Rules discussion on Fell Energy Spell: Do bonuses on items affect wielders?

[Segev]

Since this is an interesting topic, I'll move it here. The basic thrust of the debate is over whether a magic weapon or similar spell which gives a +1 enhancement bonus to an item counts as giving that bonus to the creature for purposes of FEll Energy. Fell Energy Spell says that bonuses given to undead by such spells gain +2 to the value of the bonus.

So, unambiguously, fell energy bull's strength gives a +6 enhancement bonus to strength when cast on a skeleton.

The ambiguity comes in when you cast fell energy magic vestments or fell energy magic weapon and give the enchanted items to an undead minion.


No it doesn't. Because if it's on a sword and I attack with my claw, my claw doesn't get the +1 bonus.


And if you attack with the sword you do get the +1 bonus. Which means you are affected by it because you are the one making the attack roll.

Sleven's argument is that the bonus is on the weapon, and fell energy spell does nothing to it, no matter who wields said weapon. Oberron's argument is that the spell is granting a bonus to the wielder's attack and damage rolls, and thus, if the wielder is undead, that bonus is 2 higher than normal.

This has an interesting property that a fell energy greater magic weapon-enchanted mundane sword picked up by a human fighter is only going to have the normal bonus, but becomes deadlier the moment the necropolitan blackguard picks it up.

Another debate that derailed the parent thread was over whether and when the +2 bonus is added. Is it added at every instance of "+x per CL," or is it added only to the total bonus? Using greater magic weapon as an example, does Fell Energy Spell make it give +3 per 4 CL, or does it make it give +1 per 4 CL and then an additional +2?

Oberron's argument is that the bonus applies to the +1 before you say "per 4 CL," and she argues strongly based on the fact that +1 hp/HD becomes +3 hp/HD for undead created in an aura of a desecrate spell.

My argument is that the bonus in the first case is just telling you how to calculate the base bonus based on CL, and the +2 goes to the whole bonus, but in the second case, the bonus itself is on each HD. There is no "bonus on each CL" to apply it to in the first case.

I invite further discussion, as Oberron and I pretty much have had to agree to disagree on that point in the other thread.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Benefit: Any numerical bonus granted by a spell
modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead
creatures it affects. This increase does not apply to factors
such as range, save DC, healing, or other numerical
factors relating to a spell. Only effects described as
bonuses gain this benefit.

The key here is the wording, "... for all undead creatures it affects."

The creature is not affected by the spell, the item is. Even if the creature benefits from the bonus the spell grants, it's still not targeted by or affected by the spell. A test for this is whether a Dispel Magic targeted on the creature will remove the bonus, in this case it will not. The bonus is not on the creature, the spell is not affecting the creature, the spell and bonus are on the item.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree with Biff. This reminds me of ye olde "Does Flame Arrow deal damage?" debate. In general the ruling is that indirect effects don't count. Now, if the weapon counted as an undead creature somehow...

[Segev]

I agree with Biff. This reminds me of ye olde "Does Flame Arrow deal damage?" debate. In general the ruling is that indirect effects don't count. Now, if the weapon counted as an undead creature somehow...

Would a haunting presence in the item make it count? 'cause that'd be an amusing way to get extra oomph out of these spells for any character: haunting presence the items and fell energy the buffs on them.

I think Libris Mortis has rules for armor made out of undead bits; you might be able to do some animation shenanigans there.

[Oberron]

The key here is the wording, "... for all undead creatures it affects."

The creature is not affected by the spell, the item is. Even if the creature benefits from the bonus the spell grants, it's still not targeted by or affected by the spell. A test for this is whether a Dispel Magic targeted on the creature will remove the bonus, in this case it will not. The bonus is not on the creature, the spell is not affecting the creature, the spell and bonus are on the item.

Counterpoint interpretation is that FES is not talking about the spell but the bonus provided. Even thought the item is the target of the spell the effects of the spell affects the creature using the item, not the item itself. To say the undead is not affected by magic weapon is to say that no one is affected by it.

The popular use the people use with FES is on desecration, an area spell. It buffs undead in the same way as magic weapon does and by that I mean that desecrate is cast on an area and the area provides the buff. The buff is not on the creature it is on the area. But that is still irrelevant because FES does not care if the spell targets the undead or not, only that the bonus is affecting the undead.

When attacking with a sword with magic weapon the attacker adds the bonus to the attack roll. How is the bonus not affecting the attacker?

As for dispelled magic it won't turn off desecrate's bonus or other area bonuses if you target a creature with it you would have to target the spell. Which is still irrelevant because a creature can be affected by a spell but not be the effect of the spell.



My argument is that the bonus in the first case is just telling you how to calculate the base bonus based on CL, and the +2 goes to the whole bonus, but in the second case, the bonus itself is on each HD. There is no "bonus on each CL" to apply it to in the first case.

I invite further discussion, as Oberron and I pretty much have had to agree to disagree on that point in the other thread.

Desecrate and magic vestments both tell you how to calculate the bonus one is by counting the HD the other is counting the CL. You're argument was that it was a special case for desecrate because it was adding to the HD of the creature directly even though desecrate says otherwise. Desecrate even has both examples using the same wording.

An undead creature created within or summoned into such an area gains +1 hit points per HD.

Furthermore, anyone who casts animate dead within this area may create as many as double the normal amount of undead (that is, 4 HD per caster level rather than 2 HD per caster level).




________________________

@segev ty for making this thread.

[Remuko]

I remember this same argument coming up in a thread about a demilich (iirc). Saying that since the demilich has magic immunity, none of his things could be dispelled, because dispelling them would affect him and he's immune to effects of spells.

I thought it was ludicrous then, and I still think it is now.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The word "affect" is generally constrained to direct effects in rules discussions. Desecrate does directly affect undead. The desecrated area is the spell effect, and that area provides the bonus. In the case of Magic Weapon, it does not. The weapon itself is not a spell effect; it is simply modified by a spell effect.

