PDA

View Full Version : Spells on arrows



Randal Flagg
2007-09-24, 06:13 AM
I'm doing a rouge/wizard/ unseen seer build and want to use a bow/xbow.
Now, I would like to know, if there are any spells or feats, which let you place "damage spells" or utility spells (silence/darkness) on arrows.

What I'm looking for is a character, who has an arrow for every situation. This means, the spell enhanced arrows need to have an duration longer than a few rounds.

I am looking for feats or spells, NOT special abilities tied to a specific PrC, Like Arcane Archer...etc.

All official WoTC material(books) allowed (minus dragon magazine)

--------------
This is NOT a min/max build, I just want to use a ranged weapon, as it fits my background story. AND as we rarely advance above level 12 or so, it should be doable around level 8.

Any advise will help.

Jimbob
2007-09-24, 06:18 AM
Spell storing bolts - 8000gp for 50 bolts, put near enough what ever spell yuo want, up to 3rd level I think or is it forth, please correct me if im wrong. Then go nuts with spells:smallwink:

Angelmaker
2007-09-24, 06:22 AM
Arcane Archer comes to mind. Other than that there are spells that enchant weapons or 50pieces of arrows with bonuses.

Randal Flagg
2007-09-24, 06:54 AM
Spell storing bolts - 8000gp for 50 bolts, put near enough what ever spell yuo want, up to 3rd level I think or is it forth, please correct me if im wrong. Then go nuts with spells:smallwink:

According to SRD the spellstoring ability can only be put on melee weapons, or am I mistaken??

Randal Flagg
2007-09-24, 07:00 AM
Arcane Archer comes to mind. Other than that there are spells that enchant weapons or 50pieces of arrows with bonuses.

I am NOT looking for Prc dependent abilities, as the build should be playable at level 8.

I am interested in the various spells, you mention, though (spell level 1~4)

Solo
2007-09-24, 07:20 AM
Smiting Spell fftw!

Person_Man
2007-09-24, 08:39 AM
Smiting Spell. PHBII. Allows you to cast a spell on a weapon or piece of ammo and then hit someone with it. Not particularly efficient, but it'll do what you want.

Someone has already pointed out the obvious Arcane Archer PrC, which is at best worth a 2 level dip. An Artificer could probably pull it off pretty easily, just by making a ton of different arrows and keeping them in an Efficient Quiver.

Here's another much simpler alternative - roleplay. Most spells have a range. You could simply cast spells, and describe yourself as casting them by pulling out a special arrow and shooting it at your enemy. There's no reason that a "Silence Arrow" would have to deal damage, for example. And if you need to extend the reach of a particular spell, you could use metamagic (Enlarge Spell, Reach Spell from Complete Divine, etc). You could even work out a house rule with your DM where your arrows become the material components of the spell.

Runolfr
2007-09-24, 08:52 AM
Well, there's flame arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameArrow.htm), obviously, and you could combine that with the Energy Substitution feat for all kinds of fun.

The darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) spell targets an object, so it should definitely work for you. Come to think of it, light (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/light.htm) and daylight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/daylight.htm) would work, too.

Keen edge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm) is also applicable.

EDIT: And as you noted, silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) targets objects. (duh)

That pretty much exhausts the SRD spells that do exactly what you have in mind.

Greyen
2007-09-24, 09:22 AM
Wouldn't the feat Spell thematics - think that what its called -work for that?

Keld Denar
2007-09-24, 09:30 AM
Smitting Spell an arrow with Shatter. That definately has some utility if you ask me. Shatter is level 2, so easily in the reach of an 8th level character, even without full caster levels.

GL and good gaming!

Yeril
2007-09-24, 09:53 AM
According to SRD the spellstoring ability can only be put on melee weapons, or am I mistaken??

Thrown weapons and ammunition are counted as "melee weapons" methinks.

eg. you can have a +2 keen arrow.
but you can't have a +2 keen longbow.

so yeah the spell storing arrow idea is legal.. I think.

I came up with a fairly decent tactic, get a bunch of theese, shoot for the floor (touch attack AC 5) and because you technacly "hit" you can trigger the spell.

Basicly a 86gp 10d6 fireball scroll that you don't need UMD for.

Thrawn183
2007-09-25, 09:38 AM
Are you sure that ammunition can be enchanted with melee weapon enchantments?

I ask because I'm about to play a Chameleon Archer, and being able to get some different types of enchantments on the arrows would provide some real flexibility.

Idea I'm running with for my char.
10th level Chameleon (ECL 15). +1 Force (with additional +1 enchantment to be decided) Composite Longbow, using GMW to make it +5. Uses arrows with various enchantments and spells with durations of 10 min/lvl or longer duration cast upon the arrows.

Runolfr
2007-09-25, 10:30 AM
Are you sure that ammunition can be enchanted with melee weapon enchantments?

Arrows and bolts can be used as (poor) melee weapons, so they can presumably have melee weapon enchantments.

Arrows
An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows. An arrow that hits its target is destroyed; one that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Bolts
A crossbow bolt used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (crit ×2). Bolts come in a wooden case that holds 10 bolts (or 5, for a repeating crossbow). A bolt that hits its target is destroyed; one that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Techonce
2007-09-25, 12:41 PM
Just because you can use it as a melee weapon, does not make it a melee weapon.

THerefore you can't put melee only enchantements on ammo.

