell Storing weapon costs 8k in enchantments, and takes a little over a week to make.

You're generally not going to be casting it in that manner very often.

My DM has reworked prices, thank the gods. A spell storing weapon is only going to cost me 3,000 :D

[Fouredged Sword]

Or just have a truenamer fix the item using truenaming.

[Blackhawk748]

Or just have a truenamer fix the item using truenaming.

You jest but this is a legit option.

[Willie the Duck]

Note, however, that your basic +1 Spell Storing weapon costs 8k in enchantments, and takes a little over a week to make.

You're generally not going to be casting it in that manner very often.

True, but there are different types of cheese in the game. There's things that are just universally awesome and you use all the time, and then there are things you can do, and thus constrain your DM's options. If you have a +1 spellstoring big weapon with vampiric touch cast on it, plus a scroll of threesteel, and keep them in your heward's haversack or where-ever, your DM is going to know that you have them and will use them when s*** gets real. 30D6 is not insurmountable, nor is it guaranteed. It will, however, shift the DM away from choices that use simple good saves and hp to survive your attacks, and more towards immunity to attacks or miss chances.


My DM has reworked prices, thank the gods. A spell storing weapon is only going to cost me 3,000 :D

Well then, they are either opening themselves up to more abuse than just this (at $3k per, having a sleeve of vampiric touch stored throwing daggers is reasonable), or they are prepared to squash abuse when they see it.

[ZhanStrider]

True, but there are different types of cheese in the game. There's things that are just universally awesome and you use all the time, and then there are things you can do, and thus constrain your DM's options. If you have a +1 spellstoring big weapon with vampiric touch cast on it, plus a scroll of threesteel, and keep them in your heward's haversack or where-ever, your DM is going to know that you have them and will use them when s*** gets real. 30D6 is not insurmountable, nor is it guaranteed. It will, however, shift the DM away from choices that use simple good saves and hp to survive your attacks, and more towards immunity to attacks or miss chances.



Well then, they are either opening themselves up to more abuse than just this (at $3k per, having a sleeve of vampiric touch stored throwing daggers is reasonable), or they are prepared to squash abuse when they see it.

This is a DM with a villain who has infinite Fireball and let our resident Sorcerer Permanency the "Friendly Fire" spell on himself.

[Abithrios]

What level spell is it? Does its power depend strongly on the DC, caster level, BAB, etc. of the wielder?

Come to think of it, is the spell usable on shuriken or other weapons priced as ammunition?


Or just have a truenamer fix the item using truenaming.

For best results, combine this with with pathfinder crafting rules so that the truenamer can make the weapons for themself and only needs to buy the means of casting (a truenamer is probably going to have a high enough spellcraft to ignore any prerequisites that can be ignored). If you still allow 3.5 crafting cost reducers (I am pretty sure I have heard of such things, even if I can't name them off the top of my head), this might even be something useful for the truenamer to during combat, possibly even in a level appropriate way. Keep in mind that the truenamer has to fix the weapon right away.



True, but there are different types of cheese in the game. There's things that are just universally awesome and you use all the time, and then there are things you can do, and thus constrain your DM's options. If you have a +1 spellstoring big weapon with vampiric touch cast on it, plus a scroll of threesteel, and keep them in your heward's haversack or where-ever, your DM is going to know that you have them and will use them when s*** gets real. 30D6 is not insurmountable, nor is it guaranteed. It will, however, shift the DM away from choices that use simple good saves and hp to survive your attacks, and more towards immunity to attacks or miss chances.



Alternatively, the DM may feel more free making an encounter in which stuff gets real. Without it, they run the risk of wiping the party. With it, they may force the party to burn their precious last resort tool to deal with an enemy normally beyond their power to handle. If done right, the players might end up high fiving each other at their narrow victory despite overwhelming odds.

In other words, if the party gets their hands on a single nuke, the DM can nuke-proof all the enemies or can send an enemy that takes a nuke to defeat.

Which option is better and whether or not it can be done well depend on many different factors, but letting the players hide an ace up their collective sleeve is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Telok]

Note, however, that your basic +1 Spell Storing weapon costs 8k in enchantments, and takes a little over a week to make.

You're generally not going to be casting it in that manner very often.

Shuriken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#shuriken), 8000/50 = 160 each. Although that is DM dependent.

[ZhanStrider]

Shuriken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#shuriken), 8000/50 = 160 each. Although that is DM dependent.

Could you explain further?

[Blackhawk748]

Could you explain further?

Shuriken are generally enchanted as if they where ammo, Meaning they are enchanted in groups of 20.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Rules Compendium. Under Precision Damage, I believe.Which, fortunately for rogues everywhere, has no actual bearing on anything, since it's overridden via the primary source rules.

[ksbsnowowl]

Which, fortunately for rogues everywhere, has no actual bearing on anything, since it's overridden via the primary source rules.