[Segev]

Acknowledging that it would take additional shenanigans to get this to work, would having your undead minion use Graft Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/graftWeapon.htm) make the (grater) magic weapon target sufficiently having the spell affect the undead for the Fell Energy to increase the bonus by +2?

[Oberron]

The word "affect" is generally constrained to direct effects in rules discussions. Desecrate does directly affect undead. The desecrated area is the spell effect, and that area provides the bonus. In the case of Magic Weapon, it does not. The weapon itself is not a spell effect; it is simply modified by a spell effect.

And does the weapon provide a bonus to hit and damage from magic weapon? Why does this make it any different between a bonus provided from an object vs an area?

QUOTE=Remuko;23881099]I remember this same argument coming up in a thread about a demilich (iirc). Saying that since the demilich has magic immunity, none of his things could be dispelled, because dispelling them would affect him and he's immune to effects of spells.

I thought it was ludicrous then, and I still think it is now.[/QUOTE]

I think I know which thread you are talking about but this is very different. The magic immunity for the demolish (according to the srd) talks about effects. Fell energy spell literally talks about affects

Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects. This increase does not apply to factors such as range, save DC, healing, or other numerical factors relating to a spell. Only effects described as bonuses gain this benefit. A fell energy spell takes up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

I'm not adding in words that are not there. But if you have anything to contribute other than this reminds you of a another thread please do so I would be happy to hear your thoughts

[KillianHawkeye]

When attacking with a sword with magic weapon the attacker adds the bonus to the attack roll. How is the bonus not affecting the attacker?

I mean... if anything, the spell is affecting the creature you swing the sword AT more than it affects the person swinging it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Again, the key difference between an area and an object in this case is that the area is the spell effect, whereas the object is not the spell effect, therefore one is a direct effect and the other is an indirect effect.

Segev: That one's fuzzier, but I think yes. Basically as long as you take the line "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" as gospel it's good, since Magic Weapon would then target the undead creature directly. Casting FES Magic Fang on a creature that already had a natural attack would work with fewer steps, if you don't care about the undead actually wielding a weapon.

[Oberron]

Again, the key difference between an area and an object in this case is that the area is the spell effect, whereas the object is not the spell effect, therefore one is a direct effect and the other is an indirect effect.

Segev: That one's fuzzier, but I think yes. Basically as long as you take the line "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" as gospel it's good, since Magic Weapon would then target the undead creature directly. Casting FES Magic Fang on a creature that already had a natural attack would work with fewer steps, if you don't care about the undead actually wielding a weapon.

And they both still give a bonus that affect the creature using the weapon/in the area. FES just cares if there is a numerical bonus that affects an undead. The enhancement bonus modifies the to-hit roll of the user of a weapon with magic weapon on it. How is this not affecting the user?

Another thing is the artificer. They have bull's strength but have to cast it on an object. Would this mean an artificer's buff won't work since he cast it on an object and not a person?


As for magic Fang the target needs to be living but there is a spell that let's undead count as living I think but I don't remember if it temporarily changes the undead type or remove benefits for being undead.

[Zaq]

The key here is the wording, "... for all undead creatures it affects."

The creature is not affected by the spell, the item is. Even if the creature benefits from the bonus the spell grants, it's still not targeted by or affected by the spell. A test for this is whether a Dispel Magic targeted on the creature will remove the bonus, in this case it will not. The bonus is not on the creature, the spell is not affecting the creature, the spell and bonus are on the item.

I respectfully disagree. Affecting is not necessarily targeting.

As I see it, if the undead critter’s existence is different as a result of the spell, the spell is affecting the critter. Its attacks get a bonus, even if not all of its attacks? It’s being affected.

(The fact that “to affect” is not given a strict rules definition is part of the problem with reversed spell rebirth and iron heart surge, granted. Not going to say that my interpretation is free of problems.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I respectfully disagree. Affecting is not necessarily targeting.

As I see it, if the undead critter’s existence is different as a result of the spell, the spell is affecting the critter. Its attacks get a bonus, even if not all of its attacks? It’s being affected.

(The fact that “to affect” is not given a strict rules definition is part of the problem with reversed spell rebirth and iron heart surge, granted. Not going to say that my interpretation is free of problems.)

Cast Greater Magic Weapon on a weapon. Have a creature that's completely immune to magic pick it up and wield it. If the spell was affecting the creature, it wouldn't be able to gain the bonus from it. This is not the case, the magic-immune creature's attacks with the weapon still benefit from the enhancement bonus granted by the spell.

It's noted as the creature's attacks and damage gaining the bonus for simplicity, but what's actually occurring is the creature's attacks are at its normal bonus, and the weapon gains the added bonus. If you're two-weapon fighting with a +3 weapon and a nonmagical weapon, they don't both get the +3 bonus because you don't get that bonus, just that weapon does.

[Segev]

Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects. This increase does not apply to factors such as range, save DC, healing, or other numerical factors relating to a spell. Only effects described as bonuses gain this benefit. A fell energy spell takes up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

I'm not adding in words that are not there. But if you have anything to contribute other than this reminds you of a another thread please do so I would be happy to hear your thoughtsReading your logic again, I am curious: would you say that a Fell Energy greater magic weapon cast on a Fighter's greatsword would get the bonus increase when he attacks an undead creature with it? By the same logic that the undead wielding said greatsword is being affected, you could argue that the undead being attacked by that greatsword (even wielded by a living fighter) is also being affected.


Segev: That one's fuzzier, but I think yes. Basically as long as you take the line "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature" as gospel it's good, since Magic Weapon would then target the undead creature directly. Casting FES Magic Fang on a creature that already had a natural attack would work with fewer steps, if you don't care about the undead actually wielding a weapon.


As for magic Fang the target needs to be living but there is a spell that let's undead count as living I think but I don't remember if it temporarily changes the undead type or remove benefits for being undead.
Yeah, as Oberron says, the reason I focus on magic weapon here is because the targeting of magic fang doesn't work on undead without some extra shenanigans. Of course, a necromancer might research a special necromantic version of magic fang that ONLY works on undead....


And they both still give a bonus that affect the creature using the weapon/in the area. FES just cares if there is a numerical bonus that affects an undead. The enhancement bonus modifies the to-hit roll of the user of a weapon with magic weapon on it. How is this not affecting the user?Just quoting this to reiterate my earlier question in this post, in case it gets missed: does this mean that a human fighter with a FES magic weapon on his greatsword has a +3 to hit and damage (rather than +1) when attacking undead? Surely, those undead are affected by the spell at least as much as


Another thing is the artificer. They have bull's strength but have to cast it on an object. Would this mean an artificer's buff won't work since he cast it on an object and not a person?Artificers explicitly have special and different rules. Infusions are not spells. You can try to make a case based on lack of particular wording, but it's very clear from context what is intended, so you might find yourself arguing that artificers, by RAW, don't work, but it's clear enough how they're meant to work that nobody would really take issue with granting them specific exception.

The reason FES is in question, here, is because it's not clear it's meant to work the way artificer infusions are clearly meant to. There ARE spells that are more directly applying their bonuses to the undead creatures themselves.

That doesn't qualify as a counter-argument to your main point, only a reason why the artificer argument doesn't persuade.


Cast Greater Magic Weapon on a weapon. Have a creature that's completely immune to magic pick it up and wield it. If the spell was affecting the creature, it wouldn't be able to gain the bonus from it. This is not the case, the magic-immune creature's attacks with the weapon still benefit from the enhancement bonus granted by the spell.We already know that this doesn't actually work this way. Summoned creatures still damage creatures immune to magic. Fabricated weapons still damage them. A disintegrate spell removing the supports from beneath the platform they're standing on still causes them to fall.

So this also doesn't persuade one way or another: he's able to be affected by magic even if he can't be subject to a magical eff


It's noted as the creature's attacks and damage gaining the bonus for simplicity, but what's actually occurring is the creature's attacks are at its normal bonus, and the weapon gains the added bonus. If you're two-weapon fighting with a +3 weapon and a nonmagical weapon, they don't both get the +3 bonus because you don't get that bonus, just that weapon does.Actually, it just means that only one of your attacks is affected by the bonus. Once again, this could actually be seen as an argument in favor of Oberron's position.

[DarkSoul]

Since this is an interesting topic, I'll move it here. The basic thrust of the debate is over whether a magic weapon or similar spell which gives a +1 enhancement bonus to an item counts as giving that bonus to the creature for purposes of FEll Energy. Fell Energy Spell says that bonuses given to undead by such spells gain +2 to the value of the bonus.

So, unambiguously, fell energy bull's strength gives a +6 enhancement bonus to strength when cast on a skeleton.

The ambiguity comes in when you cast fell energy magic vestments or fell energy magic weapon and give the enchanted items to an undead minion.





Sleven's argument is that the bonus is on the weapon, and fell energy spell does nothing to it, no matter who wields said weapon. Oberron's argument is that the spell is granting a bonus to the wielder's attack and damage rolls, and thus, if the wielder is undead, that bonus is 2 higher than normal.

This has an interesting property that a fell energy greater magic weapon-enchanted mundane sword picked up by a human fighter is only going to have the normal bonus, but becomes deadlier the moment the necropolitan blackguard picks it up.

Another debate that derailed the parent thread was over whether and when the +2 bonus is added. Is it added at every instance of "+x per CL," or is it added only to the total bonus? Using greater magic weapon as an example, does Fell Energy Spell make it give +3 per 4 CL, or does it make it give +1 per 4 CL and then an additional +2?

Oberron's argument is that the bonus applies to the +1 before you say "per 4 CL," and she argues strongly based on the fact that +1 hp/HD becomes +3 hp/HD for undead created in an aura of a desecrate spell.

My argument is that the bonus in the first case is just telling you how to calculate the base bonus based on CL, and the +2 goes to the whole bonus, but in the second case, the bonus itself is on each HD. There is no "bonus on each CL" to apply it to in the first case.

I invite further discussion, as Oberron and I pretty much have had to agree to disagree on that point in the other thread.

The undead is not affected by the magic weapon or magic vestment spells, FES or not. It benefits from the spells' effects when using the affected items just as much as anyone using them would, not more so just because they lack a pulse.

Regarding when the bonus from FES is added, it only adds to the total bonus. If a spell adds x hit points to an undead, now it adds x+2. If it adds x points of natural armor, now it's x+2. It has to in all cases because if you allow GMW or Magic Vestment to work better for undead, and add the +2 in the calculations, any weapon affected by FES GMW gets a +15 enhancement bonus when weilded by an undead. If that's balanced in your games then by all means let the +2 bonus work in the calculations rather than on the result. I foresee many, many necropolitan gishes in the near future, though.

[Oberron]

Reading your logic again, I am curious: would you say that a Fell Energy greater magic weapon cast on a Fighter's greatsword would get the bonus increase when he attacks an undead creature with it? By the same logic that the undead wielding said greatsword is being affected, you could argue that the undead being attacked by that greatsword (even wielded by a living fighter) is also being affected.

If the fighter is not undead then it wouldn't gain the bonus anymore than it would if it stood in a desecrate effect next to an undead. The enhancement bonus from magic weapon that the human fighter is using is not changing the undead's to hit or giving a bonus to its damage. The undead in this case is not getting a bonus. calculateing the fighter's to-hit roll and damage does not include the undead.


An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

The only time a target comes into play is after you have a result.

If the undead is using a magic weapon on a great sword is the undead getting a bonus to its to hit and to damage roll?



The reason FES is in question, here, is because it's not clear it's meant to work the way artificer infusions are clearly meant to. There ARE spells that are more directly applying their bonuses to the undead creatures themselves.

Fair enough on the artificer but fes, to me at least, is pretty clear that any bonus an undead gains, and the bonus is from a spell, it gets a +2 to the numerical bonus. Yes there are spells that directly target the subject and there are spells that also don't target a subject and their bonuses still apply to them. Saying a subject is affected by one and not the other but still get a bonus by both is self contradiction.

[DarkSoul]

If the undead is using a magic weapon on a great sword is the undead getting a bonus to its to hit and to damage roll?As a result of wielding a magical weapon, yes. That doesn't mean FES makes it work better, because as I said, the undead isn't affected by the spell, but it does benefit from the effects of said spell. If a Fell Energy spell affects an undead directly then it gets the boost. GMW does not.

[Oberron]

As a result of wielding a magical weapon, yes. That doesn't mean FES makes it work better, because as I said, the undead isn't affected by the spell, but it does benefit from the effects of said spell. If a Fell Energy spell affects an undead directly then it gets the boost. GMW does not.

So are you saying the undead is getting a bonus?


the undead isn't affected by the spell, but it does benefit from the effects of said spell
So it's affected and not affected at the same time? This is a contradiction.


If a Fell Energy spell affects an undead directly then it gets the boost.
Fes does not state the undead has to be the target of the spell and you have said that an undead would get a bonus to its to hit and to damage how is that not affecting the undead?

[DarkSoul]

So are you saying the undead is getting a bonus?No, the weapon is. The undead is only wielding the weapon. What bonuses the weapon gives are irrelevant.



So it's affected and not affected at the same time? This is a contradiction.No, it's not affected by GMW at all. The weapon is. If the undead was affected by GMW, it would get a FES bonus. It's not, so it doesn't. No contradiction here, sorry you're confused.



Fes does not state the undead has to be the target of the spell and you have said that an undead would get a bonus to its to hit and to damage how is that not affecting the undead?The undead gets a bonus as a result of wielding a magic weapon, nothing more. Again, GMW doesn't affect undead, so a FES GMW does nothing more for undead than it does for the living.

[Oberron]

No, the weapon is. The undead is only wielding the weapon. What bonuses the weapon gives are irrelevant.

The undead gets a bonus as a result of wielding a magic weapon, nothing more. Again, GMW doesn't affect undead, so a FES GMW does nothing more for undead than it does for the living.

Can you explain how the weapon is making an attack then or how the bonus is being applied at all to the attack then?




No, it's not affected by GMW at all. The weapon is. If the undead was affected by GMW, it would get a FES bonus. It's not, so it doesn't. No contradiction here, sorry you're confused.
So how is magic weapon giving a bonus at all then? Saying someone is getting a bonus and not affected is a contradiction.

And no need to be rude.

[Segev]

No, the weapon is. The undead is only wielding the weapon. What bonuses the weapon gives are irrelevant.


No, it's not affected by GMW at all. The weapon is. If the undead was affected by GMW, it would get a FES bonus. It's not, so it doesn't. No contradiction here, sorry you're confused.


The undead gets a bonus as a result of wielding a magic weapon, nothing more. Again, GMW doesn't affect undead, so a FES GMW does nothing more for undead than it does for the living.

At this point, you're mostly saying "Nuh-uh" to Oberron's arguments. It's falling a bit flat because you're trying to say taht the weapon getting a bonus that the undead wielder adds isn't giving a bonus to the undead. I do understand your position: the ENCHANTMENT isn't on the undead, so why would it give the bonus that only applies when added to undead? But your line of argumeng is proving less persuasive than Oberron's.

Personally, I would prefer Oberron's ruling, but I think the contrary ruling is more likely in line with the RAW. But I find "it's a bonus on the weapon, which the weapon gives to the wielder, but not a bonus affecting the wielder" to be very spurious reasoning.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Can you explain how the weapon is making an attack then or how the bonus is being applied at all to the attack then?

So how is magic weapon giving a bonus at all then? Saying someone is getting a bonus and not affected is a contradiction.

And no need to be rude.

The weapon grants the ability to the wielder to make attacks. The spell doesn't grant anything to the wielder directly, anything the wielder benefits from is granted by the weapon, not a spell that was cast on the weapon. Only a spell that creates a weapon such as Flame Blade or Ice Axe or Thunderlance could be considered to be affecting the wielder. A spell cast on a weapon affects the weapon, the spell does not affect the wielder regardless of how that weapon benefits the wielder.

[Segev]

The weapon grants the ability to the wielder to make attacks. The spell doesn't grant anything to the wielder directly, anything the wielder benefits from is granted by the weapon, not a spell that was cast on the weapon. Only a spell that creates a weapon such as Flame Blade or Ice Axe or Thunderlance could be considered to be affecting the wielder. A spell cast on a weapon affects the weapon, the spell does not affect the wielder regardless of how that weapon benefits the wielder.

Oberron's argument - if I understand it correctly - is that it doesn't matter what the spell targets, only what enjoys the bonuses. To disprove her point, you need to show that FES doesn't work "indirectly." You both agree this is indirect. She asserts that it still is granting the bonus to the undead wielder of the weapon. You assert that it is not. She supports her claim by saying that the bonus of the weapon is added to the undead wielder's attack and damage rolls. You support your claim by saying that ... it doesn't count.

You need to demonstrate that it doesn't count.

[DarkSoul]

At this point, you're mostly saying "Nuh-uh" to Oberron's arguments. It's falling a bit flat because you're trying to say taht the weapon getting a bonus that the undead wielder adds isn't giving a bonus to the undead. I do understand your position: the ENCHANTMENT isn't on the undead, so why would it give the bonus that only applies when added to undead? But your line of argumeng is proving less persuasive than Oberron's. Personally, I would prefer Oberron's ruling, but I think the contrary ruling is more likely in line with the RAW. But I find "it's a bonus on the weapon, which the weapon gives to the wielder, but not a bonus affecting the wielder" to be very spurious reasoning.No, what I'm saying, and have been the whole time, thanks, is that Greater Magic Weapon doesn't affect the undead, it affects the weapon that the undead is wielding. The undead does benefit from the effect of the spell, but the spell is not affecting it. Moving on... Dispel Magic was brought up. If you targeted dispel an undead with bull's strength cast on it, and it's wielding a weapon with greater magic weapon cast on it, is the GMW subject to the dispel? If yes, then the GMW is affecting the undead. If no, then it's not affecting the undead. Feel free to rule otherwise if you'd like, it's your game.

[Segev]

No, what I'm saying, and have been the whole time, thanks, is that Greater Magic Weapon doesn't affect the undead, it affects the weapon that the undead is wielding. The undead does benefit from the effect of the spell, but the spell is not affecting it. Unless you can point to a game-definition for "affect" that differs from plain-English, you're definitionally wrong, here. The spell is not targeting the undead. The undead is not included in the spell's effect. But, since the undead is benefitting from the effect of the spell, the spell is affecting the undead.


Moving on... Dispel Magic was brought up. If you targeted dispel an undead with bull's strength cast on it, and it's wielding a weapon with greater magic weapon cast on it, is the GMW subject to the dispel? If yes, then the GMW is affecting the undead. If no, then it's not affecting the undead. Feel free to rule otherwise if you'd like, it's your game.To be honest? I'd always assumed that magic vestment and greater magic weapon would be affected as much as enlarge person or haste were by a targeted dispel magic, now that you mention it. I hadn't even thought about it being otherwise until now.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You plug an appliance into the wall so it has electricity and it can run, and then you use that appliance. You're not being affected by the electricity powering that appliance, the electricity is not going from that appliance into you while you're using it. The electricity is going into the appliance, and while it does indirectly enable you to use that appliance by making it work, it does not directly affect you.

The same goes for a spell cast on a weapon that a creature is wielding. The spell is on the weapon, and affects that weapon, not the creature wielding it. It's an indirect benefit, the spell does not directly affect the wielder.

[Segev]

You plug an appliance into the wall so it has electricity and it can run, and then you use that appliance. You're not being affected by the electricity powering that appliance, the electricity is not going from that appliance into you while you're using it. The electricity is going into the appliance, and while it does indirectly enable you to use that appliance by making it work, it does not directly affect you.

The same goes for a spell cast on a weapon that a creature is wielding. The spell is on the weapon, and affects that weapon, not the creature wielding it. It's an indirect benefit, the spell does not directly affect the wielder.

By that logic, you are not affected by a power outage. Given most people's reactions to one, and my own experiences with them, I find that a hard claim to buy.

I was not expecting to be more and more convinced that Oberron's position was right on this issue, but the arguments against it are feeling more and more spurious, to me.

[DarkSoul]

Unless you can point to a game-definition for "affect" that differs from plain-English, you're definitionally wrong, here. The spell is not targeting the undead. The undead is not included in the spell's effect. But, since the undead is benefitting from the effect of the spell, the spell is affecting the undead.

To be honest? I'd always assumed that magic vestment and greater magic weapon would be affected as much as enlarge person or haste were by a targeted dispel magic, now that you mention it. I hadn't even thought about it being otherwise until now.See, I've always assumed the opposite because GMW isn't cast on the PC, it's cast on a weapon, which is an object. If a DM were to say "I'm targeted dispelling your cleric." and roll for both Divine Power and GMW, I'd ask him if he's area dispelling because he'd have to to hit both. The cleric benefits from the effect of GMW, but only the Divine Power is actually affecting him. If it helps, think of GMW as not affecting the wielder, it's affecting the attack and damage rolls. That's how I think of it.

Regarding the power outage: Do you physically lack the ability to function during a power outage due to a lack of energy? No? Your toaster does. Who's actually affected by the outage, and who's just hindered by the effect?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

By that logic, you are not affected by a power outage. Given most people's reactions to one, and my own experiences with them, I find that a hard claim to buy.

I was not expecting to be more and more convinced that Oberron's position was right on this issue, but the arguments against it are feeling more and more spurious, to me.

Some appliances can still be used without power, just not as effectively. A sewing machine can be manually turned, for example. The sewing machine gives you +2 to craft: tailoring checks (masterwork tool), or if electricity is applied to the sewing machine, the bonus the sewing machine grants increases to +10. The electricity isn't giving you a bonus, it's improving the object that gives you a benefit.

The same goes for Greater Magic Weapon. A longsword allows you to attack at +0 for 1d8+Str damage (or at +1 if it's masterwork), or Greater Magic Weapon +3 makes it so that longsword allows you to attack at +3 for 1d8+3+Str damage.

[Segev]

Some appliances can still be used without power, just not as effectively. A sewing machine can be manually turned, for example. The sewing machine gives you +2 to craft: tailoring checks (masterwork tool), or if electricity is applied to the sewing machine, the bonus the sewing machine grants increases to +10. The electricity isn't giving you a bonus, it's improving the object that gives you a benefit.

The same goes for Greater Magic Weapon. A longsword allows you to attack at +0 for 1d8+Str damage (or at +1 if it's masterwork), or Greater Magic Weapon +3 makes it so that longsword allows you to attack at +3 for 1d8+3+Str damage.

And you're telling me that you're unaffected by the shift from having to turn the sewing machine by hand during the power outage and only getting a +2 to craft:tailoring to having only to use the mechanized system when electricity is flowing through it and it gives you +10 to craft:tailoring?

The same does go for GMW +3: without it, you have a 15% lower chance to hit anything where you weren't practically guaranteed a hit (or miss) already. You're telling me you're unaffected by that?

Seriously, this line of argumentation is doing a lot to support Oberron's position.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

And you're telling me that you're unaffected by the shift from having to turn the sewing machine by hand during the power outage and only getting a +2 to craft:tailoring to having only to use the mechanized system when electricity is flowing through it and it gives you +10 to craft:tailoring?

The same does go for GMW +3: without it, you have a 15% lower chance to hit anything where you weren't practically guaranteed a hit (or miss) already. You're telling me you're unaffected by that?

Seriously, this line of argumentation is doing a lot to support Oberron's position.

You're not what's being buffed by the spell or the electricity. Just like the electricity doesn't flow into your body from the sewing machine, neither does the spell cast on your weapon.

You're just as affected by the spell as a target you're attacking, i.e. neither of you are. The weapon is made more effective by the spell. If you're attacking a magic-immune target, the bonus doesn't go away, because the target isn't affected by the spell, just like you're not affected by it. The spell affects neither the target, nor the wielder, it only affects the weapon by making the weapon more effective.

[Oberron]

You're not what's being buffed by the spell or the electricity. Just like the electricity doesn't flow into your body from the sewing machine, neither does the spell cast on your weapon.

You're just as affected by the spell as a target you're attacking, i.e. neither of you are. The weapon is made more effective by the spell. If you're attacking a magic-immune target, the bonus doesn't go away, because the target isn't affected by the spell, just like you're not affected by it. The spell affects neither the target, nor the wielder, it only affects the weapon by making the weapon more effective.

Are you saying that a bonus to hit is not a buff for the attacker?

If the attacker isn't affected by magic weapon then how does it give a bonus to hit and damage? The weapon is not making the attack, the character using the weapon is and so far no one has been able to show otherwise.

As for magic immunity here is what it says for the demilich. "Demiliches are immune to all magical and supernatural effects, except as follows. ..." it says nothing about attackers being immune to magical or supernatural effects or being affected by them.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Are you saying that a bonus to hit is not a buff for the attacker?

If the attacker isn't affected by magic weapon then how does it give a bonus to hit and damage? The weapon is not making the attack, the character using the weapon is and so far no one has been able to show otherwise.

As for magic immunity here is what it says for the demilich. "Demiliches are immune to all magical and supernatural effects, except as follows. ..." it says nothing about attackers being immune to magical or supernatural effects or being affected by them.

The target of your attack takes extra damage from the spell being on the weapon, are you saying that's not a debuff for the creature being attacked?

You gain the benefit of the weapon's stats. The spell modifies the weapon's stats. The spell does not modify your stats, the weapon is what does that.

[Promethean]

I could actually see this working in a way.

If you think of the item enchanted with a Greater magic weapon spell as a focus for the spell and the actual spell effect being the +X bonus it works out. In said case, using fell energy GMW on a sword would create a +3 weapon with a hidden +2 for undead, but the +3 would become a +5 if the weapon was picked up by an undead. If said undead is killed by a living creature, the sword would revert to a +3 weapon in their hands.

It seems shaky from a mechanics perspective and probably isn't RAI, but from a conceptual/lore perspective it works fine.

[Oberron]

The target of your attack takes extra damage from the spell being on the weapon, are you saying that's not a debuff for the creature being attacked?

You gain the benefit of the weapon's stats. The spell modifies the weapon's stats. The spell does not modify your stats, the weapon is what does that.

Taking Damage because of an attack roll is not a penalty according to the rules.would you like to answer my question that so far no one seems to be able to and just either ignores or avoids?

Magic weapon does not modify ability score but it does modify the attacker's to hit roll which is a bonus. Saying you get a bonus from something and that it's not affecting you is a contradiction

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Taking Damage is not a penalty according to the rules.would you like to answer my question that so far no one seems to be able to and just either ignores or avoids?

Magic weapon does not modify stats you are correct. It does modify the characters to hit though which is a bonus. Saying you get a bonus from something and that it's not affecting you is a contradiction

Magic Weapon doesn't modify anything on any character. It modifies what a weapon gives you. A masterwork weapon gives you +1 to hit, if you cast Greater Magic Weapon +3 on that the weapon instead gives you a +3 to hit and to damage. The spell doesn't give you that directly, it changes how the weapon affects your to-hit and damage stats when you're wielding it.


Greater Magic Weapon is Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object).
"A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#spellResistance)"
"A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance)"

Someone casts Greater Magic Weapon on a sword. Someone else with SR that the caster can't beat picks up that sword and uses it. They don't need to lower their SR to do so, because they're not being affected by the spell. The sword gives them a bonus, not the spell; SR doesn't interfere with your own items. By your reasoning, he would need to voluntarily lower his SR for the entire time he's using that sword, or he wouldn't gain the bonus from it. Either he's being affected by the spell and SR applies, or he's gaining a benefit from the item and SR doesn't interfere.


Finally, we have Rules Compendium p130-131 regarding spell resistance and why spells would or would not need to check against it, Greater Magic Weapon is a transmutation:


Transmutation: These spells are subject to spell resistance
if they transform the target creature. Transmutation spells
aren’t subject to spell resistance if they’re targeted on a point
in space instead of on a creature. Some transmutations make
objects harmful or more harmful. Even these spells aren’t usually
subject to spell resistance, because they affect the objects,
not the creatures against which the objects are used.

[Oberron]

Magic Weapon doesn't modify anything on any character. It modifies what a weapon gives you. A masterwork weapon gives you +1 to hit, if you cast Greater Magic Weapon +3 on that the weapon instead gives you a +3 to hit and to damage. The spell doesn't give you that directly, it changes how the weapon affects your to-hit and damage stats when you're wielding it.


Greater Magic Weapon is Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object).
"A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#spellResistance)"
"A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance)"

Someone casts Greater Magic Weapon on a sword. Someone else with SR that the caster can't beat picks up that sword and uses it. They don't need to lower their SR to do so, because they're not being affected by the spell. The sword gives them a bonus, not the spell; SR doesn't interfere with your own items. By your reasoning, he would need to voluntarily lower his SR for the entire time he's using that sword, or he wouldn't gain the bonus from it. Either he's being affected by the spell and SR applies, or he's gaining a benefit from the item and SR doesn't interfere.


Finally, we have Rules Compendium p130-131 regarding spell resistance and why spells would or would not need to check against it, Greater Magic Weapon is a transmutation:

It is also a target spell.

When Spell Resistance Applies
Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does:

Targeted Spells
Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately

Magic weapon targets a weapon not the creature which is irrelevant for FES but relevant for SR.

[Segev]

You're not what's being buffed by the spell or the electricity. Just like the electricity doesn't flow into your body from the sewing machine, neither does the spell cast on your weapon.

You're just as affected by the spell as a target you're attacking, i.e. neither of you are. The weapon is made more effective by the spell. If you're attacking a magic-immune target, the bonus doesn't go away, because the target isn't affected by the spell, just like you're not affected by it. The spell affects neither the target, nor the wielder, it only affects the weapon by making the weapon more effective.

Fell Energy Spell says literally nothing about having to have the spell directly buff the undead, only that the spell must give the undead a numerical advantage that is expressly termed a "bonus."

I fully understand the argument you're making; I don't think you understand why I'm finding it less and less convincing the more you hammer on it. You're not demonstrating that the sewing machine having electrical power is failing to affect my ability to tailor.

This is seeming more and more like the question of whether an electrokinetic can get more out of an electrical powered sewing machine than non-electrokinetics could, but would not get anything more out of a non-electrically-powered sewing machine than non-electrokinetics could. The magic boosting the weapon is making it better for all wielders, but the undead resonate in some way with the Fell Energy within it, making the bonus higher for the undead than any other wielder.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Fell Energy Spell says literally nothing about having to have the spell directly buff the undead, only that the spell must give the undead a numerical advantage that is expressly termed a "bonus."

That's not what Fell Energy Spell says, though:
"Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects."

If the spell doesn't affect the creature, it doesn't qualify for any modification by Fell Energy Spell.

The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it.

The RAW is clear on this. The RAI is even more clear on this. It's crystal clear that some of the participants in this thread just want this to work regardless of what the rules say, and are continually grasping at straws for any excuse to justify it. Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell? Because I've already pointed out the RAW that says the creature is not being affected by that spell. Trying to disprove my arguments does not prove your own, you still have the burden of proof in pointing out the rules that say you're right.

[Oberron]

That's not what Fell Energy Spell says, though:
"Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects."

If the spell doesn't affect the creature, it doesn't qualify for any modification by Fell Energy Spell.

The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it.

The RAW is clear on this. The RAI is even more clear on this. It's crystal clear that some of the participants in this thread just want this to work regardless of what the rules say, and are continually grasping at straws for any excuse to justify it. Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell? Because I've already pointed out the RAW that says the creature is not being affected by that spell. Trying to disprove my arguments does not prove your own, you still have the burden of proof in pointing out the rules that say you're right.

Can I get a quote on where "The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it" is said or talked about? If you are talking about your quote about spell resistance that has already been disproven.

"Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell?"

Where it talks about rolls.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

It is the character making an attack roll. They get a bonus to hit from magic weapon. They are being affected.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Can I get a quote on where "The Rules Compendium specifically calls out spells that make objects more dangerous as affecting the object, but not the creatures who interact with it" is said or talked about? If you are talking about your quote about spell resistance that has already been disproven.

"Where in the RAW does it state that the creature wielding a weapon that Greater Magic Weapon was cast on, is being affected by that spell?"

Where it talks about rolls.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

It is the character making an attack roll. They get a bonus to hit from magic weapon. They are being affected.

No, the character gains the bonus that the weapon grants to them. Whether it's a masterwork weapon, a permanent magic weapon, or a temporarily magic weapon due to a spell, doesn't matter in the slightest bit. The character's attack rolls are only being affected by that weapon. Nowhere in the RAW does it say otherwise, you have zero legs to stand on.

[Oberron]

No, the character gains the bonus that the weapon grants to them. Whether it's a masterwork weapon, a permanent magic weapon, or a temporarily magic weapon due to a spell, doesn't matter in the slightest bit. The character's attack rolls are only being affected by that weapon. Nowhere in the RAW does it say otherwise, you have zero legs to stand on.

You just said the character gains a bonus. How is that not affecting them?

As for the character's attack roll being affected not the character that is also wrong by the same section I quoted.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

It's clear that the attack roll is the character trying to do something.

[King of Nowhere]

Regardless of the exact reading of RAW, it is clear that by RAI fell energy is something that affects undead, makes the undead more powerful, while magic weapon is something that affects the weapon and not the bearer.

[Oberron]

Regardless of the exact reading of RAW, it is clear that by RAI fell energy is something that affects undead, makes the undead more powerful, while magic weapon is something that affects the weapon and not the bearer.

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say with "RAI fell energy is something that affects undead...."etc. The most common use of fell energy spell is with desecrate which doesn't target undead but still affects them, magic weapon can clearly make an undead more powerful when using a weapon that has it cast on it and magic weapon itself states that it is a bonus that is to-hit, something only the bearer of the weapon can make.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

RAW magic weapon affects the bearer.

[Telok]

It occurs to me that an argument could be made that the effect of GMW, in granting a bonus to hit and damage to the weapon, affects undead that are attacked with that weapon.

[Oberron]

It occurs to me that an argument could be made that the effect of GMW, in granting a bonus to hit and damage to the weapon, affects undead that are attacked with that weapon.

Someone previously tried to argue that but didn't have much merit. The undead that is being attacked by a magic weapon is not gaining a to-hit bonus or damage bonus, both of the bonuses affect the bearer's rolls not the defender. Unless you have something to support that argument?

[DarkSoul]

The target of an attack from a weapon enchanted with GMW is affected just as, if not more, negatively as the wielder of the weapon is positively affected by the enchantment, if you follow this absurd reasoning that FES buffs GMW. If struck by an attack for 12 points of damage from a weapon that's +3 due to FES+GMW, it would have only been 10 points under normal circumstances. So yes, by this logic the target of the attack is affected as much (or more in the case of a critical hit) as the wielder of the weapon.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds yet? The spell affects the weapon, not the undead. Maybe read through Rules Compendium 134-135 and see if it helps.

[Remuko]

The target of an attack from a weapon enchanted with GMW is affected just as, if not more, negatively as the wielder of the weapon is positively affected by the enchantment, if you follow this absurd reasoning that FES buffs GMW. If struck by an attack for 12 points of damage from a weapon that's +3 due to FES+GMW, it would have only been 10 points under normal circumstances. So yes, by this logic the target of the attack is affected as much (or more in the case of a critical hit) as the wielder of the weapon.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds yet? The spell affects the weapon, not the undead. Maybe read through Rules Compendium 134-135 and see if it helps.

Gonna agree with this and reiterate what I said on page 1


I remember this same argument coming up in a thread about a demilich (iirc). Saying that since the demilich has magic immunity, none of his things could be dispelled, because dispelling them would affect him and he's immune to effects of spells.

I thought it was ludicrous then, and I still think it is now.

[Oberron]

The target of an attack from a weapon enchanted with GMW is affected just as, if not more, negatively as the wielder of the weapon is positively affected by the enchantment, if you follow this absurd reasoning that FES buffs GMW. If struck by an attack for 12 points of damage from a weapon that's +3 due to FES+GMW, it would have only been 10 points under normal circumstances. So yes, by this logic the target of the attack is affected as much (or more in the case of a critical hit) as the wielder of the weapon.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds yet? The spell affects the weapon, not the undead. Maybe read through Rules Compendium 134-135 and see if it helps.

From the SRD:
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty. What die roll is the target of an attack making? The attacker on the other hand from the SRD:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Your logic does not match with the rules. As for what the 3.0 rules compendium says about targeting I'm not seeing anything that disproves my point or supports yours. Which section about targets specifically do you want me to read?


Gonna agree with this and reiterate what I said on page 1

I'll reiterate what i said to your response. I think I know which thread you are talking about but this is very different. The magic immunity for the demolish (according to the srd) talks about effects. Fell energy spell literally talks about affects


Any numerical bonus granted by a spell modified with this feat increases by +2 for all undead creatures it affects. This increase does not apply to factors such as range, save DC, healing, or other numerical factors relating to a spell. Only effects described as bonuses gain this benefit. A fell energy spell takes up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

I'm not adding in words that are not there. But if you have anything to contribute other than this reminds you of a another thread please do so I would be happy to hear your thoughts.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say with "RAI fell energy is something that affects undead...."etc. The most common use of fell energy spell is with desecrate which doesn't target undead but still affects them, magic weapon can clearly make an undead more powerful when using a weapon that has it cast on it and magic weapon itself states that it is a bonus that is to-hit, something only the bearer of the weapon can make.


I'm trying to say that fell energy spell means "this spell makes undead more powerful". or, since it's applied to spells that already buff undead, "this spell makes the affected creature more powerful, and if it's an undead it becomes even more powerful". So, bull's strenght on an undead makes the undead stronger. Desecrate makes the undead more powerful, and is affected. bless makes the undead more skilled, and is affected. barksking makes the undead thougher, and is affected.
Greater magic weapon makes a weapon more powerful, and it has nothing to do with undead. just because an undead happens to be the one using the aforementioned ssword, it doesn't mean the spell is affecting the undead. It's like when you pick up a rock with telekinesis and throw it at a creature: the spell is affecting the rock, not the creature, and therefore it doesn't have to deal with spell resistance.

Now, I could accept an argument like "thhis weapon is especially powerful when used by an undead". Like there could be weapons whose magic is specifically attuned to elves, or dwarves, or orcs, so there could be weapons attuned specifically to undead, and fell energy magic weapon is one such spell. I would not read that way, but I can accept that argument.
On the other hand, when I say that I don't care about the exact RAW wording, I mean exactly that. I am a gamer, not a lawyer. I don't like to argue about the fine points of the semantics, and it feels like cheating anyway. So, an appeal to exact words is not going to persuade me of anything. Except perhaps that we would not enjoy playing at the same table.

[Oberron]

I'm trying to say that fell energy spell means "this spell makes undead more powerful". or, since it's applied to spells that already buff undead, "this spell makes the affected creature more powerful, and if it's an undead it becomes even more powerful". So, bull's strenght on an undead makes the undead stronger. Desecrate makes the undead more powerful, and is affected. bless makes the undead more skilled, and is affected. barksking makes the undead thougher, and is affected.
Greater magic weapon makes a weapon more powerful, and it has nothing to do with undead. just because an undead happens to be the one using the aforementioned ssword, it doesn't mean the spell is affecting the undead. It's like when you pick up a rock with telekinesis and throw it at a creature: the spell is affecting the rock, not the creature, and therefore it doesn't have to deal with spell resistance.

Now, I could accept an argument like "thhis weapon is especially powerful when used by an undead". Like there could be weapons whose magic is specifically attuned to elves, or dwarves, or orcs, so there could be weapons attuned specifically to undead, and fell energy magic weapon is one such spell. I would not read that way, but I can accept that argument.
On the other hand, when I say that I don't care about the exact RAW wording, I mean exactly that. I am a gamer, not a lawyer. I don't like to argue about the fine points of the semantics, and it feels like cheating anyway. So, an appeal to exact words is not going to persuade me of anything. Except perhaps that we would not enjoy playing at the same table.

I'll have to disagree with what you think fes means. It seems you are trying to make a fluff argument rather than a rules argument if I'm mistaken please correct me. The fluff for the feat even says it's to make the spell more effective for undead.

you add a dose of raw necromantic energy to your beneficial spell, making it especially effective for undead creatures

So a weapon with fes magic weapon is effective for a non undead but especially effective for undead creatures. Would you agree with that statement?

What would persuade you if not raw?

edit: You say desecrate and other area spells works because it makes them stronger. What is the difference between an area giving a bonus and a weapon with magic weapon giving a bonus? neither the creatures in the area or using the weapon to attack are the target of the spell but both gain a bonus from the effect when standing in the area/using the weapon.

[Remuko]

{Scrubbed}