Think of spell stoing this way. When you strike the opponent you can have the spell fire. However if you were using ammo, you are not in contact with the weapon and you can't make the spell fire. Or you can trigger it just before it leaves, if you DM likes to stretch the rules, but that's less than useful for things like fireball.

Techonce
2007-09-25, 12:43 PM
I came up with a fairly decent tactic, get a bunch of theese, shoot for the floor (touch attack AC 5) and because you technacly "hit" you can trigger the spell.

Basicly a 86gp 10d6 fireball scroll that you don't need UMD for.

At what point did your DM not throw this out???

SCPRedMage
2007-09-25, 06:45 PM
eg. you can have a +2 keen arrow.
Think I feel some Lex Luthor coming on....

WRONG!

*ahem* Sorry 'bout that...

Anyways, arrows do piercing damage, and Keen can only be put on slashing weapons.

de-trick
2007-09-25, 07:13 PM
Think I feel some Lex Luthor coming on....

WRONG!

*ahem* Sorry 'bout that...

Anyways, arrows do piercing damage, and Keen can only be put on slashing weapons.


look right here
Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).SRD

SCPRedMage
2007-09-25, 09:24 PM
look right here SRD
Hmm, I do believe that I have been owned...

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-25, 09:29 PM
Spell Storing
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) 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. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

Nowhere does it say that spell storing cannot be used with ranged weapons, nor that the spell storing effect only applies with a melee attack. What give the collective you the idea that you can't have spellstoring arrows?

Edit- You still have the (not represented in game mechanics) problem of pulling the right arrow from your quiver when you have a quiver full of batman-arrows.

It is also worth noting that spellstoring only works on targeted spells. AoE's like fireball are not targeted spells. You want to make sure that the spell has the following line in the description:

Target: X

Thus, hold person is viable, scorching ray is not.

Funkyodor
2007-09-26, 01:48 AM
The reason many say that it cannot be used as a projectile weapon enchantment is that it is not on the list of ranged weapon enchantments that can be added to a randomly created weapon.

So spell storing being applied to the longbow would get you one spell that can be stored, but if it is applied to ammunition, you get 50 spells you can store. This to me is not the intended application of the spell storing enchantment. I would go so far as to say use potion rules, but you can only apply spells that are not personal or rays (it just doesn't sound right shooting an arrow then having the arrow shoot a ray) so silence, fireball, hideous laughter, hold person, sleep, etc... You can use the screaming bolt (fear), sleep arrow (sleep), and arrow of slaying (finger of death) as precedent to try and create some house rules on the matter.

Feralgeist
2007-09-26, 02:19 AM
second the argument that Spell storing might not specifically say that you cant do it, but it's still in the melee weapons section. It cannot be applied to ranged weapons at all, let alone ammunition.

For example, Arrow deflection is a shield ability. it says that a shield can use it, but it doesn't say that an arrow cant be enchanted with it. nevertheless, you cant have an arrow deflecting arrow. nor can you have a spell storing one.


Wish it weren't so, but it is.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 02:57 AM
Magic Weapon Special Ability Descriptions
In addition to enhancement bonuses, weapons can have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

[. . .]

Spell Storing
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) 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. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.

Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

This 'melee weapon enchantments section' you speak of- it doesn't exist.

Furthermore:


A weapon of disruption must be a bludgeoning weapon.
[...]
This property can only be placed on a ranged weapon.
[...]
Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen.
[...]
Only melee weapons can have the ki focus ability
[...]
This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown.
[...]
Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability.
[...]
Throwing:This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon.
[...]
Only melee weapons can be vicious.
[...]
A vorpal weapon must be a slashing weapon.

In short, weapon enhancements that have restrictions on what kind of weapon they can be placed on say so in the description of the weapon enhancement. Spell Storing has no such clause. Spell Storing Arrows are just as legal as flaming arrows, or keen arrows, or merciful arrows.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 03:31 AM
Spell Storing arrows will only work if you "wield" the arrow as a melee weapon. Firing it with a ranged weapon will not work unless your DM house rule that an arrow flying through the air is somehow "wielded".

A DM might reasonably rule that a spell, such as silence, ends when the arrow/bolt strikes the target and is destroyed.

Zincorium
2007-09-26, 03:32 AM
This 'melee weapon enchantments section' you speak of- it doesn't exist.

Furthermore:



In short, weapon enhancements that have restrictions on what kind of weapon they can be placed on say so in the description of the weapon enhancement. Spell Storing has no such clause. Spell Storing Arrows are just as legal as flaming arrows, or keen arrows, or merciful arrows.

I'm pretty sure that frozen is referring to the table for randomly rolling weapon special abilities, in which case he is correct that it does not appear on that table.

However, the ability itself does not have a restriction of melee only, and the table does not determine whether enchantments are limited to melee or ranged, only indicates the results of random rolling.

So while you will never randomly find a spell storing bow or spell storing arrows (much more useful) you can make them yourself.


Spell Storing arrows will only work if you "wield" the arrow as a melee weapon. Firing it with a ranged weapon will not work unless your DM house rule that an arrow flying through the air is somehow "wielded".

A DM might reasonably rule that a spell, such as silence, ends when the arrow/bolt strikes the target and is destroyed.

Why would it not be 'wielded'? Do you have it in your backpack or something?

wield
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
3. Archaic. to guide or direct.
4. Archaic. to govern; manage.