It is also covered in Complete Arcane, in the section on weapon-like spells.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It is also covered in Complete Arcane, in the section on weapon-like spells.Same thing there.

[Willie the Duck]

Which, fortunately for rogues everywhere, has no actual bearing on anything, since it's overridden via the primary source rules.

Good god, we already have a thread dedicated to this truly annoying conflict active here on GitP, there is no reason to drag it into every other thread in the 3.5 section.

[nyjastul69]

Which, fortunately for rogues everywhere, has no actual bearing on anything, since it's overridden via the primary source rules.

How so? Where is the disagreement?

[Amphetryon]

How so? Where is the disagreement?

The rules in the RC are different than the rules in the PHb. The argument goes that, since the Premium PHb was released after the RC, anything within the RC which is contradicted by rules within the Premium PHb is considered no longer valid. See your DM - or your own best judgment - for how it works in your campaign world.

[Fouredged Sword]

How so? Where is the disagreement?

3.5 has the weirdest way to deal with rule contradictions. You are supposed to take Specific over general then earlier over later. It works well in some situations. The PHB contradicts Frostburn about exposure rules. The PHB is earlier, but Frostburn is specifically about cold weather, so it wins out. The problem is that you have books like the rules compendium. It is a book that deals in rules and contradicts a ton of earlier books. Do we consider the Rules Compendium to be the most specific book about rules in general? If so, it overwrites a ton of rules. If not, the book is fairly useless as half of it is false.

In general, most rule systems function Specific trumps General, Later trumps Earlier. This allows the creators to issue corrections to the game functions later if things don't balance the way they intended. Many also include explicit statements of what subjects a book is to be considered the primary rules source for.

[P.F.]

3.5 has the weirdest way to deal with rule contradictions. You are supposed to take Specific over general then earlier over later. It works well in some situations. The PHB contradicts Frostburn about exposure rules. The PHB is earlier, but Frostburn is specifically about cold weather, so it wins out. The problem is that you have books like the rules compendium. It is a book that deals in rules and contradicts a ton of earlier books. Do we consider the Rules Compendium to be the most specific book about rules in general? If so, it overwrites a ton of rules. If not, the book is fairly useless as half of it is false.

In general, most rule systems function Specific trumps General, Later trumps Earlier. This allows the creators to issue corrections to the game functions later if things don't balance the way they intended. Many also include explicit statements of what subjects a book is to be considered the primary rules source for.

The D&D 3.5 rules do follow Later trumps Earlier, but in a very specific way. The Law of Rules Primacy goes like this: Specific trumps General; Primary trumps Secondary; Subsequent trumps Prior. Generally speaking, the Core Rulebooks are Primary General sources (and have a listed heirarchy of which has Primacy in regards to the others), and the splatsource books are Secondary Specific. In cases where a Secondary Source changes a Specific rule from an earlier Secondary Source, the more recent of the two is the "official" version. Similarly, the rules in the updated PHBv3.5 replace the Prior PHB, which had previously been the Primary source.

Most of the confusion seems to arise from the camp of rules-interpreters which consider Secondary Sourcebooks as Primary Sources for Specific Things. This leads to the erroneous belief that the first book in which some Thing is introduced can be considered the Primary Source for that Specific Thing, and all Subsequent Sources are Secondary. While on the surface this is similar to the situation with, say, the PHB and the PHBII (the first is Primary and Prior, the latter is Secondary and Subsequent, thus the Prior takes precedence over the Subsequent), the intent was never to have "Prior trumps Specific" in cases of conflicting rules which are both from Secondary Sources.

Some further confusion regarding the Rules Compendium arises from the fact that it was intended to be the Subsequent Primary General Rulebook replacing the rules from the Prior Primary General Core Rulebooks ... but it was superceded by a Subsequent printing of the Primary General Core Rulebooks with the same rules as the Prior Core Rulebooks had had, thus trumping all Prior changes in the Rules Compendium.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not going to comment. I'm not going to come down on a side. I just want to say that it is a thing upon which the whole of the community is never going to agree on, so let's not derail every other thread on this board over this ancient pissing contest with it, and get back to the nuances of this spell.

OP, what is your DM's new rule that makes a +1 spell-storing weapon only cost 3k? What else might we be adding to this equation and at what price?

[ZhanStrider]

I'm not going to comment. I'm not going to come down on a side. I just want to say that it is a thing upon which the whole of the community is never going to agree on, so let's not derail every other thread on this board over this ancient pissing contest with it, and get back to the nuances of this spell.

OP, what is your DM's new rule that makes a +1 spell-storing weapon only cost 3k? What else might we be adding to this equation and at what price?

DM rule that you can have enchantments without having +X on the weapon.

[Snowbluff]

Has someone cheesed it with the morphing shuriken? :smalltongue: