can ammunitions be spell storing, and isn't that way too overpowered?

[King of Nowhere]

Spell storing weapons (look from the list here (www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm)): you can cast a spell up to 3rd level on them, and they will cast it on the enemy once they hit. They count as +1 for the pricing.
That's ok for melee weapons, since it is very impractical to recharge them in combat, so you can only use the spell once. But arrows? You can charge them on days off (I mean, you generally do not assume that the PCs ffight every single day; time passes where they are inactive, and then it will be easy for the cleric or wizard to make dozens such arrows), and then every single arrow you fire will cast a 3rd level spell. Just for start, you can use inflic serious wounds, for 3d8 of extra damage at the cost of a mere +1. But that's the least, because there are so many good save-or-suck at 3rd level or below in the cleric list; hold person, blindness, bestow curse, just off the top of my head. And there must be some spells from the wizard list that target one creature, but deal damage all around.
The real power of this is the sheer amount of attacks a good ranged character can made. At 6th level a ranger can already fire three arrows per round. So, while casting hold person on a target with good will save is most likely a waste of a round, firing 3 arrows with hold person has a pretty good chance of succeeding.

So, I was curious if there was some limitation preventing that from happening, or if it is less powerful than i believe because of reasons I'm missing, or if I really figured out one of the good combos. And then I'll need to decide if I should give those weapons to the party archer.

[Âmesang]

As far as I can tell arrows, bolts, and other ammunition are classified as "ranged weapons" for the purpose of enhancements, and spell storing isn't listed on the table for available ranged weapon enhancements; likewise, the spell storing description refers to the weapon being wielded, so if it could be applied I'd imagine it would only apply the stored-spell effect to a single unit of ammunition.

(I'm aware that ammunition can be utilized as melee weapons, but they're used as improved weapons and were probably never considered a potential target for the spell storing enhancement.)

Now if you want specifically enhanced ammunition you can use the slaying arrow and sleep arrow as a basis, which I believe are priced equivalent to a scroll… though doing so does grant it a free +1.

Urge to rewatch "Outlaw Star" rising…

[icefractal]

It's arguable.
Point: Spell Storing is on the "random melee enchantment" chart and not on the "random ranged enchantment" chart.
Counterpoint: That only definitively means you won't get a randomly generated spell-storing arrow. Some enchantments like Seeking explicitly have requirements like ranged-only, Spell Storing doesn't.

Is it broken though? Yes. Not infinite-loop broken, it doesn't make the game unplayable, but it's a lot stronger than any other enhancement for ammunition, and allows spamming large numbers of save-or-suck spells at once.

Heck, at high enough levels, I think that investing in a set of 10-15 spell storing daggers (or whatever weapon) to launch with Telekinesis is potentially worth it, and that's with paying the full 8K each.

[Telok]

We've always allowed them. The biggest issue is that you have to charge each ammo individually. Which doesn't sound like much at first, but at the levels where this is most powerful it's also the most expensive in time and relative wealth.

Each arrow is 166 gold plus the time/money for someone to enspell it. Missing, anitmagic, spell resistance, catch arrows, and such things drive up the cost in time and money.

[Tanuki Tales]

Urge to rewatch "Outlaw Star" rising…

Spellslinger (-http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/paizo---wizard-archetypes/spellslinger) sort of says hello.

[sleepyphoenixx]

We've always allowed them. The biggest issue is that you have to charge each ammo individually. Which doesn't sound like much at first, but at the levels where this is most powerful it's also the most expensive in time and relative wealth.

Each arrow is 166 gold plus the time/money for someone to enspell it. Missing, anitmagic, spell resistance, catch arrows, and such things drive up the cost in time and money.

The recharging isn't that much of an issue, if your party has some spellcasters at least. Most spellcasters will have spells remaining at the end of the day by the time you can afford spell-storing arrows.
And as the OP mentioned few campaigns have the party fight the full amount of encounters every single day.

It doesn't mean your archer will make all his attacks with spell-storing arrows, that would be a waste of gold. You don't shoot expensive ammo at mooks.
But that does mean you can store them up for big battles, and an optimized archer shooting a full attack of Poison, Shivering Touch or Combust spells at your BBEG will end even the hardest encounters in a single round, which is a problem for balance.

There's a reason it's hard to cast more than one spell/round, that Quicken is a +4 metamagic and that 3.5 Haste does not grant an extra action anymore. A reason that fiddling with the action economy is one of the most potent things you can do when building your characters. Effectively casting 5 or more spells in a round is broken, even if they're "merely" 3rd level - there's some pretty potent effects there, and spell storing casts them as if cast by the original caster, DC and all.

I do allow spell-storing arrows in my games, but i houseruled that firing them is a standard action. I'd suggest either doing the same or banning them.

[BWR]

I made the mistake of allowing people to employ multiple spellstoring arrows at once. I only made the mistake once and when someone shot off 5 Intensified Shocking Grasps, dealing 50d6 damage in addition to normal arrow damage I reduced it to using a swift action to use spellstoring, and only weapons, not ammunition, can have the enchantment.

[Morcleon]

I made the mistake of allowing people to employ multiple spellstoring arrows at once. I only made the mistake once and when someone shot off 5 Intensified Shocking Grasps, dealing 50d6 damage in addition to normal arrow damage I reduced it to using a swift action to use spellstoring, and only weapons, not ammunition, can have the enchantment.

An intensified Shocking Grasp is an 8th level spell and thus cannot be stored in a spell storing weapon. Furthermore, if they're getting access to Intensify Spell, they either shouldn't (if they aren't epic level) or it's not an issue (300 damage isn't all that much at epic levels).

[sleepyphoenixx]

An intensified Shocking Grasp is an 8th level spell and thus cannot be stored in a spell storing weapon. Furthermore, if they're getting access to Intensify Spell, they either shouldn't (if they aren't epic level) or it's not an issue (300 damage isn't all that much at epic levels).

Not quite. An intensified Shocking Grasp is a first level spell in an 8th level slot. See the rules on metamagic feats for reference:

Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.
It's true that Intensify Spell is an epic feat though, and the requirements mean you don't get early access even with DWK or similar shenanigans. By the time you have 30 ranks in spellcraft 300 damage that has an attack roll and comes in easily resisted chunks isn't all that impressive.

That doesn't change the general validity of the argument though. Just replace the intensified Shocking Grasp with maximized Poison or Shivering Touch. Have your party casters prepare just one per day and pool some money for a rod of maximize, if they don't have free metamagic of their own (DMM, Incantatrix, ...).
If your monster isn't immune taking 5 or more of those in a single round will drop it, even if it's a really high CR fight.

[BWR]

An intensified Shocking Grasp is an 8th level spell and thus cannot be stored in a spell storing weapon. Furthermore, if they're getting access to Intensify Spell, they either shouldn't (if they aren't epic level) or it's not an issue (300 damage isn't all that much at epic levels).

Intensified Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic)

[Segev]

The reason people tend to want to rule against spell-storing ammunition is simply that the little things tend to allow a ton more spells per round to be triggered than normal, and the spellcaster can prep them days in advance, so it doesn't even bite into the spellcaster's daily allotment.

Whether 167 gp per shot is sufficient counterweight to this tactic should be considered. It's certainly cheaper than equivalent potions, but potions are, admittedly, really overpriced. It is also cheaper than a charge from a wand of a 3rd level spell, however, which should be pretty telling.

Because it encourages synnergy between a caster and a warrior, I tend to be more forgiving of this, though yes, gishes can do it themselves.

[Morcleon]

Intensified Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic)

Oh, you should have mentioned that it was PF. I was thinking of this one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#intensifySpell). :smalltongue:

[King of Nowhere]

First of all, why the 167 gp per arrow? If I remember correctly the rules, magical ammunitions have 1/50th of the cost of a normal weapon, and a +1 weapon is 2000 gp, so it would be 40 gp per arrow. If we apply the rule that magical arrows, like any other weapon, should still be at least +1 in addition of any other property, that would raise the price to 4000 gp, so 80 gp per arrow.

Anyway, I think a good way to keep balance would be to say that they interfere with each other and either allow only one of them per round (while making the rest of the attacks with regular arrows) or only one of them per round per target, which would allow using multiple spell storing arrows, but on different targets, and so would strongly reduce their effectiveness against one single though opponent.
Also, no metamagic applied.

But I still would rather introduce them because the party archer is lagging way behind in power from the party barbarian, and the divine casters are still too low level to do much damage and so they took mostly a supporting role; giving a synergy to the archer and the divine casters to make both more effective should help balance the party.

Oh, by the way, if you store a cure serious wound in them, you could lightly stab yourself (dealing exactly 1 damage; it's the kind of thing I'd allow because it makes sense) and they would work as healing potions, but at a fraction of the cost. So, I'll need to either nerf that, or make potions much cheaper, or something to explain why people still use potions. because that's the kind of trick that, once discovered, will soon become common knowledge, and I don't want everyone in my world carrying healing arrows instead of potions. maybe i can just say that stabbing yourself lightly is a full round action, and if you want to do it fast instead you'll have to take full damage from the arrow, which will reduce the effectiveness compared to a potion.

[Âmesang]

As far as I can tell spell slot = spell level for the purpose of item creation costs and limitations (but spell level != spell slot).


Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat).

While item creation costs are handled in detail elsewhere, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. For example, a 15th-level wizard could craft a wand of fireball at 10th caster level, or even as low as 5th level (the minimum caster level for fireball, a 3rd-level spell), but no lower. If she did this, the fireball would in all ways be treated as if the caster was of the lower specified level (for damage, range, and so on). Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal. For example, a caster could heighten a spell's level to increase its effectiveness, or quicken a spell to allow it to be used as a free action, placing it within an item at the higher metamagic level.
Now, my intent was to use the circlets of blasting as a reference since the major circlet is maximized:
Minor circlet of blasting = CL 6 × SL 3 × 1,800 gp ÷ (5÷1 use per day) = 6,480 gp
Major circlet of blasting = CL 11 × SL 6 × 1,800 gp ÷ (5÷1 use per day) = 23,760 gp

…however both the book and the SRD label the major circlet with a CL of 17. :smalltongue: Then again, both the book and the SRD list a potion of protection from arrows (15/magic) on the table of potions (major #82), even though the spell no longer goes up that high. Did Wizards hire any editors?

EDIT: I think the price of the arrow, 167 gp, was derived from 50 +1 spell storing arrows costing 8,350 gp (which is still incorrect since a single arrow doesn't cost 1 gp, so it should be 8,302 gp, 5 sp for 50 arrows, or 166 gp, 5 cp for a single arrow.

EDIT II: Ninja'd? :smallfrown:

[BWR]

+2 is 8000 gp, not 4000, and the ammunition has to be masterwork (300 gp).
Ammunition is usually sold in groups of 50, each with the same cost as a single weapon - the 1/50th cost you are thinking of is per unit.
So 8301/50 is 166.02 gp per arrow

[ahenobarbi]

They can. Whether or not it's overpowered depends on the baseline you are comparing it to.

On one hand it makes archers much more powerful (increasing their damage significantly, or letting them apply multiple negative effects per round), they are more cost effective than analogical simple enhancements (but need to be charged individually).

On the other hand archers are pretty weak, arrows are very expensive at low levels (166.02 gp a piece, not counting cost of actually putting some spell in there) (and their power stops increasing at levels where they are affordable), and they don't mix with some of the best options of archery (Hanks Energy Bow).

All in all I'd allow them (unless the group generally plays at low level of optimization and ti's just one player who wants something significantly stronger than others) for use with archery.

However they are rather broken if used as a melee weapons. Then for 166.02 gp you get an item into which casters can put a buff, which then anyone can use on themself, dealing 1 damage, and casting the buff (not using up the item in the process). That is too good for most games.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Oh, by the way, if you store a cure serious wound in them, you could lightly stab yourself (dealing exactly 1 damage; it's the kind of thing I'd allow because it makes sense) and they would work as healing potions, but at a fraction of the cost. So, I'll need to either nerf that, or make potions much cheaper, or something to explain why people still use potions. because that's the kind of trick that, once discovered, will soon become common knowledge, and I don't want everyone in my world carrying healing arrows instead of potions. maybe i can just say that stabbing yourself lightly is a full round action, and if you want to do it fast instead you'll have to take full damage from the arrow, which will reduce the effectiveness compared to a potion.

You could just use smaller arrows. Or small shuriken, which only ever do 1 damage.
I don't think it's too much of a problem. The standard for healing items isn't (shouldn't be) potions. It's a wand of CLW or Lesser Vigor.

There's also the fact that you have to calculate all the costs. The price of a spell-storing arrow (~166gp) and the price for a caster to cast the spell into it (10gp for a CL 1 CLW).
That's more than 3 times the price of a potion of CLW. It gets better at ~226gp vs 300gp for CMW (arrow vs potion) and ~316gp vs 750gp for CSW which sounds pretty reasonable to me, because nobody actually uses healing potions unless they don't know any better.

The far bigger impact will be that you can draw ammunition as a free action (vs a move action for a potion) and use it as part of a full attack (vs a standard action that provokes AoO). Again not too much of a problem imo - battle healing is inefficient enough as it is. Lessening the impact to only part of a melee characters actions instead of a full turn doesn't sound too bad to me, and spellcasters will still lose the chance to cast a spell when they use one.

The same applies to low-level buffs. As it is low-duration buffs are generally shunned unless you have some free persist shenanigans, because sacrificing your entire first combat turn to buff is a bad idea in most situations.
Giving up part of your attack (and gold) for a chance to apply such a buff sounds like a more reasonable trade off to me that might actually see those spells used more.


As far as I can tell spell slot = spell level for the purpose of item creation costs and limitations (but spell level != spell slot).

Casting a spell into a spell-storing weapon isn't item creation though.
It's a reasonable houserule to take the metamagic adjustment into account, but by RAW it doesn't matter. A maximized 3rd level spell is still a 3rd level spell. There's also still the problem of free/reduced metamagic costs like DMM. You can houserule that too to use the non-reduced level, but that's all it is - a houserule.

[Segev]

However they are rather broken if used as a melee weapons. Then for 166.02 gp you get an item into which casters can put a buff, which then anyone can use on themself, dealing 1 damage, and casting the buff (not using up the item in the process). That is too good for most games.

As another poster said, shuriken are better. You can two-hand and rapid-shot them and they do 1 hp each, so you can fling out a lot of buffs all at once on your first round of combat.

[khadgar567]

I think i found some thing broken spell storing enchant to make fireball shurikens just need way to throw multiple of them

[Segev]

I think i found some thing broken spell storing enchant to make fireball shurikens just need way to throw multiple of them

Not a valid spell for spell storing; spell storing requires that the spell effect be single target or touch.

I find combust from the Spell Compendium to be a better spell for abusing massive damage. 10d8 fire to the target, no save. (The save lets them avoid catching on fire and taking more damage later!)

[King of Nowhere]

You could just use smaller arrows. Or small shuriken, which only ever do 1 damage.
I don't think it's too much of a problem. The standard for healing items isn't (shouldn't be) potions. It's a wand of CLW or Lesser Vigor.

[...] nobody actually uses healing potions unless they don't know any better.



They don't? Well, I never do, but I assumed it was just a self-inflicted difficulty thing for me (since my only real experience at powergaming comes from videogames). yeah, I get that at high levels spending a round to heal no more than 30 hp is a total waste of an action. and potions of healing, often found in videogames, don't exist cause potions are limited at 3rd level.

well, I understand that such a strategy is just one powerful combo among many others, so for experienced players is nothing strange. but it does introduce difficulties for me, since all my party is very inexperienced, with one player much more experienced than others, and so I must be careful at making them discover tactics with too much potential. Well, I'll have to consider it. thanks everyone for the info.
By the way, thinking about it, I already created a scene where an npc loaded potions into syringes and injected several of them in one round, so for continuity I should allow using such tricks. Though I'm sure none of the players remember it, so I may just as easily forbid.



There's also the fact that you have to calculate all the costs. The price of a spell-storing arrow (~166gp) and the price for a caster to cast the spell into it (10gp for a CL 1 CLW).
That's more than 3 times the price of a potion of CLW. It gets better at ~226gp vs 300gp for CMW (arrow vs potion) and ~316gp vs 750gp for CSW which sounds pretty reasonable to me, because


I assume the party cleric can fill the ammunition with the healing spell, so the only cost is the ammunition. but yeah, when you put it that way, considering action economy, it doesn't sound broken, just a way to make viable something that otherwise would be useless.

[Deadline]

Don't forget that ammunition is incredibly fragile. Any ammunition that hits its target is destroyed, and any that miss have a chance of being destroyed. So you won't be re-using them unless they miss.

[sleepyphoenixx]

They don't? Well, I never do, but I assumed it was just a self-inflicted difficulty thing for me (since my only real experience at powergaming comes from videogames). yeah, I get that at high levels spending a round to heal no more than 30 hp is a total waste of an action. and potions of healing, often found in videogames, don't exist cause potions are limited at 3rd level.

I assume the party cleric can fill the ammunition with the healing spell, so the only cost is the ammunition. but yeah, when you put it that way, considering action economy, it doesn't sound broken, just a way to make viable something that otherwise would be useless.

It's common wisdom that healing in combat is a trap option.
Compare healing spells to how much average damage monsters do and you'll see that a healer can't even keep up with a single attacker of equal level unless he's casting Heal. So you're not even negating the damage, you're just delaying and letting the enemy continue killing you without opposition.
The only reason to heal in combat is if you're going to die otherwise, and for that you want Heal or something similar that heals a big burst, and potions don't do that by the time you can afford them. You're better off spending that money on things that will keep you from being damaged in the first place.

It's far more effective to kill or disable enemies to prevent the damage in the first place and then heal once combat is over, especially considering that many control spells are AoE or multi-target while most heals are single-target (and the multi-target ones are even weaker).
And once you're out of combat there's no reason to drink an expensive potion when you can get the same out of a few uses of a CLW wand.
It doesn't matter if it takes a few rounds, since out of combat a round really isn't that much time. If you use Lesser Vigor instead you still only need one action and can let your HP tick up while you move on.

As for the cleric casting the spells, sure that works (if your party has one and he has spells left at the end of the day). But for comparison using market values is more accurate imo.


Don't forget that ammunition is incredibly fragile. Any ammunition that hits its target is destroyed, and any that miss have a chance of being destroyed. So you won't be re-using them unless they miss.
That's not really a drawback, because that's what the 1/50 price decrease is for. And it's significantly cheaper for a one-shot 3rd level spell than other options, especially if your party has casters to fill them during downtime.
One the other hand they do add the difficulty of needing a separate (non-touch) attack roll to affect enemies, which should also be a balancing factor.

[ahenobarbi]

You could just use smaller arrows. Or small shuriken, which only ever do 1 damage.
I don't think it's too much of a problem. The standard for healing items isn't (shouldn't be) potions. It's a wand of CLW or Lesser Vigor.

There's also the fact that you have to calculate all the costs. The price of a spell-storing arrow (~166gp) and the price for a caster to cast the spell into it (10gp for a CL 1 CLW).
That's more than 3 times the price of a potion of CLW. It gets better at ~226gp vs 300gp for CMW (arrow vs potion) and ~316gp vs 750gp for CSW which sounds pretty reasonable to me, because nobody actually uses healing potions unless they don't know any better.

The far bigger impact will be that you can draw ammunition as a free action (vs a move action for a potion) and use it as part of a full attack (vs a standard action that provokes AoO). Again not too much of a problem imo - battle healing is inefficient enough as it is. Lessening the impact to only part of a melee characters actions instead of a full turn doesn't sound too bad to me, and spellcasters will still lose the chance to cast a spell when they use one.

The same applies to low-level buffs. As it is low-duration buffs are generally shunned unless you have some free persist shenanigans, because sacrificing your entire first combat turn to buff is a bad idea in most situations.
Giving up part of your attack (and gold) for a chance to apply such a buff sounds like a more reasonable trade off to me that might actually see those spells used more.

I feel convinced that at least in theory allowing this should be ok

[sleepyphoenixx]

I feel convinced that at least in theory allowing this should be ok

Eh, it's not like it has to be permanent. Tell your players what you're considering, then run a short campaign with it to see how it works in practice for your group. After that you can decide if you want to keep it or not.
There's so much divergence in optimization levels between different tables that you're generally better off just trying it for yourself.

[Âmesang]

Is anyone else picturing a high-level cleric trained in Profession (cook) preparing fried chickens of heal? :smallcool:

[Segev]

Is anyone else picturing a high-level cleric trained in Profession (cook) preparing fried chickens of heal? :smallcool:

Probably holds the rank of Colonel in an army of some Southern kingdom.

[Telok]

They can. Whether or not it's overpowered depends on the baseline you are comparing it to.

Pretty much this.

If a cleric True Strikeing three arrows at a time for +15+2d6 damage every other round all day every day for no more cost than a +2 composite bow, a first level wand, and a couple buffs is over powered then spell storing arrows are probably overpowered. On the other hand if miss chance, Wind Wall, Friendly Fire, at-will Dispell Magic, Spell Resistance, and Energy Resistance or status effect immunity occur regularly in your game then they probably aren't overpowered.

[Segev]

Remember that the arrows are 166.02 gp per shot. That's not a lot at higher level, but it's enough that it's never "free."

[Necroticplague]

Though use of the Arrowsplit spell and Splitting bows can increase efficiency.

[denthor]

First of all, why the 167 gp per arrow? If I remember correctly the rules, magical ammunitions have 1/50th of the cost of a normal weapon, and a +1 weapon is 2000 gp, so it would be 40 gp per arrow. If we apply the rule that magical arrows, like any other weapon, should still be at least +1 in addition of any other property, that would raise the price to 4000 gp, so 80 gp per arrow.

Anyway, I think a good way to keep balance would be to say that they interfere with each other and either allow only one of them per round (while making the rest of the attacks with regular arrows) or only one of them per round per target, which would allow using multiple spell storing arrows, but on different targets, and so would strongly reduce their effectiveness against one single though opponent.
Also, no metamagic applied.

But I still would rather introduce them because the party archer is lagging way behind in power from the party barbarian, and the divine casters are still too low level to do much damage and so they took mostly a supporting role; giving a synergy to the archer and the divine casters to make both more effective should help balance the party.

Oh, by the way, if you store a cure serious wound in them, you could lightly stab yourself (dealing exactly 1 damage; it's the kind of thing I'd allow because it makes sense) and they would work as healing potions, but at a fraction of the cost. So, I'll need to either nerf that, or make potions much cheaper, or something to explain why people still use potions. because that's the kind of trick that, once discovered, will soon become common knowledge, and I don't want everyone in my world carrying healing arrows instead of potions. maybe i can just say that stabbing yourself lightly is a full round action, and if you want to do it fast instead you'll have to take full damage from the arrow, which will reduce the effectiveness compared to a potion.

Not to be picky but they have to be mastercrafted first ad well that adds 300 to the cost then +1 and a second +1 with a 50/50 RAW of getting any arrow launched back. Plus time to recover could set you back bring scavenger's and a second battle.

[Segev]

Though use of the Arrowsplit spell and Splitting bows can increase efficiency.

I could be misremembering, but I thought there was a rule that prevented splitting type effects from doubling the magical properties of such arrows.

[khadgar567]

I could be misremembering, but I thought there was a rule that prevented splitting type effects from doubling the magical properties of such arrows.
still steal forge has autoloader item which gives infinite ammo( okay 30 bolts limit but it regens enough that you can go all day and it mimics the bolt enchantments every time ) so its no problem to break wbl just pay 162gp and you have constant access to spell you want

[Necroticplague]

I could be misremembering, but I thought there was a rule that prevented splitting type effects from doubling the magical properties of such arrows.

Nope. Splitting specifically says this on the matter:

Both missiles are identical, sharing the nonsplitting properties of the original missile; for example, a +1 splitting arrow splits into two +1 arrows in mid-flight.

Arrowsplit isn't quite as explicit on the subject, but it similarly says the arrows are identical.

[Segev]

Nope. Splitting specifically says this on the matter:


Arrowsplit isn't quite as explicit on the subject, but it similarly says the arrows are identical.

Ah, nice. Okay then, that does help with efficiency, as long as you want to apply the same effect twice! (Healing would be good with that.)