If you are using a bow, you're wielding it, as there is no special definition in D&D that states otherwise.

Also, the spell would only activate when it hits the target, so your example of a silence spell from a spell storing weapon ceasing when it hits the target is impossible, as it has not even started yet.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-26, 03:39 AM
Also, the spell would only activate when it hits the target, so your example of a silence spell from a spell storing weapon ceasing when it hits the target is impossible, as it has not even started yet.

I believe he's referring to the spell being cast on an arrow, not being spell-stored (which, if it worked, would be a far less expensive approach).

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 03:49 AM
DM might reasonably rule that a spell, such as silence, ends when the arrow/bolt strikes the target and is destroyed.

Silence is a bad example, as it is not a legal spell for spell storing weapons. It isn't a targeted spell. It is a spell with an area. However, if it were a legal spell, it wouldn't matter, as the spell is cast from the weapon as it damages the target. A reasonable DM might disallow spell storing arrows (which would not be unreasonable, but would also not be RAW), but a DM that rules the spell storing arrow (which he allowed you to buy/make) breaks before the spell goes off- is just being a jerk.

As for your other point- An arrow fired from a bow is no less 'wielded' than a dagger in hand or thrown. You could say that isn't so, but you would be hard pressed to defend that point.



I believe he's referring to the spell being cast on an arrow, not being spell-stored (which, if it worked, would be a far less expensive approach).

I don't follow. An arrow with a silence spell cast on it is cheaper than a magical arrow with a silence spell cast into it, is it not? Especially since the magical arrow with a silence spell cast into does nothing?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 03:55 AM
Why would it not be 'wielded'? Do you have it in your backpack or something?

wield
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
3. Archaic. to guide or direct.
4. Archaic. to govern; manage.

If you are using a bow, you're wielding it, as there is no special definition in D&D that states otherwise.

Well if the argument was that you were beating someone to death with the bow or using the string to choke someone I might agree.

But since we are talking about using it to fire arrows...


Spell Storing: ... Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it...
(My emphasis)



Also, the spell would only activate when it hits the target, so your example of a silence spell from a spell storing weapon ceasing when it hits the target is impossible, as it has not even started yet.

Silence is not a legal spell for Spell Storing. I was talking about casting silence on the arrow as an object.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 03:58 AM
So, you are saying that the arrow is not striking the creature? I must have understood? Could you clarify how this is an argument in your favor?


Spell Storing: ... Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it...

The arrow is the weapon in question. Or are you making an argument against spell-storing bows?

EDIt- Counter-argument there is the fact that bows confer their enhancements on their arrows. I could see how one could argue that wouldn't apply in this case, but I would still disagree.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 04:00 AM
Silence is a bad example, as it is not a legal spell for spell storing weapons. It isn't a targeted spell. It is a spell with an area. However, if it were a legal spell, it wouldn't matter, as the spell is cast from the weapon as it damages the target. A reasonable DM might disallow spell storing arrows (which would not be unreasonable, but would also not be RAW), but a DM that rules the spell storing arrow (which he allowed you to buy/make) breaks before the spell goes off- is just being a jerk.

See my previous post.


As for your other point- An arrow fired from a bow is no less 'wielded' than a dagger in hand or thrown. You could say that isn't so, but you would be hard pressed to defend that point.


I never claimed that a thrown weapon was wielded either.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 04:01 AM
As for your other point- An arrow fired from a bow is no less 'wielded' than a dagger in hand or thrown. You could say that isn't so, but you would be hard pressed to defend that point.

I never claimed that a thrown weapon was wielded either.

Ok.

In that case;

As for your other point- An arrow fired from a bow is no less 'wielded' than a dagger in hand or thrown. You could say that isn't so, but you would be hard pressed to defend that point.

Zincorium
2007-09-26, 04:05 AM
I never claimed that a thrown weapon was wielded either.

...Which doesn't mean it, and arrows or sling bullets or whatever, are not.

They are used or employed effectively (assuming they hit), and therefore fit the dictionary definition perfectly. It does not require that they be held in the hand, that is your own interpretation.

There is no D&D-specific definition, as I said, so we must use the english one in cases where there is confusion over the meaning of a word to have a common basis.

If you wish to further argue that words other people have used mean what you think they mean and not what everyone else thinks they mean, have at it. Had you been the one who wrote that passage, of course we would feel obligated to apply your interpretation, but since you were not involved (to the best of my knowledge) an interpretation of yours that is different from the official one isn't worth a whole lot.

Leon
2007-09-26, 04:12 AM
But your not "wielding" it when it strikes the target

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 04:17 AM
But your not "wielding" it when it strikes the target

On the contrary. If we have fired an arrow and hit a target, we have most definitely 'used it effectively'.

kpenguin
2007-09-26, 04:21 AM
I'm not sure if ammunition is considered to wielded. To use a modern-day example, you usually don't hear about people wielding bullets, just guns. However, from your definition, when you fire a gun the bullet is as much wielded as the gun itself.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 04:45 AM
So, you are saying that the arrow is not striking the creature? I must have understood? Could you clarify how this is an argument in your favor?



The arrow is the weapon in question. Or are you making an argument against spell-storing bows?

EDIt- Counter-argument there is the fact that bows confer their enhancements on their arrows. I could see how one could argue that wouldn't apply in this case, but I would still disagree.

Bows etc. confer their enhancement bonus and alignment on the ammunition.
Special abilities are only transfered if the ability description says that it is.



...Which doesn't mean it, and arrows or sling bullets or whatever, are not.

They are used or employed effectively (assuming they hit), and therefore fit the dictionary definition perfectly. It does not require that they be held in the hand, that is your own interpretation.

Even under your definition I think most people would refer to the bow being used effectively and not the arrow.


There is no D&D-specific definition, as I said, so we must use the english one in cases where there is confusion over the meaning of a word to have a common basis.


Indeed.


If you wish to further argue that words other people have used mean what you think they mean and not what everyone else thinks they mean, have at it. Had you been the one who wrote that passage, of course we would feel obligated to apply your interpretation, but since you were not involved (to the best of my knowledge) an interpretation of yours that is different from the official one isn't worth a whole lot.


Everyone else?

Most dictionaries refers to items being handled when wielded. That is the common definition, you just happen to have found a (the?) dictionary that supports your claim that the arrow only needs to be used.

It is not only my interpretation, but also that of numerous dictionaries including the Merriam Webster.

Here is a small sample.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861713165/wield.html

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/w/w0150300.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wield

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/wielded

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wield

Zincorium
2007-09-26, 04:53 AM
Perhaps I should have used other dictionaries, true, but the first one I came to gave the usage I'm accustomed to.

But at the same time, your argument is based solely on the fact that you do not consider something to be wielded unless it is in your hands at the time. There is no other basis for it that you've provided.

So, to get off of that since there is a conflict of sources, is there any other reason that it should not be allowed, as it can be read as applicable? To put it another way, if I'm not hung up on the exact definition of 'wield' and instead see it as 'if you hit someone, spell goes off', do you have any reason to do it differently?

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 04:58 AM
We clearly aren't going to agree on whether an arrow is "wielded". This is however a matter of semantics. If spell storing didn't work for ranged weapons, it would be explicitly stated, as it is for every weapon enhancement that does not work for ranged weapons. Whether or not you think the word 'wielded' is being used properly is irrelevant.

It really boils down to this: Either we use our definition of 'wield', in which case spell storing arrows work by RAW, or we use yours, in which case they work by RAI, and the ability is poorly worded.

Much like how arrows of construct slaying don't 'technically' work on constructs, although not quite as blatant as monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes and dead not technically being denied actions.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 05:07 AM
Perhaps I should have used other dictionaries, true, but the first one I came to gave the usage I'm accustomed to.

I find that interesting. Even after you posted the definition people on this thread had trouble wrapping their heads around wielding something without holding it. :smallsmile:


But at the same time, your argument is based solely on the fact that you do not consider something to be wielded unless it is in your hands at the time. There is no other basis for it that you've provided.


Other than the "common" definition of wield, there is no other RAW arguments.


So, to get off of that since there is a conflict of sources, is there any other reason that it should not be allowed, as it can be read as applicable? To put it another way, if I'm not hung up on the exact definition of 'wield' and instead see it as 'if you hit someone, spell goes off', do you have any reason to do it differently?


RAW no, but IMHO it was never intended to be used with arrows.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 05:17 AM
We clearly aren't going to agree on whether an arrow is "wielded". This is however a matter of semantics. If spell storing didn't work for ranged weapons, it would be explicitly stated, as it is for every weapon enhancement that does not work for ranged weapons. Whether or not you think the word 'wielded' is being used properly is irrelevant.

So you can make a spell storing arrow and use it for melee combat. I never argued against such a use.
The definition of wield becomes highly relevant when teh arrow is flying through the air though.

Also note that a bow does not confer the Spell Storing ability on its ammunition.


It really boils down to this: Either we use our definition of 'wield', in which case spell storing arrows work by RAW, or we use yours, in which case they work by RAI, and the ability is poorly worded.


I don't think the RAI was to allow it to be used with arrows. I think it would have appeared on the ranged weapon list if that was the case.

For this to work it requires that you interpret wield in a non-standard way and the only reason to do this is IMHO if you really want it to work that way or are certain that this is the RAI.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 05:23 AM
meh- you say my interpretation of wield is wierd, I say yours is. We both have equally valid dictionary definitions to back our own interpretations. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now that we have thoroughly de-railed this thread, what say we get back on topic and come up with ways to make arrows with spell effects work? It is up to the OP to convince his DM to allow spell-storing arrows, if he wants to go that way.

EDIt- Merriam (your cited dictionary) defines it as to handle with skill and ease. I don't see how an arrow that flies true to a target is not being handled with skill. Much in the same way that a mage wields spells, an archer wields bow and arrow.

TheSteelRat
2007-09-26, 06:20 AM
How about using an example from the SRD?

Sleep Arrow: This +1 arrow is painted white and has white fletching. If it strikes a foe so that it would normally deal damage, it instead bursts into magical energy that deals nonlethal damage (in the same amount as would be lethal damage) and forces the target to make a DC 11 Will save or fall asleep.

Faint enchantment; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, sleep; Price 132 gp; Cost 69 gp 5 sp + 5 XP.

So, the Sleep Arrow costs 6600g for a stack of 50 (standard ammunition amount), has the effect of a CL1 Sleep (actually better, since no HD limit as in the spell), the "merciful" effect(without the extra damage) with a change in damage type to "arcane," and a +1 to boot. When the arrow hits, it's destroyed as well as casting the spell.

Honestly, a +1 Spell Storing Arrow doesn't sound that bad when you think of the minimum cost of 8,350g for a stack of 50, and you still have to pay someone to enchant each individual arrow (if you don't have anyone in the party capable). That's 167g / arrow + spell.

The Slaying Arrow, combines Finger of Death (+3 DC save) that's capable of destroying undead & constructs, for a price of 2,282g (114,100g / 50). Since there isn't a comparable spell, it's more of a fluke than the Sleep Arrow.

Javelin of Lightning casts a CL5 Lighting Bolt with a +1 DC, and costs 1500g. That's 301g for the masterwork javelin, and then ~ 1200g, which is less than the cost of the Spell Storing, and is also destroyed in the attack.

My spell knowledge is a little bit rusty, but does Screaming Bolt have an equivalent spell? The area of effect (20' from the path of the bolt with potentially up to 1200' (heavy crossbow @ 10 increments) seems pretty big for most spells, and it's a +2 bonus weapon. At 13350g for 50, it's still cheaper than a spell-storing equivalent.

While RAW states that melee weapons can have ranged effects, it doesn't state the opposite. It's basically what one thinks is "implied" by the ranged / melee separation. I'd say let it be determined by a GM by GM basis, at least with the above comparisons.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 06:46 AM
meh- you say my interpretation of wield is wierd, I say yours is. We both have equally valid dictionary definitions to back our own interpretations. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am sorry, but are you saying that requiring that you hold something to wield it is a weird interpretation?


EDIt- Merriam (your cited dictionary) defines it as to handle with skill and ease. I don't see how an arrow that flies true to a target is not being handled with skill. Much in the same way that a mage wields spells, an archer wields bow and arrow.


I referenced many different dictionaries and I think you you may be referring to "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000".

But in any case, you are not handling/wielding the arrow after it has left the bow, which is the crux of the argument.


to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <to wield a broom>


. To use with full command or power, as a thing not too heavy for the holder; to manage; to handle; hence, to use or employ; as, to wield a sword; to wield the scepter.

Funkyodor
2007-09-26, 06:51 AM
I really dislike the idea of "it doesn't say I can't, so why not?" mechanic. Other enchantments specify that "bows, crossbows, and slings confer this enchantment upon its ammunition" (flaming, shocking, etc...). Or clearly says that it can be applied to melee, thrown, and ammunition only (Brillant energy). It's like saying you can have mighty cleaving or wounding arrows because it doesn't say you can't. The problem with this point of view comes from enchantments that specify "melee weapons only". This is a pain because developers didn't realize that certain combinations could become slightly broken, and only exceptioned combinations that they investigated. When all else fails, house rule. Oh wait, house rule first, save the book as a neat reference filled with ideas instead of the law of AD&D fun.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 07:01 AM
How about using an example from the SRD?

These are some good examples for having special effect arrows and you can always use them as a baseline if you want to create your own and the DM allows it.


Honestly, a +1 Spell Storing Arrow doesn't sound that bad when you think of the minimum cost of 8,350g for a stack of 50, and you still have to pay someone to enchant each individual arrow (if you don't have anyone in the party capable). That's 167g / arrow + spell.


It depends on the circumstances, but if you do have someone in the party they are much more useful than any other +1 enhancement.

Vampiric Touch arrows come to mind, but I am sure there are other good examples.


Javelin of Lightning casts a CL5 Lighting Bolt with a +1 DC, and costs 1500g. That's 301g for the masterwork javelin, and then ~ 1200g, which is less than the cost of the Spell Storing, and is also destroyed in the attack.


Javelins of Lightning are not really weapons as much as a non-standard way of casting a Lightning Bolt. Quickdraw and a few of these will spell doom to most creatures unless they have lightning resistance. But it gets rather expensive. :smalltongue:

There is not much reason why you should not allow a similar Arrow of Lightning at around the same cost.
The benefit of the arrow over the javelin is of course that you can draw it as a free action.

Thrawn183
2007-09-26, 11:01 AM
I might be able to suggest a homebrew solution:
Smiting Spell from PHB II has a 1 hour duration before the spell is lost. If you added the same restriction to spell storing arrows, you're preventing abuse where somebody fills arrows with the highest level spell they are capable of casting into the arrows during down time (like say crafting).

Note: I think that even with this version it might be worth increasing the cost to higher than a +1 enchantment. Suggestions?

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-26, 01:12 PM
The problem is that it never says you can use the Spell-Storing enchantment on any weapon so the absence of a restriction could justify its use on arrows. I don't see it neccessarily being illegal, but it is definitely unbalanced compared to other ammunition enhancements.

A comparison:

Shocking? +3.5 damage

Spell-Storing (Empowered Shocking Grasp)? +17.5 damage; +3 to hit if the target wears/is metal. Same cost (though you have to waste one of your Wizard buddy's off-day spells [Gasp!])

The balancing fator for Spell-Storing in most cases is that it's one-use. All ammunition enhancements are one-use so there is no disadvantage to taking spell-storing arrows in the stead of any other enchantment.

That's going for a basic damage. It gets fairly nasty with Vampiric Grasp or Poison.

I don't see any definite ruling unless the MIC deals with this sort of thing, but I wouldn't count on having access to it as it really is up to DM's judgement.


[EDIT:] Thrawn- Smiting Spell has a one minute duration, making it incredibly difficult to use effectively. A time-limit on Spell storing would still be horribly difficult to manage as it would effectively allow 3-4 extra spells to be cast each round. Balancing this ability will be difficult, Perhaps it would work if its effects were limited to an hour like you say, but casters had to use a higher-level spell slot than normal to cast into it.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 01:18 PM
But in any case, you are not handling/wielding the arrow after it has left the bow, which is the crux of the argument.

This is your interpretation, which I do not except. Even with your 'preferred definition', I don't see anything about a wielded instrument necessarily being in the hand. One can wield many things that are not in the hand. Spells for example, or for that matter, abstract concepts. I think your concept of 'to weild' is bizarre. This is clearly mutual, and there is no way to sway either of us from this point.

tainsouvra
2007-09-26, 02:29 PM
This is your interpretation, which I do not except. Even with your 'preferred definition', I don't see anything about a wielded instrument necessarily being in the hand. One can wield many things that are not in the hand. Spells for example, or for that matter, abstract concepts. I think your concept of 'to weild' is bizarre. This is clearly mutual, and there is no way to sway either of us from this point. Let me ask you a question that might help clear it up.

After you fire an arrow, what are you using it for?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 03:15 PM
This is your interpretation, which I do not except. Even with your 'preferred definition', I don't see anything about a wielded instrument necessarily being in the hand. One can wield many things that are not in the hand. Spells for example, or for that matter, abstract concepts.

However, this is not an abstract case. We are not talking about ruling some kingdom, we are talking about wielding a physical object, an arrow, which you do by handling it effectively.

It is not something I have made up. I do not write the dictionaries or wield any formal authority over the English language.


I think your concept of 'to weild' is bizarre. This is clearly mutual, and there is no way to sway either of us from this point.


You find the standard dictionary definition of wield to be "bizarre" and "weird"?
I am not quite sure why it is you find it so difficult to accept that you are not handling/manipulating/holding the arrow when it is flying through the air or lodged into the flesh of another creature?

Thrawn183
2007-09-26, 03:35 PM
Oh, I thought it was an hour.
You're also right that it is still quite powerful with only a single minute duration, but I can't really come up with anything else.

Personally I don't think it would be overpowered to allow it on the bow but not on the arrows. If anything you're more likely to lose your spell than you ever would be as a melee'r.

Dubie
2007-09-26, 03:53 PM
Look, lets forget about spell storing arrows, and help the guy actualy solve the little dilema here. Its realy quite simple. Just a matter of tinkering with the "fluff", and a little restriction to balance out extra arrow damage.

Instead of preparing his spells in the traditional "memorizing" fashion, to be completed with a key word and a piece of bat-poop, he prepares his spells in an arrow per spell each day, to be completed with a hit that deals damage to the enemy.

Now, he gets into a fight, pulls out the arrow he cast Shocking Grasp on. He fires. Instead of a touch AC, he now needs to hit the target full AC. If its a hit the spell goes off and does shocking grasp damage.

If the shot misses, there is the standard whatever d% chance the arrow can be found, and d% chance that the arrow is broken. If you loose or break an arrow that doesn't connect, you loose the spell.

You can only ever have as many arrows per day prepared as you have available spell slots.

Some spells, such as summon whatever, instead turn your arrow into dWhatever critters (possibly limited to critters with flight capability due to the arrow flying around rather then rolling across the ground. I just got the immage of shooting an arrow towards the enemy, the arrow turing into 2 or 3 dire badgers that continue to fly through the air and take falling damage.). These arrows would still require a hit, however, instead of hitting the target for damage, the critter that the arrow summoned treats the result of the hit as its first attack roll.

Buff spells and the like can either be cast by firing the arrow at the ground or sky (nice DM) or requiring the caster to fire arrows at the allie (or the caster himself) go trigger the spell effect. (this could be ammusing as well. "I shoot the rouge for 1d8 damage, and cast Cats Grace on him before he scales the 80 foot wall" or "I shoot myself in the foot for 1d8 damage, and cast Mage Armor")

This crazy Archer mage guy could be fun to play :)

EDIT: Naturaly, some spells would be unavailable to this character type. It gets kind of hokey when you try to identify something by shooting it with an arrow, for example.

Jasdoif
2007-09-26, 04:10 PM
Everyone else?

Most dictionaries refers to items being handled when wielded. That is the common definition, you just happen to have found a (the?) dictionary that supports your claim that the arrow only needs to be used.I support your claim. "Wield" generally means "to prepare for use in the hand", at least in the realm of RPGs. Why, I 'member back in the olden days, ye had to wield yer weapon 'fore you could hit somethin' with it....

Also, if you're firing an arrow from a bow, the arrow isn't being used as a weapon; the bow is. And spell storing refers to the weapon striking a creature, not the weapon's ammunition striking the creature.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-26, 04:31 PM
You find the standard dictionary definition of wield to be "bizarre" and "weird"?

No, I find that the dictionary definition fits arrows from a bow. You just have a bizarre interpretation of that definition. An arrow that has been fired into someone's chest has been "handled in an effective manner." The dictionary definition fits my concept of how an arrow is wielded when fired from a bow. Thus, from my perspective, your interpretation of the definition of wield is bizarre.


EDIt- I'm suprised no one has brought this up, but talking to people at the gaming club, there is evidently a clarification in the MiC that specify's that spellstoring cannot be applied to ammunition. Which implies that it was something that required clarification.

Randal Flagg
2007-09-26, 05:10 PM
Instead of preparing his spells in the traditional "memorizing" fashion, to be completed with a key word and a piece of bat-poop, he prepares his spells in an arrow per spell each day, to be completed with a hit that deals damage to the enemy.


I like this "house rule, and will present it to my DM.

To everyone else: Thank you very much for your opinion and advise ( including the IN depth discussion on "wielding Items":smallsmile: )


Good gaiming everyone

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-26, 05:21 PM
What Dubie said
It's actually easier to not mess with mechanics at all and just describe your character shooting spells from a bow like Person_Man said. If you clear it up with your DM ahead of time, you can baffle everyone else at the table while shooting your "arrows" around.

I played a Battle Sorcerer like this with the Ranger Animal Companion variant in one of my most recent campaigns. It was heaps o' fun watching everybody else try to metagame my class combination.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-27, 02:21 AM
No, I find that the dictionary definition fits arrows from a bow. You just have a bizarre interpretation of that definition. An arrow that has been fired into someone's chest has been "handled in an effective manner." The dictionary definition fits my concept of how an arrow is wielded when fired from a bow. Thus, from my perspective, your interpretation of the definition of wield is bizarre.

It is not sufficient that the arrow has been handled effectively.
The weapon needs to be handled at the point of impact.
When you stop handling the arrow you are no longer the wielder and that happens as soon as it is in the air.


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.


EDIt- I'm suprised no one has brought this up, but talking to people at the gaming club, there is evidently a clarification in the MiC that specify's that spellstoring cannot be applied to ammunition. Which implies that it was something that required clarification.

Well, in retrospect it is clear that it was something that could have been expressed in a way that would leave no one in doubt, but on the other hand, most people I have met recognize that the most common definition of wield would preclude such a use of Spell Storing. *shrug*

At least everyone agrees about the RAW now (for whatever reason). :smallsmile:

Curmudgeon
2007-09-27, 02:51 AM
wield
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
3. Archaic. to guide or direct.
4. Archaic. to govern; manage.

If you are using a bow, you're wielding it, as there is no special definition in D&D that states otherwise. Yes, but you're not wielding the arrow. (Also from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handle):)
han·dle
v. tr.

1. To touch, lift, or hold with the hands.
2. To operate with the hands; manipulate.
3. To deal with or have responsibility for; conduct: handles matters of corporate law.
4. To cope with or dispose of: handles problems efficiently.
5.
1. To direct, execute, or dispose of: handle an investment.
2. To manage, administer to, or represent: handle a boxer.
6. To deal or trade in the purchase or sale of: a branch office that handles grain exports.
Once the item is out of your hands you're no longer wielding it. "To deal with" and later definitions of "handle" are modern usage which postdates the era of "wielding" weapons -- as the examples of corporate law, investments, and branch offices should indicate.

Thrawn183
2007-09-27, 09:08 AM
Well at least someone ended up giving the OP a suggestion he could use.

Runolfr
2007-09-27, 09:36 AM
Now, I would like to know, if there are any spells or feats, which let you place "damage spells" or utility spells (silence/darkness) on arrows.

As some others have noted, Smiting Spell (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Smiting_Spell,all) does pretty much exactly what you're describing, but it only works on spells with a range of "touch", and you have to use the arrow within one minute of casting the spell. You also use up a one-level-higher spell slot to prepare/spontaneously-cast the spell.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 09:45 AM
most people I have met recognize that the most common definition of wield would preclude such a use of Spell Storing.

That's odd, because only one member of the local gaming club agreed with you. Of course, he gave up on the grammatical argument and whipped out the MiC to prove his point. Although, to your credit, he did agree with your description of 'wield'.

ColdBrew
2007-09-27, 10:25 AM
Of course, he gave up on the grammatical argument and whipped out the MiC to prove his point.
Gasp! You mean he consulted a more recent publication which takes precedence in a rules dispute? How dare he clarify this dilemma with an official position from WotC!

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 10:36 AM
Gasp! You mean he consulted a more recent publication which takes precedence in a rules dispute? How dare he clarify this dilemma with an official position from WotC!

That was unneccessary. I don't begrudge his use of MiC. I was simply saying that only one person in my local gaming community disagreed with my interpretation of 'wield', and even that person gave up on trying to argue that point. I never claimed that spellstoring arrows were balanced, just that they work by RAW. Which they don't, but not because you aren't 'wielding' your arrow, but because it explicitly spelled out in a supplement that I don't own.

ColdBrew
2007-09-27, 10:54 AM
That was unneccessary. I don't begrudge his use of MiC. I was simply saying that only one person in my local gaming community disagreed with my interpretation of 'wield', and even that person gave up on trying to argue that point. I never claimed that spellstoring arrows were balanced, just that they work by RAW. Which they don't, but not because you aren't 'wielding' your arrow, but because it explicitly spelled out in a supplement that I don't own.

I read the tone of that quote as a sneer that he had to resort to an official source to win.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 11:02 AM
Nope, I was more sneering at the fact that he was unable to demonstrate that one is not 'wielding' an arrow that one fires from a bow. It was somewhat of a relief when he brought up MiC, since any argument breaks down when it comes to the definition of a key word. Without a different line of argument, the argument becomes circular.

For example, arguments about abortion tend to break down on the question of what constitutes a 'living thing'.

Techonce
2007-09-27, 11:14 AM
Not to throw gas on the fire, but the Magic Item Compendium doesn't make it any clearer than the SRD. Spell storing is not on the Ranged item List, but on the Melee list, just like it is in the DMG. There is no entry for Spell Storing in the main section of the MiC since it;s in the DMG.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 11:17 AM
According to my good buddy, MiC actually explicitly states that those lists are in fact lists. The DMG does not. In the DMG, they are just random treasure generation tables, nothing more. Until clarified by MiC.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-27, 11:49 AM
That was unneccessary. I don't begrudge his use of MiC. I was simply saying that only one person in my local gaming community disagreed with my interpretation of 'wield', and even that person gave up on trying to argue that point.

Well since he obviously could not convince you in the amount of time he had available, so the MIC was an easier solution. However, you could always show him this thread for the arguments you have not refuted. :smallwink:

Besides you did not need to look to your local gaming group, you could just take a look at this thread if you were actively seeking people whom had an opinion about how you wield objects.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 11:58 AM
What arguments? You just kept stating your opinion over and over again. Let me break it down for you:

My side:

Dictionary definition that supports my concept of wield.
Online people supporting my side.
Offline people supporting my side.

Your side:

Different dictionary definition that supports your concept of wield*.
Online people supporting your side.
Offline people supporting your side.


Progress on either side: 0%
Reason for continuing discussion: none (due to MiC clarification)
Inevitable result of continuing a debate that revolves on the definition of one key word?: flames

*you listed more dictionaries, but only one that explicitly specifies things being wielded being necessarily 'in hand'.

Techonce
2007-09-27, 11:59 AM
According to my good buddy, MiC actually explicitly states that those lists are in fact lists. The DMG does not. In the DMG, they are just random treasure generation tables, nothing more. Until clarified by MiC.

Reading the text it says that all magic items from the DMG and MiC are listed by body slot and price.

Weapon abilities are listed as Melee and Ranged. Spell Storing is not on the ranged list.

To me this is the same as it is in the DMG, which to me means that it can't be used on Ranged weapons, but nothing specifically says it can't be used on ranged.

Dubie
2007-09-27, 11:59 AM
I like this "house rule, and will present it to my DM.

To everyone else: Thank you very much for your opinion and advise ( including the IN depth discussion on "wielding Items":smallsmile: )


Good gaiming everyone

Glad I could be of some help. Of course, my advice was just a basic concept of how to make it work. It'll take some refining yet.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-27, 12:17 PM
*you listed more dictionaries, but only one that explicitly specifies things being wielded being necessarily 'in hand'.

All the dictionary definitions require that you use your limbs to wield the weapon.

You just happen to have stumbled upon a (the one?) definition that makes your claim a reasonable interpretation.

Renx
2007-09-27, 01:00 PM
My side:

Dictionary definition that supports my concept of wield.
Online people supporting my side.
Offline people supporting my side.

Your side:

Different dictionary definition that supports your concept of wield*.
Online people supporting your side.
Offline people supporting your side.


Progress on either side: 0%
Reason for continuing discussion: none

This is the Internet. What's your point? :biggrin:

Abstruse
2007-09-27, 08:46 PM
Not that this horse isn't already thoroughly dead and beaten, but...

"I wield my bow at the hobgoblin across the chamber."
"You what?"
"I wield an arrow at it."
"You mean you fire an arrow at it?"
"No, I wield it."
"Um... OK. You present the arrow in your hand and wave it about skillfully. The hobgoblin doesn't seem particularly impressed."
"But ... but... I wielded an arrow at it!"
"Yup. You did. Are you going to wield your dagger at it next?"
"Um. No. I'll throw my dagger."

......

That said, for purposes of actually contributing to the original question... had you considered playing, say, an elven warlock? Use a bow (or, if non-elven a crossbow) and put your eldritch blast into effect by saying that it is channeled through the ranged weapon in question. That could give you not only virtually unlimited ammunition but a number of intriguing additional effects as well.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 10:31 PM
"I wield my sword at the hobgoblin."
"You what?"
"I wield a sword at it."
"You mean you swing your sword at it?"
"No, I wield it."
"Um... OK. You present the sword in your hand and wave it about skillfully. The hobgoblin doesn't seem particularly impressed."
"But ... but... I wielded a sword at it!"
"Yup. You did. Are you going to wield your dagger at it next?"
"Um. No. I'll throw my dagger."


Doesn't make any more sense with a sword.

Abstruse
2007-09-28, 06:07 AM
The only way I can respond to that is "What we have here is ... <i>failure</i> to communicate."

In the common parlance and in pretty much every definition I've heard save yours, "to wield" specifically means that one is holding a tool or weapon in one's hand. It's not the ammunition that is wielded (after all, a bullet-toting badguy is no threat unless he's also toting guns), its the weapon. If you say "I wield my sword", it means you've got it in hand and you're ready to attack. If you say "I wield my arrow", it means you're going to look really stupid with an improvised weapon when the enemy charges across the room and engages you.

You can continue to delude yourself that it's the other way around if you like. At this point, though, it seems well-established you're in the minority opinion.

Subotei
2007-09-28, 06:44 AM
Just to muddy the water a bit on wielding - found this in the SRD earlier (my italics):


Seeking: Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)

Having said that, I come down of the melee only side of the spell storing issue - its just too broken otherwise.

My work here is done.